"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns. That
makes no sense. I know guys like that with one guy renting a vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one place
but these are not felonies.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:25:10 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns. That
makes no sense. I know guys like that with one guy renting a vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one place
but these are not felonies.

The report is the guy is a "convicted felon". He can't even have a few
grains of gun powder, much less, 550 guns.

Point being, gun laws are not for criminals. Only for the massive
groups of ordinary decent law abiding citizens.

On 6/19/18 2:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:25:10 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns. That
makes no sense. I know guys like that with one guy renting a vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one place
but these are not felonies.

The report is the guy is a "convicted felon". He can't even have a few
grains of gun powder, much less, 550 guns.

Point being, gun laws are not for criminals. Only for the massive
groups of ordinary decent law abiding citizens.


When I go into a store or public building with one of those "Gun Free
Zone" signs on the front door, I make it a point to ask the most senior
person I can find how he gets the bad guys and thugs to abide by it. I
also inquire about how should I protect myself and those in my party if
an armed robbery or active shooter situation develops while I'm in there.

Most of them at least have the decency to look sheepish and mumble
something about "It comes from corporate- we have to display it."

--
The fastest way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 6:59:47 PM UTC-4, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 6/19/18 2:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:25:10 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns. That
makes no sense. I know guys like that with one guy renting a vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one place
but these are not felonies.

The report is the guy is a "convicted felon". He can't even have a few
grains of gun powder, much less, 550 guns.

Point being, gun laws are not for criminals. Only for the massive
groups of ordinary decent law abiding citizens.


When I go into a store or public building with one of those "Gun Free
Zone" signs on the front door, I make it a point to ask the most senior
person I can find how he gets the bad guys and thugs to abide by it. I
also inquire about how should I protect myself and those in my party if
an armed robbery or active shooter situation develops while I'm in there.

Most of them at least have the decency to look sheepish and mumble
something about "It comes from corporate- we have to display it."

--
The fastest way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Why aren't you posting about home repair?

On 6/19/2018 2:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:25:10 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns. That
makes no sense. I know guys like that with one guy renting a vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one place
but these are not felonies.

The report is the guy is a "convicted felon". He can't even have a few
grains of gun powder, much less, 550 guns.

Point being, gun laws are not for criminals. Only for the massive
groups of ordinary decent law abiding citizens.

The way I read it was from this:

"Fernandez was booked on suspicion of being a felon in possession of
firearms and ammunition and illegally possessing an assault rifle and
large-capacity magazines."

The first sentence says this:

"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon was
storing an arsenal."

Did they check first that he was a felon? If so why did they just not
say he was booked as a felon in possession instead of being suspect.

There are also classed of felonies that are ranked from most severe like
murderers and rapists to possession of narcotics. I don't know if all
of these are forbidden to possess firearms.

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 6/19/2018 2:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:25:10 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns. That
makes no sense. I know guys like that with one guy renting a vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one place
but these are not felonies.

The report is the guy is a "convicted felon". He can't even have a few
grains of gun powder, much less, 550 guns.

Point being, gun laws are not for criminals. Only for the massive
groups of ordinary decent law abiding citizens.

The way I read it was from this:

"Fernandez was booked on suspicion of being a felon in possession of
firearms and ammunition and illegally possessing an assault rifle and
large-capacity magazines."

The first sentence says this:

"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon was
storing an arsenal."

Did they check first that he was a felon? If so why did they just not
say he was booked as a felon in possession instead of being suspect.


There's that pesky little thing about being innocent until proven guilty,
probably. Your idea that he was booked because he wasn't a felon, but
that they are trying to charge him with being a felon because he had guns is absurd. The prohibition against a felon having a gun applies only to
those convicted. You can't bust a guy who has no felony convictions,
and charge him with being a felon in possession of a gun, because he wasn't convicted. It boggles the mind the circular reasoning.




There are also classed of felonies that are ranked from most severe like
murderers and rapists to possession of narcotics. I don't know if all
of these are forbidden to possess firearms.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:29:46 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 6/19/2018 2:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:25:10 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns. That
makes no sense. I know guys like that with one guy renting a vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one place
but these are not felonies.

The report is the guy is a "convicted felon". He can't even have a few
grains of gun powder, much less, 550 guns.

Point being, gun laws are not for criminals. Only for the massive
groups of ordinary decent law abiding citizens.

The way I read it was from this:

"Fernandez was booked on suspicion of being a felon in possession of
firearms and ammunition and illegally possessing an assault rifle and
large-capacity magazines."

The first sentence says this:

"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon was
storing an arsenal."

Did they check first that he was a felon? If so why did they just not
say he was booked as a felon in possession instead of being suspect.


There's that pesky little thing about being innocent until proven guilty,
probably. Your idea that he was booked because he wasn't a felon, but
that they are trying to charge him with being a felon because he had guns is absurd. The prohibition against a felon having a gun applies only to
those convicted. You can't bust a guy who has no felony convictions,
and charge him with being a felon in possession of a gun, because he wasn't convicted. It boggles the mind the circular reasoning.


ABC says this
Fernandez was sentenced to 486 days in jail for an unspecified felony
conviction in February 2017, but was released in August 2017,
according to jail records.

He has been released on bail this time and is due in court on July 9.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 18:59:41 -0400, Wade Garrett
wrote:

On 6/19/18 2:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:25:10 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns. That
makes no sense. I know guys like that with one guy renting a vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one place
but these are not felonies.

The report is the guy is a "convicted felon". He can't even have a few
grains of gun powder, much less, 550 guns.

Point being, gun laws are not for criminals. Only for the massive
groups of ordinary decent law abiding citizens.


When I go into a store or public building with one of those "Gun Free
Zone" signs on the front door, I make it a point to ask the most senior
person I can find how he gets the bad guys and thugs to abide by it. I
also inquire about how should I protect myself and those in my party if
an armed robbery or active shooter situation develops while I'm in there.

Most of them at least have the decency to look sheepish and mumble
something about "It comes from corporate- we have to display it."

There is an app for that. IIRC correctly it works both ways. Both
sides can show gun or gun free zones. The user can participate. Pick
your poison.

A bank in Texas has a sign about guns are welcome. Bank Robbery is
nil.

On 6/19/2018 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:29:46 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 6/19/2018 2:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:25:10 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns. That
makes no sense. I know guys like that with one guy renting a vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one place
but these are not felonies.

The report is the guy is a "convicted felon". He can't even have a few
grains of gun powder, much less, 550 guns.

Point being, gun laws are not for criminals. Only for the massive
groups of ordinary decent law abiding citizens.

The way I read it was from this:

"Fernandez was booked on suspicion of being a felon in possession of
firearms and ammunition and illegally possessing an assault rifle and
large-capacity magazines."

The first sentence says this:

"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon was
storing an arsenal."

Did they check first that he was a felon? If so why did they just not
say he was booked as a felon in possession instead of being suspect.


There's that pesky little thing about being innocent until proven guilty,
probably. Your idea that he was booked because he wasn't a felon, but
that they are trying to charge him with being a felon because he had guns is absurd. The prohibition against a felon having a gun applies only to
those convicted. You can't bust a guy who has no felony convictions,
and charge him with being a felon in possession of a gun, because he wasn't convicted. It boggles the mind the circular reasoning.


ABC says this
Fernandez was sentenced to 486 days in jail for an unspecified felony
conviction in February 2017, but was released in August 2017,
according to jail records.

He has been released on bail this time and is due in court on July 9.

So he is a convicted felon but I am not sure what state law is to
disqualify him from gun ownership. I know that violent felons and drug
distributed lose this right but not sure of white collar criminals like
fraudsters.

On 6/20/2018 10:37 AM, Frank wrote:
On 6/19/2018 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:29:46 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 6/19/2018 2:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:25:10 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern
California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html


Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns.
That
makes no sense.Â* I know guys like that with one guy renting a
vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one
place
but these are not felonies.

The report is the guy is a "convicted felon". He can't even have a few
grains of gun powder, much less, 550 guns.

Point being, gun laws are not for criminals. Only for the massive
groups of ordinary decent law abiding citizens.

The way I read it was from this:

"Fernandez was booked on suspicion of being a felon in possession of
firearms and ammunition and illegally possessing an assault rifle and
large-capacity magazines."

The first sentence says this:

"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was
storing an arsenal."

Did they check first that he was a felon?Â* If so why did they just not
say he was booked as a felon in possession instead of being suspect.


There's that pesky little thing about being innocent until proven
guilty,
probably.Â* Your idea that he was booked because he wasn't a felon, but
that they are trying to charge him with being a felon because he had
guns is absurd.Â* The prohibition against a felon having a gun applies
only to
those convicted.Â* You can't bust a guy who has no felony convictions,
and charge him with being a felon in possession of a gun, because he
wasn't convicted.Â* It boggles the mind the circular reasoning.


ABC says this
Â* Fernandez was sentenced to 486 days in jail for an unspecified felony
conviction in February 2017, but was released in August 2017,
according to jail records.

He has been released on bail this time and is due in court on July 9.

So he is a convicted felon but I am not sure what state law is to
disqualify him from gun ownership.Â* I know that violent felons and drug
distributed lose this right but not sure of white collar criminals like
fraudsters.

And you righties don't think the cops understand what the law says?

On 6/20/2018 1:37 PM, Frank wrote:

The first sentence says this:

"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was
storing an arsenal."

Did they check first that he was a felon?Â* If so why did they just not
say he was booked as a felon in possession instead of being suspect.


There's that pesky little thing about being innocent until proven
guilty,
probably.Â* Your idea that he was booked because he wasn't a felon, but
that they are trying to charge him with being a felon because he had
guns is absurd.Â* The prohibition against a felon having a gun applies
only to
those convicted.Â* You can't bust a guy who has no felony convictions,
and charge him with being a felon in possession of a gun, because he
wasn't convicted.Â* It boggles the mind the circular reasoning.


ABC says this
Â* Fernandez was sentenced to 486 days in jail for an unspecified felony
conviction in February 2017, but was released in August 2017,
according to jail records.

He has been released on bail this time and is due in court on July 9.

So he is a convicted felon but I am not sure what state law is to
disqualify him from gun ownership.Â* I know that violent felons and drug
distributed lose this right but not sure of white collar criminals like
fraudsters.

There are ways
https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures.../17/id/607940/

4. Certain "white collar" crimes that result in a felony conviction
don't prohibit those felons from owning guns. For example, felony
convictions related to antitrust laws, restraint of trade, or unfair
trade practices do not carry the same prohibition on gun ownership even
if the conviction results in imprisonment for more than a year.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 13:37:26 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:29:46 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 6/19/2018 2:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:25:10 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns. That
makes no sense. I know guys like that with one guy renting a vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one place
but these are not felonies.

The report is the guy is a "convicted felon". He can't even have a few
grains of gun powder, much less, 550 guns.

Point being, gun laws are not for criminals. Only for the massive
groups of ordinary decent law abiding citizens.

The way I read it was from this:

"Fernandez was booked on suspicion of being a felon in possession of
firearms and ammunition and illegally possessing an assault rifle and
large-capacity magazines."

The first sentence says this:

"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon was
storing an arsenal."

Did they check first that he was a felon? If so why did they just not
say he was booked as a felon in possession instead of being suspect.


There's that pesky little thing about being innocent until proven guilty,
probably. Your idea that he was booked because he wasn't a felon, but
that they are trying to charge him with being a felon because he had guns is absurd. The prohibition against a felon having a gun applies only to
those convicted. You can't bust a guy who has no felony convictions,
and charge him with being a felon in possession of a gun, because he wasn't convicted. It boggles the mind the circular reasoning.


ABC says this
Fernandez was sentenced to 486 days in jail for an unspecified felony
conviction in February 2017, but was released in August 2017,
according to jail records.

He has been released on bail this time and is due in court on July 9.

So he is a convicted felon but I am not sure what state law is to
disqualify him from gun ownership. I know that violent felons and drug
distributed lose this right but not sure of white collar criminals like
fraudsters.

There are a few felony charges that do not come with the restriction
on firearms posession but fraud is not one of them.
Something tells me Fernandez was not charged with an anti trust
violation and he did spend more than a year in jail.
This is federal law, not state law. (GCA68)

On 6/21/2018 1:43 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 13:37:26 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:29:46 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 8:04:37 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 6/19/2018 2:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 12:25:10 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 6/19/2018 11:29 AM, Oren wrote:
"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon
was storing an arsenal."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/19/more-than-500-guns-seized-from-southern-california-homes.html

Say it ain't so.

It would appear he is a suspected felon because of all the guns. That
makes no sense. I know guys like that with one guy renting a vault for
storage of his large collection.

There are laws about storing too much gun powder or primers in one place
but these are not felonies.

The report is the guy is a "convicted felon". He can't even have a few
grains of gun powder, much less, 550 guns.

Point being, gun laws are not for criminals. Only for the massive
groups of ordinary decent law abiding citizens.

The way I read it was from this:

"Fernandez was booked on suspicion of being a felon in possession of
firearms and ammunition and illegally possessing an assault rifle and
large-capacity magazines."

The first sentence says this:

"Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California
homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon was
storing an arsenal."

Did they check first that he was a felon? If so why did they just not
say he was booked as a felon in possession instead of being suspect.


There's that pesky little thing about being innocent until proven guilty,
probably. Your idea that he was booked because he wasn't a felon, but
that they are trying to charge him with being a felon because he had guns is absurd. The prohibition against a felon having a gun applies only to
those convicted. You can't bust a guy who has no felony convictions,
and charge him with being a felon in possession of a gun, because he wasn't convicted. It boggles the mind the circular reasoning.


ABC says this
Fernandez was sentenced to 486 days in jail for an unspecified felony
conviction in February 2017, but was released in August 2017,
according to jail records.

He has been released on bail this time and is due in court on July 9.

So he is a convicted felon but I am not sure what state law is to
disqualify him from gun ownership. I know that violent felons and drug
distributed lose this right but not sure of white collar criminals like
fraudsters.

There are a few felony charges that do not come with the restriction
on firearms posession but fraud is not one of them.
Something tells me Fernandez was not charged with an anti trust
violation and he did spend more than a year in jail.
This is federal law, not state law. (GCA68)

Sounds like a work in progress. Be interesting to see final result.