1000 Firearms Collection

P

Pahoo

New member
Might as well start the discussion. Last night the news reported that police found 1000+ firearms and of course, once again, they called it as an arsenal. They neglected to mention why they raided his home, only that there were over 1000 firearms. today they finally mentioned that they were service a warrant on firearms violations. That's well and good but they just had to lay them out, lay them on sheets and take areal videos of the bust. ….. :eek:

Until we see due process, it's just a bunch of guns in a man's collection. Most of what I saw were non-tactical but who cares?? …. :mad:

Be Safe !!!
 
I saw some news blurbs, they stated the raid was for "assault weapon violations" and was a joint CA and ATF operation. Apparently he was suspected of making, selling, loaning, or some other violation of "assault weapon" laws. The big thrust to the news I saw was the apparent shock and horror at finding 1,000 guns in a wealthy upscale CA neighborhood!

The guy might be an illegal arms dealer, or he might be a collector with 1,000 guns, it only takes ONE gun violating the convoluted California law to be a criminal.
 
Being a suspect, is all it takes ??? !!!

Apparently he was suspected of making, selling, loaning, or some other violation of "assault weapon" laws.
Click to expand...
Yes, "suspected" and yet they have confiscated all his firearms and relocated to a secure location, without due process. Not s pretty picture seeing all the firearms, stacked like cord-wood. I saw mostly collectable sporting firearms. Hate to see what condition they will be in when and if they ever get returned. … :rolleyes:

Be Safe !!!
 
One man's collection is another man's arsenal. Any time the media can make a sensational claim about someone's gun collection they will do if it fits their narrative
.
 
The big thrust to the news I saw was the apparent shock and horror at finding 1,000 guns in a wealthy upscale CA neighborhood!
Click to expand...

Yup. As though just HAVING guns means your guilty.

I remember a debate that included NRA spokesperson Colin Noir where it was brought up (with the aforementioned shock and horror) that a bad guy had many, many firearms.

Colin Noir, perplexed and frustrated by the "shock and horror" reaction tried to make the point that the guy could only use one gun at a time. Colin Noir might as well have been speaking Greek. There was no understanding or comprehension in ANY of the other folk there including the moderator.

It's like a religious article of faith among the anti-gun crowd. Guns are bad. More guns are more bad.
 
I too noticed in the photos that a whole lot of the weapons seized, on the surface, are probably compliant with California law. Tons of revolvers, bolt action sporting rifles, shotguns, etc. Some of the reporting has been interesting.

Authorities say Saenz was selling the guns outside of the limits of a federal license he has, the Times reported.
Click to expand...

Saenz has been released on a $50,000 bond and has not been charged with a crime, Variety reported.
Click to expand...

How on earth are you bonded, yet not charged? I've never heard of such a thing...

Source:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-getty...seize-more-than-1000-guns-from-bel-air-estate

And this goof-ball for the win...

“It’s beyond comprehension that somebody can have so many weapons in a residence like this, in a neighborhood like this,” Los Angeles Police Lt. Chris Ramirez told reporters.
Click to expand...

Why? That's exactly the type/size of house that I would expect to find a 1000 firearm collection (and let's be real, that's exactly what this was... a collection)
 
Last edited:
This link has some good details, though I've never heard of "variety" so I can't attest to their accuracy...

https://variety.com/2019/biz/news/girard-saenz-holmby-hills-weapons-cache-1203210031/

According to the ATF, Saenz has a federal firearms license, but the agency was investigating whether he was dealing weapons outside the restrictions of the license. In an interview, ATF spokeswoman Ginger Colbrun said that Saenz had an “03” license, which allows collectors to obtain “curios and relics,” but does not permit gun sales.
Click to expand...

...so it sounds to me liked the angle of prosecution will be that he is trying to use his C&R license as a dealer license. But for the life of me, it looks like if you have a 1000 gun collection then "sells for the purpose of improving the collection" could be fairly substantial without triggering in the "engaged in the business of."

I digress, I love firearms and what one does with their personal resources is their own business. But I could not fathom devoting enough resources on that many firearms for me personally. I do occasionally have other interests. So yeah, it's a bit odd. Odd isn't always criminal though.
 
Pictures of the guns shows them just thrown into a pile. CA obviously has no consideration on how they handle or treat the guns. If the owner ever gets them returned they will likely not be in good condition.
 
Yes, "suspected" and yet they have confiscated all his firearms and relocated to a secure location, without due process.
Click to expand...

Sorry to burst a bubble, but serving a valid warrant and removing evidence IS "due process". At that point in the process...

Cops are under no compulsion to treat evidence as anything, other than ensuring proper chain of custody, to prevent "contamination". SO, yes, they can treat precious objects like cord wood, and often do, as we see.


IF the guy wins and is exonerated, he MAY get his guns back. OR the state may keep them (and destroy them) and just cut him a check for the value of the property. It could take a separate court fight to get his guns back, in what ever condition they wind up in...
They have done it before...
 
Not charged ???

Saenz has not been charged with a crime, and it is not clear whether he will be charged in state or federal court. Agents and officers are still working to catalog the vast stash of weapons.
Click to expand...

"Perhaps" Saenz is guilty of "something" or at least a dumb-A$$ but still has rights. It's going to interesting to see how this plays out. Seeing that it's California, they will have to come up with "something" ….. ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
JWT said:
Pictures of the guns shows them just thrown into a pile. CA obviously has no consideration on how they handle or treat the guns. If the owner ever gets them returned they will likely not be in good condition.
Click to expand...
I suspect that, to California authorities, that's a feature rather than a bug.

Authorities say Saenz was selling the guns outside of the limits of a federal license he has, the Times reported.
Click to expand...
This could mean a couple of things. He might have a C&R FFL, so it might mean he was somehow using that to sell non-C&R firearms, That's unlikely, because I doubt any other C&R holder would be interested in skirting ("smashing") the law by buying non-C&R firearms on their C&R license. It's not like a C&R holder can just enter a Bushmaster AR-15 in his bound book.

Or the guy might have a full FFL but he was selling an occasional "machine gun".

Stay tuned. Just remember that pretty much nobody in "the media" has any comprehension of how federal firearms licensing works, or that there are several different types on FFLs.
 
And horror of horrors, he owned ".50 caliber Barrett machine gun rifles".

So most people now think he had .50 caliber machine guns.

Something like this circus happened a year or two ago in California with the blaring headlines and pictures of evil guns pilled up.
NOT widely reported was some months later the guns were very quietly returned because they were all legal.
No reporters or TV cameras showed up for that.
 
NOT widely reported was some months later the guns were very quietly returned because they were all legal.
No reporters or TV cameras showed up for that.
Click to expand...

Because the police /ATF/local DA, etc., being wrong, just isn't ...news. :rolleyes:
 
Regarding little or no publicity if a gun owner gets his property back:

Wisely, it's best not to advertise, esepcially if a large collection, as
that publicity can paint a bullseye on the home's door for all the
thieves who do deal in gun trafficking.
 
Regarding little or no publicity if a gun owner gets his property back:

Wisely, it's best not to advertise,
Click to expand...

I understand this, but which is worse? The increased risk of theft due to public knowledge you got 1,000 guns returned (or how ever many) vs. the public's need to know how their police and DA screwed the pooch??

I have some understanding of the difficulties in creating and wining a criminal case, and losing a case doesn't necessarily meant those bringing it were incompetent, but it sure does make them seem that way to the general public.

And, if they don't lose the case, if it gets tossed out before trial, then to me, they are incompetent, to a degree, for bringing the charges in the first place. it may, or may not be malfeasance, but it certainly is misfeasance...

Is that DA the guy or gal you want to re-elect? Or vote for if they run for another office?
 
I understand this, but which is worse? The increased risk of theft due to public knowledge you got 1,000 guns returned (or how ever many) vs. the public's need to know how their police and DA screwed the pooch??

I have some understanding of the difficulties in creating and wining a criminal case, and losing a case doesn't necessarily meant those bringing it were incompetent, but it sure does make them seem that way to the general public.
Click to expand...

All true. It’s even harder building a case on vague laws. Like what is “engaged in the business of.” Yes, I’m well aware that there’s a definition floating around about buying and selling with intent to produce income and serve as a livelihood. But those are still subjective. Especially in the case of a C&R bound book. Bought 40 rifles last year and sold each one within a month of buying it for more than you paid for it? Pretty easy to prove prima facia that you are “engaged in the business of.”

Now Let’s say you bought 10 c&r guns last year, then got a once in a lifetime opportunity at something like an original 1853 enfield still in fireable condition? You sell all of the other firearms you bought, plus a few more, maybe at a profit on some of them. All of the proceeds then go to the original enfield. Mr atf comes and checks, sees that you bought 10 rifles and sold all 10 (some at a profit). It would look an awful lot like you may be doing something screwy. If mr atf is reasonable (and many agents are... but some aren’t), he will understand when you explain and show him the original enfield. There’s always the one though...

All this to say, I wouldn’t want to be responsible for trying to make a case on a c&r boundbook front. The license holder may be the devil and running gunds for the Mexican mafia, if they use a little bit of sense trying to cover and explain their tracks it would be hard to make a case. Then you have the guys trying to prosecute the guy who just wanted to buy his enfield.
 
5whiskey said:
I too noticed in the photos that a whole lot of the weapons seized, on the surface, are probably compliant with California law. Tons of revolvers, bolt action sporting rifles, shotguns, etc. Some of the reporting has been interesting.





How on earth are you bonded, yet not charged? I've never heard of such a thing...

Source:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/ex-getty...seize-more-than-1000-guns-from-bel-air-estate

And this goof-ball for the win...



Why? That's exactly the type/size of house that I would expect to find a 1000 firearm collection (and let's be real, that's exactly what this was... a collection)
Click to expand...
In a residence where the occupants "cling to God and guns"...or where "Deplorables" live. California is a beautiful state. I have many relatives in California but you know the rest :)
 
Lot's of speculation and pretty much no facts.

No one seems to know what the gun owner was charged with, if anything, or what the legal basis for the seizure might be. And it's entirely possible that there was a good reason. It's also entirely possible that there was not.

Folks here are most disposed to believe that there was no legal basis for the seizure, but a belief is not evidence.

Without some reliable facts there's nothing to discuss.
 
news update
Man arrested after 1,000 guns found at Los Angeles home is charged

A man arrested after federal law enforcement officers found more than 1,000 guns at a home in one of the richest areas of Los Angeles has been charged with 64 felony counts, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office said.

© KNBC Law enforcement find a cache of weapons in a Holmy Hills home on Wednesday, May 8, 2019.
Girard Damian Saenz, 58, pleaded not guilty Monday, the prosecutor's office said in a statement Monday.

He was arrested in May after federal and local agents seized more than 1,000 weapons in Bel-Air, the DA's office said.

"It's just beyond comprehension that somebody can have so many weapons in a residence like this in a neighborhood like this," a Los Angeles police official said at the time of Saenz's arrest.
Saenz was charged with 23 counts of possession of an assault weapon, 17 counts of transfer of handgun with no licensed firearms dealer, 15 counts of unlawful assault weapon/.50 BMG rifle activity, seven counts of possession of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun, and two counts of possession of a destructive device, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office said in Monday's statement.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top