Is this an example of a reasonable restriction on gun ownership?

[Duckhunter935]

Last edited Sat Feb 21, 2015, 07:25 PM - Edit history (1)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In the capital city of the Land of the Free, a businessman and his family were subjected to a violent paramilitary raid for suspicion of exercising one of the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Nearly 3 dozen armed SWAT agents held the family at gunpoint and even used a battering ram to rip a naked child out of the shower. The incredible use of force was initiated because of D.C.’s infamous gun control laws. Even more shocking is the fact that the homeowner could still be put in federal prison, despite the fact that not a single firearm was found in his home.

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/mark-witaschek-ammunition-charge/

So lets here from the pro-controller side if they think the possession of empty rounds is a reasonable gun control measure? I do not think it is.

[onecaliberal]

1. Of course not. WTF

[Electric Monk]

2. That does seem rather heavy handed, but the guy had a history, and he knew the laws

and the judge found him guilty as well

He kept his guns at his sisters in Arlington, VA, so why not keep it all there? Sounds like he was hoping for just such a case so he could argue it in court, and now he has. Congrats, he's now a martyr for the gunthusiast cause. Mission accomplished. LOL.

[Duckhunter935]

3. so would you

agree to change the law since it appears to be unreasonable? I am just trying to see if anyone on the pro-control side will give any ground or is it just a one the RKBA side that must compromise?

Can you post this in your group to see what that group thinks, they do not want to seem to debate over here.

[GGJohn]

7. What would be the purpose of posting it in the other group?

Most there would say he deserved it because he's a "gun nut" or "humper" or "gun lover". etc.
and, anyone who would have the balls to say that this is way over the top would be blocked.

[Duckhunter935]

8. I am just curious to see

if the host will indeed post a question that is directly in line with his SOP for comment. I truly do not believe he will as the insults and snarky responses will show how out of touch they are.

[GGJohn]

9. It would be interesting to see if he does and the replies to the thread.

But, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it.

[Electric Monk]

10. I'm trying to find an article from a more reputable source than the Moonie Times or FAUX

It seems this all began with him threatening his estranged wife with a gun. I don't think your article mentioned that?

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/12/how-a-man-accused-of-threatening-his-wife-with/198027

Witaschek's legal problems began in the summer of 2012. Following alarming allegations that Witaschek threatened his "estranged wife" with a gun, police visited his home on two occasions. During both visits, police found unregistered ammunition in Witaschek's home. In Washington, D.C., only individuals who have registered firearms may possess ammunition. Witaschek was charged with violating Washington's gun laws. The charge from the first police visit was thrown out because even though Witaschek consented to a search, the visit was conducted without a warrant. Witaschek was offered a plea deal that included no jail time and a $500 fine to resolve the charge from the second police visit, which was performed with a warrant. Witaschek rejected the offer and plans to go to trial on the remaining charge.

It's a stretch to compare the allegations against Witaschek to Gregory's display of an ammunition magazine for educational purposes, yet conservative media have lauded Witaschek, crying unfair persecution. In some cases conservative media have even distorted the circumstances of Witaschek's case to present him as a more sympathetic figure.

(snip)

Members of conservative media involved in the gun issue have often championed dubious figures to promote their view of gun rights and attack stronger gun laws. In recent weeks NRA News has honored a man facing charges he raped a minor, and two men involved in less-than-clear-cut cases of self-defense, including a shooter who police want charged with a felony and the case of a man whose murder conviction for shooting his tenant under disputed circumstances was recently overturned. In March 2013, NRA News host Cam Edwards called for illegal gun possession charges to be dropped against a New York linen mogel who was arrested after using a gun to scare off a would-be burglar. The man was arrested because he was on trial for felony domestic abuse and was thus prohibited by law from owning a gun.

[Duckhunter935]

13. so lets see

no gun found at the residence during both searches that seemed to involve heavily armed SWAT members.

Is that a true statement? yes or no

It seems this is what he possessed and was charged with.
The evidence presented against Witaschek included a 12-gauge shell that failed to fire while Witaschek was hunting years ago, a spent .270 Winchester shell casing, and a box of .45 caliber Knight muzzleloader bullets with plastic sabots. The muzzleloader bullets were for use in only antique or replica firearms.




so you think bullets and empty shell casings are ammo and should cause him to be arrested and SWAT to storm his residence?

Lets here what your group has to say.

[Duckhunter935]

17. another question

since you and media matters brought it up.

was he charged or found guilty of those initial allegations of threatening his wive?

Seems not or that would have been stated. I do not mind that as a source as it still points out the stupidity of charging a man for having bullets, remember these are not a cartridge with a case, powder or primer, empty cartridge cases with no bullets and a dud shotgun shell with not primer. The only way to use them is to throw them at someone.

I really would like to hear what your group thinks about this law. Do they think it is reasonable gun control or not. Seems you do not want to know.

[Duckhunter935]

19. thanks for posting over in your group

I see you seem to think this is a fine and reasonable control measure and start off by insulting us over here, very nice of you.

Want a laugh? Some gungeoneers are trying to tell me FAUX and the Moonie Times are more reliable

link to those posts please, I have only seen one question your source and it is not me. I see you have not come up with another source rebutting the stupid law of having empty rounds and bullets for a black powder rifle is crazy, not to mention he did not have a gun.

So far two responses, one a blanket insult and one has been hidden. Lets see you call those out as being not appropriate but I know you will not. This is the kind of discussion of the topic I expected from your group.

Most of those gungeoneers think randy Weaver - who ran guns to racists in Ayrian Nation - is a hero
When it comes to that kind of stuff, they'll side with gun lovers, even folks like Zman and weaver, every time.. Just read some of the junk they post.

you were expecting turd maggots to have IQs
above room temperature

Notice, not one word about the law, just insults to us, including you. Lets here you call out this and say it is not acceptable.

And one last thing, how do these responses meet your own SOP?

Statement of Purpose
Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

Lets see some more blocking for SOP violations, I bet I will not though. Seems you are VERY selective in your enforcement of that, do you not agree?

[pablo_marmol]

53. What a liar, coward and scum this guy is. NT

[Duckhunter935]

54. I would not call him scum

[GGJohn]

58. I wouldn't either,

but I do agree with the other 2 descriptions.

[Duckhunter935]

59. lets see if EM ever does this

bet not

[GGJohn]

23. Hmmmm.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628246

Want a laugh? Some gungeoneers are trying to tell me FAUX and the Moonie Times are more reliable than mediamatters.org

Care to link to a post where anyone here is trying that?
Or are you going to leave the obvious lie as it is in your group?

[Duckhunter935]

46. He can not nt

[Duckhunter935]

42. Please answer how these posts meet you group SOP

I just am curious since you seem to so strictly enforce it. I bet you will not respond to this question though.

Most of those gungeoneers think randy Weaver - who ran guns to racists in Ayrian Nation - is a hero
When it comes to that kind of stuff, they'll side with gun lovers, even folks like Zman and weaver, every time.. Just read some of the junk they post.

you were expecting turd maggots to have IQs
above room temperature

Notice, not one word about the law, just insults to us, including you. Lets here you call out this and say it is not acceptable.

And one last thing, how do these responses meet your own SOP?

Statement of Purpose
Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

Lets see some more blocking for SOP violations, I bet I will not though. Seems you are VERY selective in your enforcement of that, do you not agree?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628246

[Electric Monk]

43. Mocking gun "culture" easily falls within the Group SOP. Not that it's any of your business.

It's not your group, it's not for you, and your opinion about it carries no weight.

[Duckhunter935]

45. It is my business to point out hypocrisy and insults

You just posted another insult aimed at me, how very nice of you.

Statement of Purpose
Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

"Mocking gun "culture" easily falls within the Group SOP."

It might be in your small print but "mocking" or more accurately insulting firearms owners is nowhere even close to being allowed in that SOP, you might want to put in for a change.

This truly just shows how biased you are at enforcing your group SOP and allowing insults. That does not work so well over here where you can and WILL be called out on it.

[Electric Monk]

49. Reading comprehension issues again. I'll put it in bold for you, maybe that'll help.

Statement of Purpose
Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

Mocking your "gun culture" is a-ok with GCRA.

[Duckhunter935]

50. you do know that changing and mocking

have two different definitions, right?

and what you and the others are doing is not mocking, it is pure and simple insulting, and it is condoned by you as a group host.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. Are we allowed to mock grabbers for protecting stalkers and rapists?

[Duckhunter935]

56. I doubt he will be back

usually when they are caught red handed and have links to the hypocritical behavior, they tend to run away. See how when I pointed out how words have meanings and definitions, EM could not respond and ran away.

The selective enforcement of that groups SOP is really something to behold and the twisting he must do to try and justify it is amazing.

[DonP]

67. Don't bother: 3 active posters and the "activism" title is a punchline to a bad joke

No point in even bothering about that nest of "true believers" and political and legislative losers.

seriously, what other group gets a sad on and all depressed when they hear the FBI reported that gun crime continued to drop for the first half of 2014?

Gun Control "Activism" on DU = Insulting those you don't agree with,when you can get away with it, using words and descriptions that would get you an instant pizza from Skinner if they referred to any other group. (Of course they have to come here to do it or it will never be seen, since their traffic if a bit "light" shall we say?)

Oh, that and alerting on any real or mostly imagined violation whenever you think you can get away with it, to get a post hidden. It doesn't involve any activity in the real world because "Bigot Bloomberg" is picking up your tab, so you can freeload and pretend to be involved in fighting those evil guns as much as you want online, all from the comfort of your mom's basement or the public access computer at the library.

In two weeks we'll have another I-GOLD, (Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day) 10,000 plus Illinois State gun owner/voters in the capital to meet with our legislators and tell them face to face in their capital offices what we want changed in our current concealed carry laws and about several other issues we want to see addressed.

Also a chance to stop by and thank the legislators that support us, like Brandon Phelps and his "Downstate Dems". I think there's a "thank you" fund raising dinner for him this year, have to check the schedule to be sure. One of our mouthy "friends" down there referred to him as a DINO that needs to be primaried to put a "real dem" in his place. Of course no contribution checks will ever see the light of day and it's perfectly OK to bad mouth a dem if you don't like his gun politics, never mind what else he/she gets done.

The following week there is usually a gun control protest. They average about 30 to 40 people on a bus, paid for by a gun control group like Everytown/MAIG/MDA/Brady/Flavor of the week. Since there are several rabid gun control folks from Illinois on DU, how many of them are likely to go to Springfield on their own dime and meet with legislators?

[Duckhunter935]

69. "since their traffic if a bit "light" shall we say?"

yes, I called it slow (meaning posting) and got a hide. I guess it is possible for a misunderstanding but I would have at least asked for clarification. They get a sad on and alert.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. "The selective enforcement of that groups SOP..."

A microcosm for the society that would be imposed by the control-obsessed.

[Duckhunter935]

64. I am sure he would be screaming the loudest

That is some serious twisting of words to try and justify those insults to us.

[GGJohn]

57. Care to answer the question pending?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628246

Want a laugh? Some gungeoneers are trying to tell me FAUX and the Moonie Times are more reliable than mediamatters.org

Once again, link to one post that's trying that, otherwise, I think it would be safe to say that you're less than honest.

[Duckhunter935]

60. I would like to see that also

bet he stops posting in this thread though. He has been thoroughly discredited once again and is probably in his "safe haven" licking his wounds and posting insults again.

I really do not like the hypocrisy.

[Electric Monk]

70. Lets start with the OP and reply #12. All your pro-Witaschek sites lead back to Miller at the WT.

The big difference between us is I don't obsess about guns all the time. Most of my time is spent doing other non-gun-related things.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=witaschek

Moonie Times
FreedomOutpost
FoxNews
TheBlaze

Rightwing Rags All. Those are your "friends" in this discussion. I'll take MediaMatters over those any day of the week.

In other words, by making a big deal of this you've blown your "cover", if anyone had ever believed you in the first place.

[beevul]

71. And what about Witaschek?

Are "allegations" which don't bear out in court, sufficient in your view, to demonize a person, in support of a conviction?

Is the crime he was convicted of, in your view, "reasonable" gun control?

Would you support such a law at the federal level?


I think most of us already know the answers to those questions, but doubt highly that you'll have the courage to answer them yourself.

[Electric Monk]

72. Assume all you want. I know who your bedfellows are. nt

[beevul]

73. For a gun control supporter, you sure are shy about sharing your views...

For a gun control supporter, you sure are shy about sharing your views when it comes to specifics.

I know who your bedfellows are.

My "bedfellows", are the bill of rights.

Yours, are Bloomberg, his astroturf groups, and by extension, rudy guilanni.

Let that sink in.

[Duckhunter935]

78. yep, hard to find out what they think reasonable is

[beevul]

75. Oh, and "Assume"?

Seeing as you've been given several requests to state your position on all of this, "assume" really doesn't apply.

It is logical to conclude that you've chosen not to state your position on this particular topic, because its embarrassing.

Because it doesn't qualify as "reasonable" the way that word is used when you lot try to convince any and all you can, that "a majority of Americans support reasonable gun control".

Because a majority of Americans would most certainly not agree that jail time for someone with a clean record, for possession spent/inert ammunition, after swat raid based on the say so of someone who almost certainly has an axe to grind, is in any way shape size or form "reasonable".


Its you, whos cover has been blown. You'd have been better off lying to us telling us all you viewed it as unreasonable.

After all, its not like doing so would get You blocked from bansalot, like it would the rest of us.

[Electric Monk]

80. I would not push to enact legislation to ban spent ammunition.I have other priorities. Clear enough?

nt

[Duckhunter935]

82. so you think it is not reasonable gun control legislation?

be careful, one of your pro-control people might see that.

[blueridge3210]

83. Priorities.

You seem to have an odd way of addressing those priorities.

Let's look at the stated purpose of the group you host: "how to enact progressive gun control reform".

Yet, it the thread purportedly to discuss the issue of the use of sound suppressors, when someone posted a neutral comment regarding the actual functionality of these devices he was castigated, called names and summarily dismissed. This approach makes the people who post in this group resemble a bunch of old guys holding rakes yelling "hey kids, GET OFF MY LAWN". If you want to actually accomplish something you've got to appear to be open to facts and willing to listen.

[beevul]

84. But would you oppose it?

Let me guess..."Other priorities".

You can't not oppose such things, and claim to be "reasonable" where gun control is concerned.

You may claim you've hitched your wagon to "reasonable" gun control, but not standing up against extremist nonsense really just isn't a slam dunk in making your case. In fact, looking for a reason to poo poo the fella in question, leaning on unproven allegations, basically ignoring that due process exists...

That speaks for itself in a language that's clear to all.

[Electric Monk]

87. Why do I have to? You, Emily Miller, and Tucker Carlson have got that covered nicely.

I don't think I've ever agreed with Tucker Carlson on anything, so why should I start now?

[Duckhunter935]

88. still do not have the fortitude to just say yes or no

have to be all coy and try and fudge a response

Do you think that law is reasonable, YES or NO?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. So if the wrong people agree to a thing then justice be damned.

Remind me again how the grabber theology is only based on general love of all humanity as opposed to crass totalitarian control mongering.

[beevul]

92. Because you and the group you host have laid claim to being "reasonable"...

Because you and the group you host have laid claim to being "reasonable", and to only wanting "common sense" gun control.

Asking "why should I show it", again, really just isn't making the case for you, that any of the things laid claim to are anything more than false claims.

In other words, the claims you lot make are really meaningless, when you have "other prioritites" than backing them up.

In short, put your money where your mouth is.

[Electric Monk]

93. I didn't write the law, I've never endorsed it, yet you want to hold me accountable for it?

I hadn't even *heard* of it until I read this OP. I know DC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and if guns are that darn important to you that you just can't live without gun paraphernalia in your house, and filing some paperwork is just too onerous, maybe you should live somewhere else.

I don't see this particular law as likely to catch on on a bigger scale outside of DC. Do you?

[Duckhunter935]

94. why don't you just answer the simple question that has been posed to you?

I can not believe how you twist and turn to not do it.

DO YOU THINK THE LAW IS REASONABLE OR NOT?
YES or NO

Lets just have an answer and this pain will end for you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

95. I think you already came up with the answer: "(O)ne of your pro-control people might see that"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172161250#post82

Theirs is not a tolerant faith. They can and will work against pro-gun Democrats, even when
the alternative is a Republican.

Publicly expressing doubt about a gun control law, no matter how unreasonable or ineffectual
you personally believe it to be, will get you marked down as a backslider.

Think of it as The Gun Controller's Eleventh Commandment, a variant of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eleventh_Commandment_%28Ronald_Reagan%29

"Thou shalt not speak ill of any gun control law"

[Duckhunter935]

96. And we are the ones living in fear

[beevul]

97. "I didn't...I never..." Oh, this is just rich.

I didn't write the law, I've never endorsed it, yet you want to hold me accountable for it?

Lets examine what you DID do:

Rather than look at the law first with the intention of determining whether it was "reasonable" or "common sense", you skipped right over doing that. Your interest instead gravitated toward searching for a way to try and discredit the fella in question.

Is that the behavior of someone interested in whether a law is "reasonable" or common sense"?

I think not.

"I know DC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, and if guns are that darn important to you that you just can't live without gun paraphernalia in your house, and filing some paperwork is just too onerous, maybe you should live somewhere else."

Yet, if you lot talk about gun control abroad and how swell it is, and we tell you that "if you like it so much, go live there", that's a violation of all that's holy and we're the bad guys, right?

Yet another example of a double standard which you lot can't seem to live without.

I don't see this particular law as likely to catch on on a bigger scale outside of DC. Do you?

I don't see this law as being reasonable, common sense, or just, in ANY locale that falls under the jurisdiction of the bill of rights.

And now the million dollar question:

Do You ?

See, if the answer is yes, you sir, are an extremist, and have no business cloaking yourself or your movement in terms such as "reasonable" or "common sense".

Its really just that simple.

[Duckhunter935]

98. very well stated sir

[Duckhunter935]

90. yes it does indeed

EM is caught in his own web. He can not say that this law is unreasonable and must try and shift the conversation to unproven allegations that were never charged. He allows the insulting of DU members in his group and has done so himself here and in his group against the SOP of that group. He then tries to change the definition of words to try and justify those insults he condones. I have asked him several times to just answer that simple question and he refuses and changes the subject. It is amazing the twisting he has to do so he never has to state that a control; measure is unreasonable. I guess he thinks any and all measures no matter how stupid, excessive are reasonable and we must be the unreasonable ones to point them out.

[Marengo]

85. It's only your focus on "other priorities" which prevent you from advocating such a ban?

Not that you think it's unreasonable?

[GGJohn]

74. Blown my cover?

You still haven't linked to one post so, at this point, I think we can all say that you've been less than honest.

[GGJohn]

76. Why don't you tell us what my cover is?

Seeing as you seem to be some kind of internet psychic.

[Duckhunter935]

77. Lets start with the OP

why do you not answer my question in it?
Let me make it bold so you can see it.

Do you think that arresting and putting someone in jail over black power rifle bullets and expended ammunition cartridges both of which can not be fired reasonable gun regulation?

You are the group pushing for "reasonable" regulations and we would like your honest answer. For some reason you refuse to answer that in keeping with the OP. If I were like you, I would chastise you for trying to derail the discussion (you have done that many times to me), but I do not care as it just shows how you really think.

And one last thing, I do not care if you use mediamatters, they still say the same thing as the story I posted, the more versions the more complete picture. Your link to mediamatters did not debunk one thing in the article I posted from, did it?

[Electric Monk]

79. He also had a box of live rifle ammo. Why do you keep omitting that part?

He knew the law and he pushed his luck. I think I might have half a bag of .177 air rifle pellets in one of my junk drawers. If I lived in DC I'd search for them to throw them out. I'm glad I don't live in DC.

[Duckhunter935]

81. So once again you failed to answer the question

He also had a box of live rifle ammo. Why do you keep omitting that part?

Because that is not what he was charged and found guilty on. That was thrown out and is irreverent to the case.

I will ask the question one more time, will you please answer it?

Is the possession of empty rounds is a reasonable gun control measure?

[Marengo]

86. Why are you glad you don't live in DC?

[Duckhunter935]

89. DC is a great place from what I saw there

love the history and museums. Just very expensive from what I here.

[Duckhunter935]

62. Several questions to you that you did not respond to

I would like to hear your take and and have a discussion on those please.

[GGJohn]

6. Rather heavy handed?

Did this guy have a history of violence? Has he been in a standoff with police before? If not, then why the SWAT team for a simple warrant? And why the warrant in the first place?

If this had been about anything else other than guns, most here would be condemning the police and court for the raid and conviction.

[Electric Monk]

11. It seems this all began when he threatened his estranged wife with a gun. See my post above. nt

[GGJohn]

12. You're using mediamatters as your source?

I believe them about as much as I believe Faux Snooze, IOW, not at all.
How about a more reliable source?

[gejohnston]

14. Ever been though and ugly divorce

or know anyone who has? False accusations of violence and molesting the kids are not unknown.
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume2/j2_3_1.htm
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN/JNJournal01.nsf/Author/5C86112E6438F2FD85256C62006FDDCF

Innocent until proven guilty and all of that. Also, Media Matters is as full of shit as anything on the right and they don't provide evidence of their claims.

If the tactics were, say, because the wife accused him of being a drug dealer and they found a pipe with a little residue, would you still be OK with that? Didn't think so. Supporting rule of law and the rights of only people you like or a law you disagree with but not for those you don't like or for a law you agree with is not a liberal value. It is a value of a double standard supporting ideologue, but not a liberal.

[kcci]

29. Allegedly.

Apparently you think kids should be accosted in their home by police from hearsay.

[GGJohn]

4. Makes me glad that I live in a state that respects my 2A rights. eom.

[virginia mountainman]

5. And a little more respect for the "rule" of law goes away...NT

[Jenoch]

15. The raids happened in 2012.

Are these laws in D.C. still on the books?

[NYC_SKP]

16. "Gun Offender Registry"

As ordered by the judge, Mark Witaschek showed up to the police department to join the district’s “Gun Offenders Registry.”

“They label it ‘gun-offender registry’ to sound like a sex-offender registry,” Mr. Witaschek noted to the Washington Times.

Witaschek was forced to give a mugshot and provide all sorts of personal details to the police. Such is the penalty for exercising even small amounts of freedom.

“I was found guilty of something that is not even illegal and forced to register for something that is not illegal,” Witaschek told Emily Miller, shaking his head. He plans to appeal the decision.

Crazy police state shit right there.

[Duckhunter935]

18. yep, it is

It is interesting the one pro-controller that will post here can not call this out as being unreasonable. They always say we are not the reasonable ones, lol

[benEzra]

20. More "reasonable gun control" here:

300 year old antique pistol could send elderly man to prison

A 72 year old man was pulled over in a minor violation traffic stop and was asked by the officer if there was anything in the car he should know about. The man was honest and said he had a 300 year old flint lock pistol in his glove compartment. It was unloaded. But it wasn’t supposed to be there under New Jersey law, which differs from federal law. New Jersey law includes such antiques in its gun laws, and the man didn’t have the proper paperwork for it on top of everything else.

In more detail:

Longtime Millville educator fights charges over antique gun

Gordon N. Van Gilder, who taught at the high school for 34 years, is facing a felony conviction and a decade behind bars after a November arrest by the Cumberland County Sheriff's Department in which officers found an unloaded antique gun inside a vehicle Van Gilder sat in, according to Eatontown attorney Evan Nappen.

If convicted of the second-degree unlawful possession of a handgun charge, Van Gilder could serve a maximum of 10 years in prison, which could mean life for the 72-year-old, Nappen said.

The pistol in question was a "Queen Anne" flintlock, and was not loaded. He is looking at a minimum sentence of 3 1/2 years and a maximum of 10 years, for a retired New Jersey schoolteacher with no priors. But of course he is an "ammosexual gun humper", so he isn't human and had it coming, etc.

Fortunately, he has retained a good lawyer (the same lawyer who represented Shaneen Allen, the African-American single mother who got tangled up in "reasonable gun control" a year or two ago) so he may end up just losing his life savings instead of spending the rest of his life in a NJ prison.

[Duckhunter935]

22. That is crazy

I wonder how many stories like this will show up.

I am sure that EM and some others on the pro-control side will be by here any time now to say how unreasonable some of these laws are and need to be looked at.

[Duckhunter935]

21. "It's not like we owe them anything but scorn."

quote from the host of the other gun group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628246

Kind of shows the level of dialog over there.

[ileus]

24. This is the way the controllers want all firearm owners treated....

to them the stormtroopers were overly nice. They like a police state when it's following their fear driven agenda.

[GGJohn]

25. Yup.

If this had been about ANYTHING else besides firearms, this raid and subsequent conviction would have been roundly condemned, but because it is about firearms, the controllers are having a party and dancing with glee.

[Duckhunter935]

47. That is very true

all cops are bad unless it involves a raid for a possible gun related incident. Then there is no limit and the more militaristic, the better.

[jimmy the one]

26. sniff, innocent little lamb convicted

duckhunter: So lets here from the pro-controller side if they think the possession of empty rounds is a reasonable gun control measure? I do not think it is

Um, this was found after witaschek agreed to the first search: ..the initial police raid performed without a search warrant. Judge threw out the evidence that was obtained warrantlessly, which eliminated a box of rifle ammo from the charges

Still think you're supporting an innocent little lamb?
Oh, you didn't date your OP, I'm just now realizing it's a year old:

UPDATE (3/26/2014) — Judge finds Witaschek Guilty .. Mark Witaschek was found guilty of “attempted possession of unlawful ammunition.” Although most of the focus in the trial had been on the shotgun shell, the judge never ruled on it. Witashek’s guilt was found because of those antique replica muzzleloader bullets – conical shaped pieces of lead and copper, without primer or propellant. http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/mark-witaschek-ammunition-charge/

Mark Witaschek will now live the rest of his life as a convicted “gun offender.” His sentence was for time in jail already served, along with a fine.
I run the risk of losing my job, my occupation, as a result of this conviction,” Witaschek said.

Awww, yet did witaschek say anything about gun threats he alleged made to his estranged wife? (neither did the article unless I missed it), and what did he ever do with the box of rifle ammo seized in the first search? where it go?

[GGJohn]

28. Alleged threats.

Did he actually make those threats? Did his ex press charges? Was he ever charged? Did he ever go to court for these charges? Was he ever convicted?
Hmmm, no he wasn't. Notice you left that part out.

[Duckhunter935]

30. I am not surprised he did

Leave that part out.

[GGJohn]

31. Jimmy the one isn't exactly truthful here in his dealings,

something he constantly accuses others of.

[blueridge3210]

32. Given the other group's response to the factual information

presented regarding silencers/suppressors this comes as no surprise. They appear to be seriously "factose intolerant".

[GGJohn]

33. Particularly one person there. eom.

[jimmy the one]

34. larry moe & curly joe

GGJohn: Alleged threats. Did he actually make those threats? Did his ex press charges? Was he ever charged? Did he ever go to court for these charges? Was he ever convicted?
Hmmm, no he wasn't. Notice you left that part out.
Duckhunter935 I am not surprised he did Leave that part out.
blueridge3210 Given the other group's response to the factual information presented regarding silencers/suppressors this comes as no surprise. They appear to be seriously "factose intolerant".

Uh, do any of you 3 stooges understand what 'alleged' means? GGJohn even quoted me as saying it in my post, then the other two knuckleheads didn't even see it.
My only error was using 'alleged' in the wrong tense - I first wrote 'alleged gun threats' then altered it.

al·leged Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed: an alleged conspiracy; an alleged traitor; an alleged victim of a crime.

what I wrote, yet 3 stooges attacked anyway: Awww, yet did witaschek say anything about gun threats he alleged made to his estranged wife?

So what I originally wrote suffices to slam your inane criticism down your throats, since 'alleged' notes the uncertainty as to whether he actually made those threats.
The police searched his house due the 'alleged' threats he made to his estranged wife. I don't have to prove the charges were true if I use the word 'alleged'. GGJohn, in his rabid desire for a putdown, thinks I'm supposed to go into detail about witascheks gun-threats. He says I 'left it out' & the other bozos backed him up.
Duh, larry moe & curly joe, why didn't any of you remark about the box of rifle ammo found in the first search? Did you leave that out??? You're so upset that your entire arguments have gone down in flames, what you get for backing up fox & Washington times reporting.

Duh, change the OP title to 'The Three Stooges Stick Three Foots in their Mouths'.

[GGJohn]

35. Insults, insults, and more insults.

That's all you have. You are good for entertainment. LOL.

[blueridge3210]

36. Duh...

"slam your inane criticism down your throats"

Why such violent rhetoric, Jimmy? Sure hope you don't own a gun with your violent tendencies.

[GGJohn]

37. Wow Jimmy, that was, like, really deep thinking.

[Duckhunter935]

38. Nice insult

And they say we do that type of thing. Factually proven wrong again.

[beevul]

44. "Alleged".

Unsubstantiated.

Its almost as if you have something against due process where allegations are concerned.

IOW, What do allegations that did not stand up in a court of law have to do with anything?

[petronius]

27. Sounds like a wildly abusive and inappropriate use of force. I think we have

real problems in law enforcement these days--with violence, excessive force, militarization, us-vs-them attitude, asset forfeiture--that will require substantial political will to correct.

And the problems are compounded when that excessive force is used in service of irrational and extreme laws like this one...

[oneshooter]

39. But it sounds to me like many who post here are all for it.

As long as it's not their ox that gets gored.

[DonP]

40. A side of hypocrisy please

Some of the same folks that were the loudest voices on Ferguson, seem to think a violent SWAT raid on a family is just fine ... as long as it's a guy they think might own a gun.

I predict this guy is going to wind up with a nice fat check from DC for the trouble.

[beevul]

41. Several servings, in fact.

Lest we forget that it was those same folks that cheered, even to the point of suggesting legs be broken, when a white man tackled a black man lawfully carrying a gun.

[Duckhunter935]

48. many, many servings

they decry the "supposed" insults to them that they can not link to. However they insult firearms owners many times and have been linked to from posts in the "safe haven" group they require. The host even condones it and posted insults here in this thread.

[DustyJoe]

51. DC is crazzzzy

The DC gun nazis would have heart attacks in the west.

You can buy 105mm howitzer brass casings for about $25 in most every
military surplus store.

[Duckhunter935]

52. Yep

that would really drive them crazy. I would not call them that, but I know what you mean.

[GGJohn]

61. I've issued a challenge to him for this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628246

Want a laugh? Some gungeoneers are trying to tell me FAUX and the Moonie Times are more reliable than mediamatters.org

Let's just see if he can actually provide a link or if he slinks off in the night.

[Duckhunter935]

63. he already has

as he could not explain how posting insults to firearms owners here on DU meets his SOP he so scrupulously enforces but it now seems only for one side only. In his response he even posted an insult directed at me and did not care to much when I was able to call him on it. He seems to be proud of condoning those insults in his group. Very sad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172161250#post43

[GGJohn]

65. Did EM honestly think he wouldn't be called out on his bullshit?

Does he think we're that fucking stupid not to recognize an obvious lie?

The problem with EM and his comrades is that they constantly underestimate the pro 2A members here.

I'll be away for awhile, gotta go take care of our livestock and do the farm chores.
Have a great day, be back later.

[Duckhunter935]

66. Take care

[Electric Monk]

99. Either Tom Tomorrow reads DU or this is a really interesting coincidence...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026265646

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. Feh. You're ducking the question, not unlike Scott Walker on evolution

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141012355

Wisconsin Gov. Walker refuses to answer evolution question

...and for much the same reasons: Answer one way and come across as a fool and/or fanatic
to the larger audience, answer the other way and piss off your sides' fundamentalists...

[Duckhunter935]

101. Please, just answer the simple question

Do you think this is a reasonable gun control law?

YES or NO.

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. The *only* extant gun control laws that sort find unreasonable are the ones...

..that aren't restrictive enough.

At least that's what the way it appears- they have their own claque of fundies to appease,
and the prohibitionists seem to be going into a sort of "Cultural Revolution" of their own

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

where they compete to be seen as more restrictionist than the next person.

That would easily explain why the other group is mostly a litany of screeds against
guns and gun owners, nearly devoid of

Discuss(ion of) how to enact progressive gun control reform

It doesn't do at all to be seen as insufficiently zealous among that crowd...

[beevul]

104. Its no wonder none of us trust any of you.

You guys talk a big talk, cloaking yourselves your arguments and your movement, in terminology like "reasonable", "common sense", and "gun safety". You lot call anyone that disagrees with anything you guys propose, "extremist" and "absolutist". You make a big production of saying "nobody is coming to take your guns", while giving aid comfort and support to those with exactly those designs - up to and including those orgs that lie repeatedly to the American people to achieve those goals.

And when confronted with a clearly unreasonable law, you just can't seem to state for the record, that it is unreasonable, and instead put all your energy into character assassination, personal attacks, and diversionary grooming.

That's ALL on you guys, every last bit of it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

102. No one was killed so...

...at least some rabid pro-controllers as not sufficiently "strenuous".
I'll be back. The wife needs to thread a needle and the five pound sledge isn't cutting it. The ten pounder is in the shed.