Priest found with over 230 guns, what law(s) were broken?

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollowerBy the way, I have no registered guns. Not ONE.

Guns do not have to be registered here in Missouri unless you have a CCW permit then it’s really only a matter of matching the gun you have "qualified" with to the CCW to make sure you didn't certify on a .32 and have a .44 on you.

I have a crap load of guns that I brought into the state when we moved here the only record would I guess be at Fort Meade where I did have to register them when we lived on a military base.

I have bought guns at auctions here - all I showed was my military ID card.

reply to post by kyleisboss



You don't need very many guns. A hunting rifle, a decent shotgun, maybe a medium caliber pistol (.380 or something, whatever...pistols are a personal choice type thing), and a varmint gun (like a .22, or a good pellet gun). That is all you need. Having too many guns will invite needless attention.

If you buy ammo, but it in increments, from multiple locations. I like the idea of buying a box for each weapon every payday or two, and then just lock it in the pantry.

You don't need 50k rounds. Real life isn't like Resident Evil.

But i agree. If he isn't breaking the law, then this is just another tyranny imposed on the people.

reply to post by Frogs

Actually Frogs, the Fl Baker Act is utilized for forced evaluation (generally 72hrs) of a person likely to cause danger to themselves or others, not Voluntary evaluation, as this story suggests. besides, this didn't occur in Fl.

i too believe many important facts are lacking in the story so i reserve comment on the confiscation. With the details provided, i'm of the opinion this was a classic 'drag net' operation and many more details are being withheld on purpose.

I have a few questions the story doesn't address, what resources did the Priest use to acquire the weapons? Is it possible the weapons were voluntarily handed over by members of his congregation? Were the guns to be used for some 'sporting event' the authorities didn't necessarily approve or endorse?

So he lingered at a Wal-Mart for a few hours, who doesn't when there? Was he distracted or delayed by ministering to others in the store or perhaps he walked an acquaintance out to their car and was in no hurry to complete his purchasing task. What does it matter what time he bought ammo? 'erratic' behavior by whose definition ?

reply to post by kyleisboss


You dont have to be charged with a crime to have a weapon seized under mental health statutes. He voluntarily checked himself in, and the guns were confiscated. If he comes back with a clean bill of health, the guns can be returned to him. He also had the weapons in plain view, and the reason the article included that info is under Ohio Law its illegal.

Specifically though -

2923.16 Improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle

Specifically

(B) No person shall knowingly transport or have a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle in such a manner that the firearm is accessible to the operator or any passenger without leaving the vehicle.

(C) No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle, unless the person may lawfully possess that firearm under applicable law of this state or the United States, the firearm is unloaded, and the firearm is carried in one of the following ways:

(1) In a closed package, box, or case;

(2) In a compartment that can be reached only by leaving the vehicle;

(3) In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder made for the purpose;

As well as this:

2923.13 Having weapons while under disability

specifically

(A) Unless relieved from disability as provided in section 2923.14 of the Revised Code, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance, if any of the following apply:

......

5) The person is under adjudication of mental incompetence, has been adjudicated as a mental defective, has been committed to a mental institution, has been found by a court to be a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order, or is an involuntary patient other than one who is a patient only for purposes of observation. As used in this division, “mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order” and “patient” have the same meanings as in section 5122.01 of the Revised Code.

Its precautionary, and the article said the person voluntarily surrended the weapons. Under case law, Law Enforcement / Hospitals could be held liable if they have evidence a person is mentally unstable / distressed and presents a danger to himself or others and they knowingly release that person and the person harms himself or others.

It will compound matters further with the knowledge the person owned weapons. Ownership in and of itself is legal, but leaving those items with the person prior to verifying his mental status is a nono.

Hope the info helps explain this.