DHS Raids Gun Collector – Confiscates Nearly 1,500 Guns – No Charges Filed

This is probably the wrong forum. This seems like a General Gun Discussion thing.

If there actually are never charges filed, and the government does not meet their burden at trial if those charges are filed, then it is an unconstitutional abuse of power and he will almost certainly be able to get recourse of some sort in court.

However, if he actually has been into some bad stuff, police are, as far as I know, allowed to confiscate weapons immediately prior to charges or while the charges are being crafted. According to the news article:

Neighbors said Adams was a gun collector, and some heard he was a licensed gun seller, too.

Federal investigators confirm that. However, they're also investigating him for possible gun smuggling, tax evasion and violating importation laws.

Since we don't have access to the case the Feds have against him, we really aren't in a position to have an opinion on it. He is innocent until proven guilty, and if the government cannot overcome that presumption, I will join the outcry and even donate to any legal fund for him. However, I will not prematurely cry oppression when I don't know all the facts. I don't want to be in the position of having defended a gun smuggling tax evader if he turns out to be guilty.
 
I read about this. I agree there isn't enough info, but it almost came off as andor seemed that the amount of firearms owned was an issue. I don't know of any laws regarding limits on guns owned, so this was very confusing/disturbing to me.
 
If they seized the guns then they were seized either as evidence of or fruits of the crime they are investigating (unless they were contraband, say for example a SBR or full auto......or if they were an instrumentality of a crime of something like a murder). From what I gleaned from the story it looks like they think he was smuggling stuff from outside the country in order to add to his collection.

Oh.....and often, at least at the federal level, they won't file charges until the investigation is sorta at the end.
 
The article mentions that he is an importer as well as a collector and seller. The reference to omitting marking to increase value sounds like they are talking about import marks, not serial numbers. Not sure which law, but I would guess the GCA of 1968 requires importers to mark their identity on guns they import. People who collect mil-surp guns are often willing to pay more for a gun that doesn't have an importer's name stamped into it.

I guess we just stay tuned.
 
Maybe this is an abuse of power.

OTOH, maybe this guy did do something illegal and they are going to gather the evidence and get their act together before bringing charges.

It's just too soon to tell at this point.
 
The big story here is that local police swat teams, the county sheriff, and the feds worked together to confiscate 1500 privately owned guns. For all those who say it won't happen, it just did. Again.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what to make of it. I understand that he's an importer, collector, and seller. I wish we had more of the story to make a better decision.
 
OTOH, maybe this guy did do something illegal

That is why, in the end, confiscation will work. The first assumption will be that the guy is guilty or they wouldn't have gone after him. There must certainly be more to the story than we know. And later, when the press releases "the rest of the story", we'll all take them at their word and feel safer with the dirtbag (this one or any future one) disarmed and off the street.
 
That is why, in the end, confiscation will work. The first assumption will be that the guy is guilty or they wouldn't have gone after him. There must certainly be more to the story than we know. And later, when the press releases "the rest of the story", we'll all take them at their word and feel safer with the dirtbag (this one or any future one) disarmed and off the street.

It's also just as possible that this dude was a criminal, and the police were doing EXACTLY what we always ask - better enforcing the laws on the books.
 
It's also just as possible that this dude was a criminal, and the police were doing EXACTLY what we always ask - better enforcing the laws on the books.

The really sad part is that the government has done such an astonishingly fantastic job of convincing all of us that *THEY* are perfectly willingly to screw//enslave/imprison/otherwise mistreat *US* that we've got a significant distrust for *THEM*.

The concept that "we are the government" is so far laughable that if you seriously tried to suggest it to anyone you would be considered a good candidates for hospitalization.

50 years ago Officer O'Mally was some guy you knew.

So what are they doing? Enforcing the laws? Or making an example? What are we going to do? Ask Eric Holder?
 
It is a possibility, LockedBreech. The government has to prove that.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. And he bears the burden of proof that the government action was an unlawful one against him. Thus far, to cast either the government or the presumed-innocent accused as the villain is premature. We should just let the system work for now.
 
OTOH, maybe this guy did do something illegal and they are going to gather the evidence and get their act together before bringing charges.

And to add on to this, what many people don't realize is that in a federal investigation, unlike most local police investigations, the actual arrest and formal charges against the subject usually don't come until the very end of the investigation.

That's also why the federal conviction rate is so high - by the time the feds arrest someone, they've already built a strong case.
 
And remember what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Guns were illegally seized, and after numerous court filings the city of New Orleans was forced to return the seized guns. However, the guns had been "stored" in metal barrels in non-insulated trailers, and were totally rusted. If guns are ever outlawed for private ownership, and then confiscated, it won't happen as some big operation where resistance would be likely. It would take place in many small steps. Possibly starting with simple registration, then a banning of only a few specific weapons, with police visits to the homes/businesses of only those who had those now illegal weapons registered. And the rest of the gun owning community will do nothing because it would not directly affect them, just as now many hunters are more than willing to go along with the banning of non-hunting guns since they believe it does not affect them. Then additional weapon-types would be added to the list of banned guns, and so on and so on until finally there essentially would be no guns in the hands of honest citizens at all (like England and Australia). Of course criminals would continue to own and use those same weapons. This is why we must resist vigorously any attempt for "common sense" gun laws that require registration, which is always going to be the first step before confiscation.
 
That's also why the federal conviction rate is so high - by the time the feds arrest someone, they've already built a strong case.

Or, by the time they realize they have no evidence, the accused is already too broke to defend themselves. This is a favored tactic by the IRS, for example.
 
it won't happen as some big operation where resistance would be likely. It would take place in many small steps. Possibly starting with simple registration, then a banning of only a few specific weapons, with police visits to the homes/businesses of only those who had those now illegal weapons registered. And the rest of the gun owning community will do nothing because it would not directly affect them, just as now many hunters are more than willing to go along with the banning of non-hunting guns since they believe it does not affect them.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller



I own virtually nothing that is covered in DiFi's AWB bill. But you bet I've been complaining loud, and busting my chops trying to get every cousin I've got to join the NRA.
 
I too have little that would be affected by some of the proposed regulations, other than some over-ten-round magazines, but if we as gun owners and supporters of the 2nd amendment don't stick together we are likely to lose.
 
And remember what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Guns were illegally seized, and after numerous court filings the city of New Orleans was forced to return the seized guns. However, the guns had been "stored" in metal barrels in non-insulated trailers, and were totally rusted. If guns are ever outlawed for private ownership, and then confiscated, it won't happen as some big operation where resistance would be likely. It would take place in many small steps. Possibly starting with simple registration, then a banning of only a few specific weapons, with police visits to the homes/businesses of only those who had those now illegal weapons registered. And the rest of the gun owning community will do nothing because it would not directly affect them, just as now many hunters are more than willing to go along with the banning of non-hunting guns since they believe it does not affect them. Then additional weapon-types would be added to the list of banned guns, and so on and so on until finally there essentially would be no guns in the hands of honest citizens at all (like England and Australia). Of course criminals would continue to own and use those same weapons. This is why we must resist vigorously any attempt for "common sense" gun laws that require registration, which is always going to be the first step before confiscation.

I'm not specifically disagreeing with any of that, but it's premature to suggest that's what happened here.
 
Back
Top