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.

[tpaine]

"I did post your #1 Jim Rob/pain post in my #443--it and your others are treasures that deserve reposting at appropriate moments. Thanks so much, Boot Hill for the archives." - 'cat'


You two are more than welcome to your delusions about what FR & JR are all about.
And the dementia you exhibit about my actions is truely amazing. -- Do dream on, -- it's amusing as hell.

[Boot Hill]

OK, now that I've got that [post #452] out of my system, I'd like to post something that actually has some bearing on the thread topic: "Police Seize Home Arsenal Fire Alerts Authorities to Nearly 500 (legal) Weapons"

First the article says:   "...the homeowner [Arford] threatened the fire chief with a rifle..."

But then is says:   "Arford...then grabbed an unloaded M-1 rifle...and attempted to point it at the chief..."

Which finally devolves to:   "[Officer] Robert Frank...grabbed Arford and the rifle before he could raise the weapon...."

If he hadn't raised the weapon, then how was that an attempt to point it at the chief? Does officer Frank moonlight as a mind reader? And if he hadn't raised the weapon, why does the lead paragraph state that he threatened the chief? Can you "attempt to threaten", sort of like an attempt to attempt?

The article claims:   "Three dump trucks removed an arsenal of live ammunition and almost 500 weapons."

But then it admits:   "Police soon discovered rifles, shotguns, handguns, machetes, samurai swords and spears..."

I won't even touch the idiocy of their "live ammunition" comment, but notice how the lead paragraph leaves the reader with the notion that they confiscated 500 firearms, when that, in fact, was not true?

A police official claims:   "..."tens of thousands" of rounds of live ammunition could have had a catastrophic effect if Sunday's fire had grown worse..."

In my younger days, I was a member of a fire department in a small Midwestern town and I can tell that claim is pure, unadulterated BS. Those rounds posed no more danger than some of the other clap trap people store in their houses, like propane tanks, gasoline, kerosene, paint, solvents, spray cans, poisons, acids, etc.

The article say:   ..."the fire department responded to a chimney fire...Fire Chief John Feeny ordered Arthur L. Arford to leave his smoky home...Arford told Feeny the department had no right to force him off his property..."

Come on folks, it's not like his whole house was engulfed in flame, it was just an itsy bitsy chimney fire. As long as he doesn't get in the way (and there is no evidence of that), he can provide a valuable service by informing the firefighters about the layout of the house, occupants, hazards, etc. Absent any interference with the firefighters, the 5th and 14th Amendment guarantee, that a person may not be deprived of property without due process of law, takes precedent. Other than war, invasion or insurrection, the Constitution contains no escape clause for those rights, not even for a chimney fire.

Call me a dinosaur, but when the Second Amendment to the Constitution says "shall not be infringed", I'm just old fashioned enough to believe that it means "shall not be infringed". It doesn't matter whether it is one gun or a thousand.

The order evicting Mr. Arford from his home was unconstitutional, the arrest for "attempting to point" a weapon was a false arrest and a gross abuse of power, but more importantly, the confiscation of Mr. Arford's weapons violated, what I consider, to be the single most important guarantee of the entire Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms.

Regards,

Boot Hill

[tpaine]

"I think that feature may be newer than JimRob's post." - GS -

If memory serves, the 'privacy' feature was in effect some months before that 7/28/02 tread.
The real controversy on the thread was about favoritism, as was usual back at that point. I think it's gotten much better since then, as evidenced by this thread itself.
Just a few months ago our petty spat about 'kiddie porn' would have resulted in some 'time outs', at least. I think JR & the mods have finally hit on the right balance for dealing with these disruptors. -- Ignore them, - and eventually they slink away.

Here's the bit of context I saved on the 'abusing abuse' flap:


There's a catch 22 aspect to this situation. I was soon given a 'time out' for 'abusing' abuse.
- Mea culpa, but machiavellian nevertheless. That policy has since been changed, - maybe.
256 posted on 7/28/02 4:00 PM Pacific by tpaine

---

To: tpaine
Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act.
257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256

[tpaine]

Well done summary, boot.

-- I'm pleasantly surprised with the new lucidity. - Thanks.

[Boot Hill]

Thanks for the compliment and the cordial reply, but there is nothing new about that "lucidity". The positions I expressed in 462 are entirely consistent with others that I hold about the Constitution, both now and in the past.

Regards,

Boot Hill

[tpaine]

Time will tell.

[SSN558]

Don't you know. Most married gun nuts are on the ration plan. It's still OK to dream.

[Catspaw]

Most married gun nuts are on the ration plan. It's still OK to dream.

My brother-in-law, a true gun nut, is definitely on the ration plan. However, my sister, the true shoe nut, doesn't have such restraints (we call her "Imelda"). The two of them just bought a huge Victorian house so he has a a place for his guns and she has a place for her footwear.

[Cultural Jihad]

Maybe he read the story about the Firemen who alledgedly stole clothes from the WTC area after Sept 11.

Don't you moral-liberal ideologues have anything else to do besides squatting on a conservative website to smear American heros?

[aruanan]

"The ammo could have exploded and shot all over," McGovern said. "If it got hot enough and the gunpowder ignited, the rounds would have become projectiles shooting out of the home."

Yeah, and I know lots of people with cars that could kill lots of people if a tire had a blowout or if the driver had a seizure. And there are an awful lot of tankers on the highway that could explode and incinerate lots of passenger vehicles if there were a mechanical failure or if the driver of the tanker had some sort of seizure, losing control of the vehicle. The level of moronic so-called thinking by people like McGovern never fails to astonish me.

[SSN558]

"You don't suppose he was picking up the rifle to carry it outside, so it wouldn't burn up, do you?"

You are a mind reader, I can tell. Any true gun nut will tell you, the heck with the wife, kids, and heirlooms, I savin the guns. If the fire cheif was an anti, he was acting on prejudice.

[tpaine]

Don't you have anything else to do CJ, besides squatting on a conservative website to smear those you rant at as being 'moral-liberal ideologues'?

[particularly amusing, seeing that you are without doubt, FR's biggest closet liberal]

[DAnconia55]

Ah, a true libertarian. It's illegal to take the picture, but it's not illegal to slobber over the pictures of a four-year-old in a sex act.

Hmm...not exactly.

I'd suggest that you can't impose criminal sanction for possession. However, since the photograph was taken without consent, I see no barrier to civil sanction on behalf of the child. Assuming the person owning the photo, knew it was underage.

Think of it as copyright violation, or using a models photo without her permission...

[montag813]

Don't you moral-liberal ideologues have anything else to do besides squatting on a conservative website to smear American heros?

I am a liberal, huh? Check my posts, bub.

As far as heroes, I know tons of cops and firemen here in NYC. There are actually humans and mere mortals. I know ou think they are perfect superheroes. Some are perfect. Most are not. Some beat their wives. Some steal. Some deal drugs. Some resell cars in insurance schemes out of their precincts. Get your head out of your arse.

[Cultural Jihad]

So the possession of child pornography, according to the minds of moral-liberal ideologues, is nothing more than a civil matter by unpaid models:

"Think of it as copyright violation, or using a models photo without her permission..."

[Catspaw]

So the possession of child pornography, according to the minds of moral-liberal ideologues, is nothing more than a civil matter by unpaid models

Why, yes CJ. And if the viewer of child pornography gets fulfilled, as it were, by seeing a four-year-old perform a sex act, it's just a copyright violation not sexual gratification.

[Cultural Jihad]

Correction: According to the ideologues it's just a copyright violation if the so-called 'unpaid model' says it is.

[tpaine]

"Why, yes CJ. And if the viewer of child pornography gets fulfilled, as it were, by seeing a four-year-old perform a sex act, it's just a copyright violation not sexual gratification."


And you two get off by thinking someone gets 'fulfilled' by seeing a four-year-old perform a sex act.
Diffrent strokes for you weirdo folks, I'd guess.
-- Take this sicko crap to the backroom, please.

[Cultural Jihad]

Think of it as copyright violation, or using a models photo without her permission...

Do you agree with this ludicrous assertion in #473? Choose. Now.

[takenoprisoner]

Mr. Arford, a 59-year-old budget analyst at Fort Monmouth is in the system now. His ass is grass and his goose is cooked. If he reached for his M-1 upon being confronted by the FD (loaded or unloaded makes no diff) as is claimed in this article, he screwed up badly.

I figure he'll need the likes of Johnny Cochran to get his property back.