Police Seize Home Arsenal Fire Alerts Authorities to Nearly 500 (legal) Weapons

The Asbury Park Press ^ | 12-03-02 | Michael Clancy

[Iron Eagle]

Published in the Asbury Park Press 12/03/02 Fire alerts authorities to nearly 500 weapons By MICHAEL CLANCY STAFF WRITER FAIR HAVEN -- Three dump trucks removed an arsenal of live ammunition and almost 500 weapons -- all of them apparently held legally -- which police found in a home after the fire department responded to a chimney fire and the homeowner threatened the fire chief with a rifle, authorities said yesterday.

[Godebert]

"The toothless, wannabe militia terrorists who defend this lunatic are seriously making me sick to my stomach. I hope this guy gets every penalty coming to him."

So individuals who collect firearms are "wannabe militia terrorists"? What do you collect, Beanie Babies?

[tpaine]

"What're you babbling about?"

You, -- and your agenda here of course.
You shouldn't object, seeing your only purpose at FR seems to be spreading agit-prop.

[Catspaw]

Talk to a firefighter, will ya?

It was smoky inside the house. Unless he had the proper equipment--and I mean a tank of air & a good-fitting mask--he was at a good risk of getting smoke inhalation.

[southern rock]

The firefighters and paramedics I know, who do thankless jobs while unarmed and for not a lot of money, deserve to be able to be able to do their jobs without threat of violence when they go on runs.

Well then they shouldn't act like they own YOUR house.

I hope this guy gets every penalty coming to him.

Yeah, complete vindication.

[southern rock]

I would look very carefully into his activities and acquaintances.

Yeah, I'm sure you would.

The reason he did not want the firemen involved cannot be a good one.

Hey, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind "authority figures" entering your home uninvited and having a look around. /sarcasm

[Cacique]

btt

[Dan Day]

Is it safe to assume from your comment that you have impeccable typing skills? That you are the perfect keyboard maestro?

More likely, "wimpycat" has the same outlook I do: typos which turn out sounding funny, or are such that they can be used as the trigger for a funny reponse, are too good to pass up.

It's nothing personal, it's not an attack, it's not a rebuke. It's just an opportunity to be humorous.

It's like the scene in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", where Roger has been accidentally handcuffed to Eddie for about 20 minutes, through a lot of awkward moments. Finally, Roger nonchalantly pulls his paw out of the handcuff, and Eddie angrily asks, "You mean you could have gotten out of these handcuffs at any time?!?" Roger replies, "No, Eddie... Only when it was funny."

Wimpycat only bothered highlighting your typo because it ended up being funny, and it could be used for an even funnier response.

Get over it.

Get a sense of humor.

Some of us simply enjoy wordplay, and we can launch off of amusing typos just as easily as we can launch off of statements that are ripe for punning or other kinds of linguistic opportunities.

He wasn't giving you a hard time, he was just trying to give readers a chuckle.

[supercat]

He did NOT tell them to get lost. He simply wanted to stay in the house while they put the fire out. This would have endangered no one, and the last line in the article gives it away. It probably took them about 2 minutes to put the fire out.

If the building was smokey, that would suggest one of two things to me [someone who knows more can tell me if my intuition is right]:

• The fire had spread somewhere outside the firebox and chimney and/or the chimney had failed, in which case it would take a lot more than two minutes to put out the fire.
• The damper to the chimney was closed and the fire had not spread, in which case the fire would likely have self-extinguished harmlessly for lack of oxygen. Even in this case, firemen would as a matter of procedure assume that a fire may have started in the walls surrounding the chimney until such time as they could prove otherwise.

BTW, I wonder who called the fire department? If the homeowner had been present when the fire started and recognized it immediately he could have closed the damper very quickly--before there was much chance for the chimney to fail or anything else to ignite. In such a case the room would have quickly filled with smoke from the fire that was in the fireplace (shutting the damper without getting lots of smoke inside the house is impossible, since fires will still smoke for awhile after they're extinguished].

[southern rock]

I'm learning that "conservative" means something far different than what I thought.

According to some, it means defend the status quo at all times. Oh, and obey your "authority figures".

[Catspaw]

Hey, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind "authority figures" entering your home uninvited and having a look around. /sarcasm

My druthers is for you & others who don't want the firefighters to put at fires at your respective residences because they might "enter your home uninvited" have a legal way to opt out of having the fire department show up at your places if a fire starts, and if you do call and request their services, to have the legal right to ignore you. You can fight the fire yourself, and if the place burns down to the ground, well, hey, that's your problem and sole liability. Ditto for any accident or illness you and your family might have that might entail calling the fire department or rescue squad--this would allow the firefighters and EMTs to legally ignore you and let you solve your own problems. I'm sure you can pick up a used Jaws of Life cheap.

[wimpycat]

Not just my interpretation. Read as plain english, it says what it says. Anyone with over a 90 IQ should be able to figure it out. I'll assume you meet that modest requirement, so your disapprobation with the language in the Constitution must mean that you have a dog in the statist hunt.

Not at all. See, the problem is that not everyone with average intelligence and the ability to read plain English agrees on what the Constitution is saying. There is nothing explicitly written into the Constitution about private property vs. authority of firefighters, so even you must be assuming, based on some non-Constitutional source, what is Constitutional and what isn't, in this particular instance. The only Constitutional ban on infringement of your private property extends to quartering troops in your house and unreasonable search and seizure. Whatever other legal protections there are to your private property there are exist in state and federal laws and precedents. And don't get me started on the 10th Amendment, because I suspect that is the root source of disagreement.

So when there is disagreement over whether a certain law is Constitutional, the Constitution provides the remedies. The remedies are the election process and the appellate courts, not some fruitloop waving a gun at the Fire Chief.

The Constitution was written and ratified by people who respected the law--established law, common law, legal precedent, etc. True believers in the Constitution will respect the authority of the state and federal governments to make laws, as well as the authority of the judicial branch to have appellate review, because the Constitution gave them the authority. We respect the law, even when we disagree with it, and if we choose to protest or break the law to make a point, we also choose to take whatever consequences that action might bring, because even when we hate a bad law, we respect the Constitutional authority of the entities that made the law. It remains to be seen whether or not this fruitloop homeowner respects the judge and jury who have the Constitutional authority to try him for breaking the law.

Even the signers of the Declaration of Independence put in writing their willingness to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes (read: property) and their sacred honor for the Cause. They were willing to face the consequences of their rebellion if they failed. Are you willing to risk prison, are you willing to risk losing whatever unburnt property you possess, for denying a firefighter access to your burning house?

[southern rock]

and they don't need idiot civilians

Hmmm.. Telling choice of words. FYI, firemen are civilians.

[Catspaw]

The only caveat I'd add on your #2 is that not all fires self-extinguish. Unless his house was sealed up tightly (well-fitting storm windows and doors, all cracks in the house sealed--older houses like mine can't be sealed up like that, simply because of age & settling), there may have been enough air coming into the house to keep the fire going. Closing the fireplace damper wouldn't put out the fire in that case. Using a fire extinguisher may have put out the fire, but it would've been extremely smoky in the house. If the house was tightly sealed, had he opened the doors & windows after he thought the fire was out and wasn't out completely would've ventilated that fire nicely.

[supercat]

This would have endangered no one, and the last line in the article gives it away. It probably took them about 2 minutes to put the fire out.

I don't know what words were exchanged among the participants of this dispute, but the situation is complicated by the fact that fire departments have good reason for wanting people out of the building and yet this guy had good reason for wanting to stay (among other things, to try to prevent loss of any of his collection). This attitude would be especially understandable if he'd gotten the situation under control himself and someone else called the fire fighters (not at his request).

Some situations just don't have any easy answers.

[southern rock]

There is a lot of truth to this. E.g., libertarianism is apparently the preferred political ideology of wiccans and satanists. A google search will bear this out.

Learn something.

[wimpycat]

Hmmm.. Telling choice of words. FYI, firemen are civilians.

Oh, so you want to get semantical? FYI, if a firefighter is on duty he has an obligation to put out fires; you don't-hence, you're a civilian and he's not.

[southern rock]

What jerks. This a fire fighter, not a FBI raiding party. When's the last time a fire fighter has maliciously and intentionally violated the constitutional rights of citizens?

When they order you out of your own home?

[wimpycat]

One entry found for civilian. Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: s&-'vil-y&n also -'vi-y&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting force b : OUTSIDER 1
- civilian adjective

[Catspaw]

Just make sure you don't call 911 if a fire starts at your house. You want to make sure you rights are preserved, after all. And if the fire department do show up because a neighbor saw the fire, make sure you stand in the doorway of your house screaming, "GO AWAY! I'LL DO THIS MYSELF!"

Of course, they may still haul you away, but a 72 hold isn't all that bad.