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

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

[ctdonath2]

Depends on who is in the house. If no children are around, many in fact do leave guns and ammo around (some very deliberately, some just because stuff tends to spread). 'tis not an indication of instability; actually, one could argue that having to lock the stuff up is an indication of the instability of others.

[Terriergal]

:-)

[Catspaw]

I don't know of any firefighter who'd go into a house where ammo was being burned off. They'd just stay outside trying to contain the fire, without entering the residence or building in question.

[error99]

A good chimney fire is really neat.
I love the "whooshing" sound.
I have two or three every year.
Scares the CRAP out of visitors !

[xsrdx]

Ref your 25, Bingo. Loose ammo will explode, but will NOT send projectiles flying. More BS from clueless "authorities".

[Catspaw]

Damned if I know & the story doesn't say. But I figure if the guy wanted to become a crispy critter, more power to him, as long as his family didn't sue the fire department for not responding to the report of a fire.

[Terriergal]

What do you guys think?

[error99]

I'm just figuring if they made him leave, he feared the mysterious loss of some valuable items if a couple dozen strangers were wandering around his house without him being around. He put himself in this situation and did not consider the consequences.

[Fred Mertz]

Police estimated that Arford had 220 rifles and shotguns from Russia, Spain, China and other parts of the world, 150 handguns, and an assortment of 100 knives that ranged from buck knifes to umbrellas concealing knives.

I'll bet the crooked cops' mouths are drooling over these.

[nevergore]

The man called the Fire Department to put out the chimmeny fire (which are incredibly dangerous and difficult to extinguish). Then when the Fire Chief obviously determined that he was interfering with his firemen, ordered him away, the guy picked up a rifle in an attempt to threaten (possibly kill) he Fire Chief. The Fire Chief is responsible for his men's safety and cannot have a homeowner directly interfering with their duties.....

The guy was flat wrong attempting to use deadly force in a situation that clearly did not warrant it. The fire crew was not a "home invasion force" but there to help. Unfortunatley, many chimmeny fires require the fire crew to demolish large sections of the chimmeny and supporting structure if out of control....This is probably what the homeowner witnessed and caused him distress. If the homeowner had not pointed the weapon at the firechief then the outcome would had been different.

As far as the legal ownership issue, gun laws are useless attempts at government control which I do not support.

NeverGore

[wideawake]

Our Second Amendment rights, like all rights, come with a moral obligation to use them constructively and responsibly.

If this guy wants to be as irresponsible as possible with regard to sound firearm safety practices, then I have the absolute freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment to describe as the irresponsible, idiotic, demented, foolish *sshole he is.

His stupidity and irresponsibility make other supporters of the Second Amendment look bad. His stupidity and irresponsibility give anti-Second Amendment activists excellent propaganda to use in their war against my rights.

Many FReepers seem to be completely unaware, in their Leibnizian dreamstate, that OTHER PEOPLE EXIST and one's actions have an effect on other people.

[Catspaw]

Here's the phone number of the police department that's holding him.  Why don't you call them and as who called in the report of the fire--it'd be in the police reports--or ask who would know.

	The thoughts and prayers of our entire community are with those who have suffered through the tragedy of September 11, 2001 — Mayor William E. Leonard

[jjm2111]

B$ .... they would become thousands of firecrackers. You need the barrel to contain and channel the explosion to make bullets.

That's what I thought too.

[DumpsterDiver]

I don't know of any firefighter who'd go into a house where ammo was being burned off.

I don't either.

They'd just stay outside trying to contain the fire, without entering the residence or building in question.

That sounds OK by me. The owner of the home would just have to kiss the ammo goodbye.

[Catspaw]

I'm just figuring if they made him leave, he feared the mysterious loss of some valuable items if a couple dozen strangers were wandering around his house without him being around. He put himself in this situation and did not consider the consequences.

I'm sure that's what he was thinking, but the consequences for him staying in a smoky house could be grave, indeed. However, pointing a gun at a firefighter (who's unarmed) was an act of stupidity and criminality. In essence, he put the safety of his guns and other items over his own personal safety, and I don't know what good his guns, samauri swords and machetes would have done for him if he was dead, or at least seriously injured.

[jjm2111]

Where is this place. I have a few firearms and do not have even one "permit" to own them. Nor am I required to have any permit to own them. Exactly what permits were in "order" that made the firearms legal?

Why, it's the People's Democratic Republic of New Jersey, of course! My own understanding of the law is that permits are only required to purchase the weapon. Once you have it the issue is moot.

[Catspaw]

The owner of the home would just have to kiss the ammo goodbye.

Well, probably his house, too. If they can't get to the source of the fire, vent it properly and do whatever firefighters do when fighting a fire, it tends to burn to the ground.

[error99]

Leibnizian...
checking vocabulary...
h-m-m-m-m-m...
nope...
file not found...

[Iwo Jima]

Exactly. Lots of good ammo would have been destroyed and somebody could have gotten a nasty burn if some portion landed on bare skin, but "dangerous projectiles"? No way.

[supercat]

//If the homeowner had not pointed the weapon at the firechief then the outcome would had been different.//

The exact text of the article reads:

//Arford, a 59-year-old budget analyst at Fort Monmouth, then grabbed an unloaded M-1 rifle that was leaning against his bookshelf and attempted to point it at the chief, McGovern said. Robert Frank, a volunteer firefighter and off-duty police officer from Little Silver, grabbed Arford and the rifle before he could raise the weapon, McGovern said. //

Without video of what transpired, it's impossible to know whether Ashford was actually trying to point the weapon at them or whether he was picking it up (perhaps to remove it from the building) and was grabbed before his intentions could be made clear.

If he had lethal intent, though, I think he would have picked up one of the many loaded firearms that were about.