DHS Raids Gun Collector- Confiscates Nearly 1500 guns- No Charges Filed

page: 1
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Feb. 2, 2013

On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security, along with a SWAT team and Bernalillo County sheriff’s deputies raided the home of Robert Adams in Albuquerque, New Mexico and, according to a federal search warrant affidavit the raid seized nearly 1,500 firearms from the man’s home and business. However, no charges have been filed against him, despite the fact that court documents reveal that agents had been watching Adams for years.


According to search warrants that were filed on Thursday Homeland Security Investigations confiscated nearly 900 firearms from Adams’ home, 548 handguns and 317 rifles. They also seized 599 pistols and revolvers from his office.

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

Read more: freedomoutpost.com...


Court documents reveal federal agents were watching Adams for years and that some documentation was missing “to determine to whom Adams [was] selling or exporting his firearms.”
The guns were also not properly marked possibly to make the guns more valuable and to avoid paying high import taxes, investigators alleged. However, a bigger concern is that no markings on the guns and missing documents mean the guns are not traceable by law enforcement.


New Mexico does not regulate or specifically restrict the possession of firearms. Owners are not required to register or license firearms with the state.

Gun collectors are protected under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The law states that a firearms dealer is defined as a person who is selling guns for profit or livelihood. Unlicensed individuals are allowed to sell firearms from their private collection without performing a background check on the buyer.

So, how can he be under surveillance for years and yet, no crimes have been linked to any of his guns and no charges have been filed against this man?

Is this just a start of what is going to come for gun collectors and such?
Was he used as an example or was this a justified invasion by the government?


ETA: I meant to ask the gun people here, what do they mean by the guns weren't properly 'marked'?
Just curious......


--------------------------

[Did a search and didn't see this posted........please remove if thread exists]


edit on 22-2-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
It's started.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by snarky412
I meant to ask the gun people here, what do they mean by the guns aren't 'marked'?
Just curious......

Most guns have serial numbers on them so that they can be traced. "Unmarked" would mean that the serial number is non-existent, i.e. removed. Therefore, making the gun untraceable..

Removing a serial number from a firearm is illegal in many places. As is possession and sale of a firearm that had the serial number removed, if I'm not mistaken.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by snarky412
I meant to ask the gun people here, what do they mean by the guns aren't 'marked'?
Just curious......

Most guns have serial numbers on them so that they can be traced. "Unmarked" would mean that the serial number is non-existent, i.e. removed. Therefore, making the gun untraceable..

Removing a serial number from a firearm is illegal in many places. As is possession and sale of a firearm that had the serial number removed, if I'm not mistaken.



I left out the word 'properly' marked......so would that still refer to the S.N.?


The guns were also not properly marked possibly to make the guns more valuable and to avoid paying high import taxes, investigators alleged.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Just as important, what is with "DHS" being used as some sort of para-military Federal police force? We need to stop this by all Red States banning DHS police actions within our States.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Confiscation my flat white backside. Basically the Feds legally(?) (albeit unconstitutionally) STOLE all his guns under the guise of authority.

Granted, selling guns that their serials removed, or removing the serials to make them untraceable, if this in fact what he has done, in either case, is not exactly legally kosher in any case.

And if he HAD been committing any crimes (knowingly or not), they legally *can* take his guns, BUT:

Since charges *WEREN'T* filed, it seems that the intent was to disarm him, whether because he was selling to potential undesirables, because he was doing *something* they thought he shouldn't be doing, or because they thought he had "too many" guns.

I await more details, and a potential lawsuit.

I mean, the government raiding and STEALING a person's gun collection w/o charge???

This is concerning.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Possibly they are "burning" one of their own .........for whatever reasons....
It sounds like the guns may possibly been going out in bulk of something...like he was selling to narco terrs or other rebel groups.....maybe even on behalf of the goverment at times....all this is just my speculations of course, but theres going to be a twisted tale come out of this....
It remains to be seen who tells it....



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
maybe he was selling to mexico
just cause he has no violations or record could mean he just hadnt been caught yet



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 


And yes . . . it has begun.

Here is my issue with this and how LE and media report these things.

This man is a well known collector in the Southwest. It is not illegal, in an of itself, to own guns without serial numbers. It is illegal to remove all serial numbers and then sell those weapons. As he has not been charged with such and the fact that with straw buys being such a hot topic . . . if he was up to this . . . LE would tout this as a major victory. So, I think their omision of this accusation is very telling.

Secondly, before 68 almost no guns were serialed. As a major collecter he was known to have many antique and rare arms . . . none of those would have serials to begin with and are not illegal, even to sell. So, a flippant comment to a reporter about their reasoning being the guns had no markings is irrelevant when considering his collection.

If he was actually smuggling and such . . . I think the feds, unless the are the keystone cops, would have been able to come up with some sort of evidence by now.

Granted, even the original source which is linked in your source, doesn't give much information to go on and you can bet we will never hear this guy's story. Sounds a lot like we are nervous a gun collector has so many guns. With the media scrutiny of this issue . . . if there were an actual crime commited they would be shouting from the rooftops . . . the fact that they bring up years of "investigation" that led to nothing and a quote from a "neighbor" that said it's "frightening he lives close to a school" reeks of painting him as guilty by perception . . . and we all know that is the public's reality.

Stuff just got real . . . hold on to your hats . . .

Original source:
ABQ news
edit on 2/22/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sprtpilot
Just as important, what is with "DHS" being used as some sort of para-military Federal police force? We need to stop this by all Red States banning DHS police actions within our States.


I'm sorry, but what the heck does "Red State" have to do with anything?? Shouldn't, um, most states stand up to it ("banning," on a state level, won't do anything).

We need to stand up to the para-militarization of MOST departments in the fed and state governments. Including police. "Red" AND "Blue." It's nonpartisan.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


Hear . . . Hear . . .

Drop the "gang" mentality. We are all Americans and this effects all of us regardless of what color shirt you put on. The overreach of the gov is starting to get scary . . . my Great-Gma warned me about times like this.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by snarky412
I left out the word 'properly' marked......so would that still refer to the S.N.?

Your news story says "no markings", so that could also include other information as well. Most firearms have manufacturer info printed on them such as name of manufacturer, model number, serial number, etc.

Remove all of that information and you have an almost completely untraceable firearm. The only people I know that would deliberately want an untraceable firearm are criminals who would commit gun crimes. That's what the other part of your story was talking about how unmarked firearms would be more valuable. An untraceable firearm is very valuable to criminals.


I see already that people are solely making DHS to be the bad-guy in this particular instance. However, if the "suspect" was selling unmarked and untraceable weapons, then DHS was in the right on this one.



edit on 22-2-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: spelllinngggg



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquesence


Confiscation my flat white backside. Basically the Feds legally(?) (albeit unconstitutionally) STOLE all his guns under the guise of authority.

Granted, selling guns that their serials removed, or removing the serials to make them untraceable, if this in fact what he has done, in either case, is not exactly legally kosher in any case.

And if he HAD been committing any crimes (knowingly or not), they legally *can* take his guns, BUT:

Since charges *WEREN'T* filed, it seems that the intent was to disarm him, whether because he was selling to potential undesirables, because he was doing *something* they thought he shouldn't be doing, or because they thought he had "too many" guns.

I await more details, and a potential lawsuit.

I mean, the government raiding and STEALING a person's gun collection w/o charge???

This is concerning.



That is what bothered me.......them taking his guns and YET at the same time saying "investigation still pending" with no charges filed.
So why take the guns without proof of a crime?
Unless they are working on 'finding' one.........



Here is a link to his website:
www.adamsguns.com...



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Liquesence
 


Hear . . . Hear . . .

Drop the "gang" mentality. We are all Americans and this effects all of us regardless of what color shirt you put on. The overreach of the gov is starting to get scary . . . my Great-Gma warned me about times like this.


Exactly.

So, why exactly are you replying to ME?

What you said is exactly what i was saying in response to the other post....



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by snarky412
I left out the word 'properly' marked......so would that still refer to the S.N.?

Your news story says "no markings", so that could also include other information as well. Most firearms have manufacturer info printed on them such as name of manufacturer, model number, serial number, etc.

Remove all of that information and you have an almost completely untraceable firearm. The only people I know that would deliberately want an untraceable firearm are criminals who would commit gun crimes. That's what the other part of your story was talking about how unmarked firearms would be more valuable. An untraceable firearm is very valuable to criminals.


I see already that people are solely making DHS to be the bad-guy in this particular instance. However, if the "suspect" was selling unmarked and untraceable weapons, then DHS was in the right on this one.



edit on 22-2-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: spelllinngggg


Not if they are antique or pre-68. Which as a major collector . . . he had a lot of.

Also . . . markings is not the same as "serial number" . . . I would expect DHS agents to say "serial number". "Markings" sounds like something someone who knows nothing about gun laws to say.
edit on 2/22/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This is per BobAdam's website:



Notice!

On January 22, 2013, my home and my business was raided and ransacked by 'our' Federal Government.
All firearms were seized, including customer consignments, shipments in transit in or out, antiques, airguns, and nonguns.
Invoices, Computers and other records were seized.
The house was trashed.
Documents were scattered and shuffled.
No charges were filed, and I expect to be operating on a reduced scale soon.


www.adamsguns.com...
edit on 22-2-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


Sorry . . . just agreeing with you . . . hence the "hear . . . hear"



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liquesence

Originally posted by sprtpilot
Just as important, what is with "DHS" being used as some sort of para-military Federal police force? We need to stop this by all Red States banning DHS police actions within our States.


I'm sorry, but what the heck does "Red State" have to do with anything?? Shouldn't, um, most states stand up to it ("banning," on a state level, won't do anything).

We need to stand up to the para-militarization of MOST departments in the fed and state governments. Including police. "Red" AND "Blue." It's nonpartisan.



When it comes to Freedom, the colors are red, white and blue.......

So no, colors shouldn't matter in a situation like this.

All this will do is make other gun dealers leery, wondering if they'll be next on the DHS hitlist........



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by snarky412

Originally posted by Liquesence


Confiscation my flat white backside. Basically the Feds legally(?) (albeit unconstitutionally) STOLE all his guns under the guise of authority.

Granted, selling guns that their serials removed, or removing the serials to make them untraceable, if this in fact what he has done, in either case, is not exactly legally kosher in any case.

And if he HAD been committing any crimes (knowingly or not), they legally *can* take his guns, BUT:

Since charges *WEREN'T* filed, it seems that the intent was to disarm him, whether because he was selling to potential undesirables, because he was doing *something* they thought he shouldn't be doing, or because they thought he had "too many" guns.

I await more details, and a potential lawsuit.

I mean, the government raiding and STEALING a person's gun collection w/o charge???

This is concerning.



That is what bothered me.......them taking his guns and YET at the same time saying "investigation still pending" with no charges filed.
So why take the guns without proof of a crime?
Unless they are working on 'finding' one.........

Here is a link to his website:
www.adamsguns.com...


That is another thing i was thinking: That since no charges were filed they will "find" something, if only to give credence to their actions and/or investigation. As they always do. They will always *find* something, if they desire. And they will usually attach every single base and minimal charge they can dig up. What with the number of (mostly BS and baseless) laws on the books, one has a hard time NOT breaking a law just by existing.

But if the investigation is still pending, that is tad a different. They could be checking the guns, trying to discern serials, checking barrel, any number of things under the guise of "ongoing investigation." Not that that makes it RIGHT since no charges were files. Yet.

Reminds me of someone i know. His son (who lived with him) was charged with a crime involving guns in the house. The investigators took all the firearms and computers. They were never returned to my knowledge. His conviction was eventually overturned. Not sure he ever saw the guns again.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
Not if they are antique or pre-68. Which as a major collector . . . he had a lot of.

We're not talking about antique guns here. The article clearly quotes investigators as saying the guns weren't properly marked. I'm pretty sure investigators know that antique guns won't have serial numbers.



Originally posted by solomons path
markings is not the same as "serial number"

Markings include the serial number. Hence why the article also quotes investigators as saying the absence of markings would make the guns untraceable. If I removed just the manufacturer info from my guns, would that make the gun untraceable? No. Removal of the serial number would, however.

What you're doing here is cherry-picking, and trying to spin the truth where no spin is needed.





new topics

top topics



 
26
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join