Crime victim persecuted for being gun owner

[oneshooter]

In the wee hours of an August morning, Rockford (IL) police were called by the victim's neighbors to report a burglary. What the police found was the disorganized and cluttered home of a gun owner. The burglar had fled, but the police were surprised to find a collection of about three hundred firearms. The 67 year-old homeowner was out of town. Research by police showed he is a legal FOID cardholder in Illinois and the guns apparently were registered. Nevertheless the police proceeded to stack his firearms outside his home and then take the guns into custody. I have to ask, since when is the property of the victim confiscated as suspect?

The comments from the neighbors were equally disturbing to me. Coley Woods who lives across the street said, "Even if he's a registered gun owner or not, that just seems like its too many rifles." Oh really! Says who? Since when is there a set number on what any American can own? It used to be a free country, Has that changed?

The story concludes by noting that, as of late Wednesday afternoon, "police haven't charged the homeowner

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7397

Makes me damn glad I live in Texas.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowrider]

3. LOL yupper, they're on their way.

[shadowrider]

2. How many is too many?

Ain't no such animal. Unless it can be proven he was a threat to someone or something, PROVEN, those weapons are his and MAY comprise his retirement income.

But, this is Illinois, 'nuff said.

[Angry Dragon]

4. 18,289

[county worker]

5. A whole bunch of unloaded weapons are as dangerous as a whole bunch of potatoes.

If the guy was an antique gun collector it is no different to me than being a stamp collector.

Though the posts here hoping for anti gun people to show up makes the OP look like flame bait.

[Remmah2]

21. Wait a minute.

Unless of course you're a spudgun nut. Assault weapon edition.

[county worker]

22. My nephew makes spud guns.

[whistler162]

6. The police broke into his gun safes and then removed

the firearms or where the firearms in the disorganized and cluttered broken into house like a pick your own feast for crooks?

The story is very vague.

[Bold Lib]

7. 67 years old. Collected over 300 firearms. I'm betting that

he has some very nice older collectibles that will have a nice home in some officers holsters. Theft by badge. IF, he ever gets any of them back I'm sure they will have lost some value do to mis-handling. What a shame. Did nothing wrong but be a victim of a burglary and have. . .oh, say apx $90,000.00 worth of possessions seized. He was robbed twice and the cops took most of the stuff.

[petersjo02]

8. Good

n/t

[oneshooter]

13. So you believe that the police stealing a persons possessions is"Good"? n/t

[PavePusher]

9. Pretty scanty info but is it possible that...

...being the house was broken into, the homeowner being out of the area and out of contact, and a theif knowing of a rich source of firearms...

that the police actually wanted to secure them from additional risk of theft? And they probably don't have the manpower to run an indefinite 24-hour/day stakeout to guard the place?

Just trying to play devil's advocate here, even though it is only 50 miles from Chicago...

[Katya Mullethov]

10. Of course they do

Property can be charge with a crime and confiscated as suspect . You see these all the time ...State of Texas vs $269,800 or whatever . Us ordinary ol' bumpkins often classify the declaration of such deodands as " thievery " .

[Euromutt]

19. Actually, what you're thinking of are civil cases

Criminal asset forfeiture happens when someone has been convicted of an offense. What you're thinking of is civil asset forfeiture, in which the state files a civil suit against goods it suspects have been used in the commission of a crime (e.g. State of Texas v. One 2004 Chevrolet Silverado). Because it's a civil trial, the state only needs to show "a preponderance of evidence," which makes it much easier for the state to keep the stuff. Especially money; an estimated third of all banknotes have traces of cocaine on them, so that preponderance of evidence is really easy to get.

"Robbery by badge" is indeed a fairly apt description.

[damntexdem]

11. If it's not illegal, they should not have confiscated them, should give them back.

I would support a law stating a maximum number of firearms; but the police should enforce existing laws, not make up new ones that don't exist.

[Hangingon]

12. How would you enforce a law on maximum number?

Registration? No thanks.

[oneshooter]

14. His max number would be 0. n/t

[PavePusher]

15. See #9. n/t

[benEzra]

20. Out of curiousity, why?

Why is a collector owning 50 firearms more dangerous than someone owning 5? From a public-safety standpoint, someone with ill intent can only wield one at a time effectively, and you certainly can't carry more than a few of them on your person even if they're all small handguns.

The only rationale I can see for outlawing the ownership of more than X firearms by an individual is the presumption that owning more than X firearms is somehow immoral, or "contrary to the values of the community", or whatever other moralistic terms one might wish to frame it. But I certainly see no public-safety justification.

Having said that, I don't think the word "persecuted" in the original article is fair unless the police refused to give them back immediately when the owner returned. It may be that the legal justification for their taking them was questionable, but I would like to know the whole story before making a conclusion.

[MichaelHarris]

16. reading and facts

are your friend:

Shortly after police arrived, the home was condemned.

Police say he's out of town and they're still trying to get in contact with him.

Police were called to this home just after two this morning. They arrived after neighbors called about a burglary. When police got inside the home, they found empty shell casings and a variety of weapons, from shotguns to rifles.

"At the current time we're taking the firearms for safe keeping as evidence until we can further investigate this," says Deputy Chief Lindmark.

Condemned home, can't find the owner, potential crime scene. Let's see, should the police leave this man's gun in a condemned home, with busted locks, and no way to reach him? I wonder Singleshot, I mean Oneshooter, did you miss these facts or just decide not to mention them? Did you even read the REAL news article? Did you just read the gun hype site and miss the LINK TO THE REAL STORY? http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=185655

[krispos42]

17. My problem is that, in order to protect the firearms, they declared them "evidence".

Seems to give the police a rather broad and arbitrary authority to seize private property for an indefinate amount of time independent of any investigation needs.

[MichaelHarris]

18. I say

leave them in the unsecured house! the condemned one where no one can find the owner. Don't tread on the unsecured house with guns second amendment. I see no problem, well maybe a tiny one where all the neighbors and newsreaders saw all the unsecured guns.

[krispos42]

24. I'm not saying it isn't a problem

I'm saying it isn't the only problem

[whistler162]

23. umrec for actual adding facts to a thread.....

;)