Ravenwood - 08/06/04 06:00 PM
The more I read about this story, the more it smells like reactionary government tyranny. Some guy has a lot of guns and that makes the government nervous. They start asking things like why does he need all those guns. They think it's better to seize them (civil rights be damned) just in case.
[Article quoted in full]
In Jamestown, police say one resident had enough firepower in his house, to equip a small army.Channel 7 also had a video, but it basically just reiterates the same poorly written story. What I really wanted to know is why police felt it was okay toOfficers confiscated somewhere between five hundred and a thousand guns from the home of 63-year-old Thad Schank. He faces a weapons possession charge. Police also say one of Schank's weapons was stolen a couple months ago, which means it's somewhere out on the streets. When police realized just how many guns Schank had, they decided to get them out of his home, so that no more guns would end up in the hands of criminals.
A quick google search and I found a better article, which helps confirm my suspicions.
In all, Lt. Todd Isaacson said Tuesday, about 500 to 1,000 guns were recovered, including 75 to 100 handguns.Gasp! Handguns! And what do they mean by recovered?
Thad L. Schank, 63, of 116 Thayer St., was charged with eight counts of fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon.Sounds kinda vague. What was the actual crime? Damn those reporters.
Isaacson said on June 29, officers received a report of a burglary at 116 Thayer St. that a .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol was stolen.This is called blaming the victim. As if leaving your car unlocked causes auto theft, or wearing a short skirt causes rape.''During a followup investigation it was learned that this gentleman indeed had numerous handguns laying around the residence that were unsecured,'' Isaacson said.
Also recovered were long guns and shotguns. Most of the guns were operational, but not loaded, Isaacson said.There's that word again: recovered. As if he had stolen them from the police and they were able to get them back.
Isaacson said Schank didn't have proper permits and a search warrant was obtained from City Court Judge John LaMancuso.Now we're getting to the root of it. He didn't have proper permission from the state to own that many guns. They want to put him in jail for not having his 'I's dotted and his 'T's crossed.
''If this got out that this many weapons were in that residence, not only would he be a target, but public safety certainly would be compromised,'' Isaacson said.So if word got out that you, lets say, had a bunch of expensive cars, the state should come take them away from you. After all they are just going to be stolen some day and will ultimately end up putting the public at risk.
Isaacson said most importantly, he wanted to get the weapons secured and they are now in the custody of a New York state federal firearms dealer. [Fancy talk for gun dealer] Schank did have a relic permit, which allowed him to own antique or outdated guns. Isaacson said Schank thought his permit was valid for all his handguns.So he had a permit, it just wasn't a pistol permit.
Schank also had a valid state pistol permit, Isaacson said.Oh wait, he did have a valid pistol permit. So what exactly is the problem? He only had a permit for 492 to 992 of them, thus the 8 counts of criminal possession.
''Close to 1,000 weapons in any residence almost qualifies it as an armory. In a residential neighborhood, it's not a good idea and it's not safe,'' Isaacson said.Safe from whom? The police? Notice that 500 to 1,000 is now "close to 1,000". Call that creative rounding or fuzzy math.
Isaacson said during the investigation, several of the guns were in plain view scattered about the residence in bedrooms and in hallways.How many? Is that two, three, eight? (eight counts) Out of "close to 1,000", "several" seems pretty miniscule.
Some of the guns didn't have serial numbers.Again, how many?
''In the event of some criminal act, not only do we not know where it was stolen from, but it would be tough to track it,'' Isaacson said.Far be it for me to own anything that's hard for the government to track.
Isaacson said city fire officials and city housing inspectors also had concerns with the residence for structural reasons, stating that the weight of the guns was a concern. Also debris and maneuverability within the residence was difficult.They're going to pile on fire code violations, just wait and see.
Isaacson said JPD worked closely with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms on this case.That explains a lot. So, what is the moral of the story?
If something gets stolen, don't ever call the police.
Category: Fall of Western Civilization
Comments (19) top link me
"Worked closely with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms on this case."
He's lucky he's not dead.
Posted by: Kevin Baker at August 6, 2004 9:03 PMHe is living behind the paper curtain. They will be destroyed and he will be in jail. The only winners will be "good" press for the police and establishement.
It is harder and harder not to use the term JBT. I do not like to because it is overused and to cute. I find myself using it more and more. That does not make me feel hopeful.
"stating that the weight of the guns was a concern." What weight? at an average of say 5lbs per that would be 2500 to 5000 pounds or the weight of 15 to 30 people spread around the house - that sounds like most of my wife's parties.
Posted by: Marc at August 6, 2004 10:08 PMHere is a case the Ambulance Chaser could use to prove he is really just a Conservative at heart.
Rich
Posted by: Rich at August 6, 2004 10:33 PMNobody needs x guns. Shiver.
Like that isn't a nasty slippery slope comment with logarithmic possibilities.
hln
Posted by: hln at August 7, 2004 8:22 AMI live in NY state - possession of a handgun without a permit is a serious crime. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.
It looks as if the police had very little choice here.
Posted by: Mike at August 7, 2004 10:07 AMHe had a handgun permit. Or does NY state violoate your rights are require separate permits for every handgun? You know, there are times when I actually think an al-Qaeda nuke in NYC might be a good thing...
As for the weapons with no serial numbers...the guy has a C&R license...how much you want to bet they're really old guns made before S/Ns were required?
This case, especially the state requiring a permit to own guns, just begs to be dragged to the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian at August 7, 2004 11:19 AMAlmost makes me wish I lived in NY so that I could serve on his jury (assuming he's not stupid enough to plead out). Give me a chance to excersize my jury nullification muscles.
Posted by: Andrew Upson at August 7, 2004 3:37 PMBoulder Weekly Article: Pirate police
You know, we have a set of legal precident for this case. He's not necessarily going to have to be convicted of any crime to lose his weapons.
We have seisure laws, mostly used on the Mexico/US border and in Florida. In Florida, you can't lose your home to a lawsuit - protected by state law - but you can lose any cash you have on your person when you travel through the state. It's yet to be successfully challenged in the supreme, but basically a law officer can take your stuff without due process and there's not much you can do about it.
The antiques may be an easier fight, because they have intrinsic values outside that of being firearms. Only even antiques can be stolen by the government if they can claim they THINK you may have been committing a crime with them. For example, they could claim this guy was illegally tafficing in arms with no evidence he was actually selling guns at all. He doesn't have to be convicted for the state to steal, I mean 'recover' the weapons.
Notice they didn't destroy the firearms. Sombody made a lot of money stealing this guys guns. That's the real story here. Why is our government in the business of stealing our stuff.
Posted by: silent citizen at August 7, 2004 7:33 PMHere in NY, in my county, if you already have your permit and you want to buy a new handgun:
1) You pay the dealer, and get a reciept. You leave the gun where it is, though.
2) You go to the Sherrifs office, present the recipt, and ask permission to have the gun added to your permit. They ask the local judge what he thinks.
3) You wait, minutes or days. Maybe the judge decides to allow you to have it, maybe not.
4) If you are lucky, you get approved, and get a little piece of paper that allows you to go back to the dealer and collect your new gun. The gun is added to the list of handguns you already own.
5) It's a felony to possess a handgun that is not listed on your permit.
6) I have no idea why I continue to live in this state...
Posted by: Mike at August 8, 2004 10:00 AMMike,
I had no idea it was that involved. Here in Virginia, I go to a gun show, see a gun I like, pay the man, and take it home. Usually for good measure, he'll ask if I'm a Virginian, and I'll ask if the gun is stolen. That should cover both our asses.
If he has an FFL license the process involves two forms (one state, one federal) and a phone call to the NICS center. After 5 minutes, I pay the man and take it home.
Posted by: Ravenwood at August 8, 2004 12:22 PMSome had no serial numbers?
Gee, how odd. Antiques have no numbers; some MilSurp have no serial numbers.
What an interesting assortment of 'reasons' they present.
Posted by: John at August 8, 2004 5:48 PMMike, I don't know what county you live in, but when I was living downstate in Rockland, all you had to do was go to the county clerk with the paper work. NY has the toughest handgun permits in the country, you've got to be a good guy to get one. There is NO permission needed. There is NO 'you can only get one a month'. I bought and registered 3 in a 2 week period. No judge, no asking permission. I suggest you check the details of your process, and if they are what you say, write your state senator. We had that big flap 8-10 years ago where the state stepped in and cleaned things up so that the application fees and the process were equal in all counties. Ok, NYC doesn't count; they're another country.
If this fellow has his C&R liscense and the guns are in his boundbook, and he has a pistol permit that has his personal pistols registered, then he is breaking no law. There may be a few hairs to be split over C&R pistols, I don't know. But if I were he I would sue for a few hundred million.
Posted by: Drew at August 9, 2004 12:06 AMI too am frightened by large quantities of guns in one place.
OMG!! I just realized that there a BUNCH of guns over at the local police station. Maybe I should go recover them, so that they'll be in safe hands (mine), and not in the hands of a bunch of guys I don't even know.
Posted by: Persnickety at August 9, 2004 11:29 AMWhy is anyone surprised at this? After all, the government steals your money collection if you have "too much" of it - but only after you die, so that you can't fight about it too much. Oh, and it doesn't like you acquiring the money too rapidly, either: if you "collect" "too much" in any given year, they steal that, too.
I know that lots of people have "too much" ammunition, and if the police and other powers that be keep "educating" the populace about having "too much" of various items, they may just find that the citizenry will voluntarily allow the government to "recover" lots of that "excess" ammo (which will have kindly been delivered via "airmail" (and, even more courteously, not even postage due).
Posted by: Paul Weiss at August 9, 2004 1:53 PMPaul,
Actually, Police have a history of stealing your money when you are alive too. On numerous occasions they've stopped people and discovered that they have a "suspicious" amount of cash on them. (Like $3000 or more) They seize the money and send the person on his way without charging him with a crime.
Posted by: Ravenwood at August 9, 2004 2:13 PMWhat bothers me about this whole situation is that I have family in law enforcement. They, as well as many of their friends, COLLECT FIRE ARMS!!!! I know many officers who have a collection that would match, if not surpass, this guy. I wouldn’t be surprised if that were true in their precinct as well. It sounds to me like a publicity stunt by a bunch of hypocrites, which are looking to expand their own collection.
Posted by: Brenden at August 12, 2004 8:01 PMBrenden:
Your story reminds me of the following about John Trochmann and the Militia of Montana:
'The law has already arrested him once, in March, on charges of inciting others to violence. The charges were dropped, but he knows he may not be so lucky next time. He takes his .45 Springfield semiautomatic, pulls the clip, and hands the gun to me. Scratched into the satin finish are the initials, he says, of the deputy who arrested him. "He stole my gun." John's eyes narrow. "He planned on owning it."'
I've seen this story in other sources.
See: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg20699.html
No serial numbers? Old firearms?
Before the 1968 GCA serail numbers WERE NOT REQUIRED ON FIREARMS!!!
They make the guy sound like a common criminal, and I *bet* the guns with no serial numbers were Sear and Roebuck rifles and shotguns. Most never had serial numbers.
Posted by: Phil at September 28, 2004 4:35 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
