An 84-year-old man who kept nearly 500 guns, 800 pounds of gunpowder and 75,000 rounds of ammunition at his Ridgefield home pleaded guilty Tuesday to creating a community hazard...So "could" is the new standard of guilt in New Jersey? I wonder how many homeowners in his neighborhood have gasoline cans in their garages that "could" release vapors and explode from a static charge?
Instead of getting his guns back, Raymond also agreed to have a dealer sell them and turn over the proceeds...
Raymond admitted in court that he kept gunpowder in his garage, where static could have sparked an explosion and a fire in the neighborhood...
Raymond also admitted that he possessed a large-capacity magazine that could carry up to 30 bullets. It is illegal under state law to own a firearm magazine that carries more than 15 rounds.
And while "Investigators have tested the guns and determined that none of them had been used in a crime," I guess breaking an old man is a damn site safer than going after these guys.
[Via Jeffersonian]
4 comments:
What a load of bovine fecal matter! Where shall I begin? Gunpowder is a propellant, not an explosive. On the one hand they're referring to the guns being unregistered, and then go on to mention that there's no clear statute requiring them to be registered.
That is just sickening! You'd have thought they'd capture Osama bin Laden the way they were carrying on.
At least he 'might' get some money from the sale, to pay his legal bills. In other NJ cases guns are simply confiscated and destroyed.
Doesn't joisey levy a year and a half in the big house for each mag holding more than some arbitrary number?
I remember a video showing someone hitting gun powder with quite a bit of voltage, to no avail.
I don't think sparks of static can set it off.
Unlike, say, a propane tank.
Methinks that they nailed him on some other charge (like the magazine limit) and told him if he plays nice and makes a great poster boy for "How dangerous gun people are" that they'd save his skin a little.
Looks like we're all going to hang separately.
Gosh, David - we wouldn't want "under-gunned" LEOs actually going after armed criminals, now would we?
Someone could actually get hurt.
It's much safer to go after a decent non violent citizen than a VCA.
Besides - if they actually undertook an effort to remove VCAs - like armed felons and gang members from the street, they would have fewer crimes to investigate and would need fewer "seizure and forfeiture" funds.
It's just anti-American.
Plus, when "the only ones" handle their guns there is a chance that they could shoot themselves or each other. That would be BAD.
Post a Comment