Indianapolis Gun Shop Robbed

[mikeb302000]

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110727/LOCAL18/107270376/Gun-theft-suspect-faces-13-felony-counts?odyssey=tab">Indystar.com reports

Police last week seized 485 guns and $107,000 in cash from Williams' home.

Investigators also found gun accessories in two storage units Williams used. Prosecutors say he had $200,000 stashed in several bank accounts.

Hilton estimated that Williams took more than $300,000 in guns and gun accessories and $1 million or more in cash.

Should the owner of the gun store be responsible for any of that? Yes, indeed.

How else can we expect gun shop owners to be properly careful about whom they hire? Some of them obviously are not sufficiently motivated by the potential losses, they need to be constrained by law to be more diligent.

It's the same with the home owner who leaves unsecured weapons around the house and then shrugs his shoulders when they're stolen, saying "It wasn't my fault."

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[petronius]

1. Obviously, if you're going to steal from your employers, you should take the time

to learn where the cameras are before you do it. It's just good business sense. :)

I see nothing in the article to suggest that Williams had a criminal record; what additional care should the owners have taken? It sounds as though it was their security that caught him...

[Blown330]

2. Apparently the owner worked with local authorities...

...and has slammed this guy with enough felonies to keep him in prison for a long time. Seems the shop owner will get his property back too.




Unrec for blog spamming too.

[-..__...]

14. Theft from an FFL is a Federal offense.

18 U.S.C. § 922(j). Prohibits the possession, concealment, storage, bartering, selling, or disposing of stolen firearms and ammunition, knowing or having reason to believe the firearm or ammunition is stolen. Punishable by up to 10 years.

18 U.S.C. § 922(u). Prohibits stealing or unlawfully taking away firearms from the business inventory of a Federal firearms licensee. Punishable by up to 5 years.

18 U.S.C. § 922(l). Prohibits stealing a firearm which has moved in commerce. Punishable by up to 10 years.

And that's for each stolen firearm.

The locals should turn the case over to the Feds for prosecution and put the jack ass away for a very long time.

[iverglas]

3. 485 guns

... and accessories ... are not something one walks out with one fine afternoon. This would pretty certainly have taken quite a while to accomplish.

Presumably something -- security video, maybe even inventory control measures -- alerted the owner.

Pretty sketchy account, but it sounds like possibly the owner involved police and there was some surveillance going on. One hopes that this meant that none of the weapons walked out the back door of the thief's home before the bust was made.

This would concern me though:

Three guns were equipped with silencers, and one was a fully automatic Uzi, according to court documents filed Friday.

-- that an employee had full access to items like these, if they did come from that gun dealer.

Giving an employee a key to the premises is one thing (although surely it should involve a rather enhanced background check). But are items like that not secured separately, and should employees have access to them when the licensed dealer is not on premises?

Actually, now that I think about it: should anyone but a licensed dealer have access to the premises where the dealing in firearms goes on, in the absence of the licensed dealer?

I would say not, myself.

[petronius]

4. I agree with you there. Gun shop employees should not be prohibited persons,

i.e. they should pass a NICS background check, and the items that require a license to sell should be under the control of only the licensed dealer(s). I'd think of it like a pharmacy - even though there may be techs working the counter, the keys to the drug locker are in the control of the pharmacist, and every transaction gets her/his direct approval...

[Kennah]

5. $17.3 million in cash ...

... isn't the sort of thing one employee working alone might just load up and drive away with in a van, but that's exactly what happened at Loomis Fargo & Company in 1997.

Criminality stands beside art as a testament to human imagination.

[mikeb302000]

6. you're right

the first two commenters seem to overlook that fact. This took place over a long period of time, hundreds of guns and $1M, are you kidding me. If the owner allowed all that to take place under his nose, he's totally irresponsible and should pay.

[Blown330]

7. Actually...

...the fact that this had been going on over a lengthy period of time was addressed in my first post. You failed to pick up on that obviously.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. While let the truth get in the way of a good screed

[-..__...]

15. Nowhere does the article state...

that all 485 firearms were stolen, or that they were all stolen from the same store.

Actually, the article puts more emphasis on the theft of "gun accessories"... than on theft of firearms.

Some could have been legally purchased (that's one of the downsides of working at a gun store... oftentimes your paycheck goes right back to the store owner).

Some could have been stolen from elsewhere.

Regardless... seems like they have enough evidence to back-up at least 13 of the charges (of which half or more will be plea bargained down).

[iverglas]

16. I did say "pretty sketchy account"

but I also noted that the article said:

Hilton estimated that Williams took more than $300,000 in guns and gun accessories and $1 million or more in cash.

I would be most interested in knowing whether a dealer's licence allows a licensed dealer to leave an ordinary employee in charge of the premises / give an ordinary employee the keys to the premises.

[-..__...]

19. In the theft victims own words...

Our family and employees are deeply saddened by the breaking of a 26 year + trust of friendship by Gary's theft from the store. His actions not only affected his family, Mike and I. It also affected our Daughter's and Grandchildren as well as our employees lively hoods.

Facts:

*

All Guns are accounted for in the Federal Books - no missing guns on paper or fiscal inventory
*

The 500 +/- guns confiscated are firearms purchased by Gary with money stolen from the store over a 5 1/2 year period.
*

Gary admitted to the theft of 7 guns from the store - These were stolen by forging Federal forms (4473) calling them in. Once the sale was posted in the Federal Books by the manager and later in the week double checked by the owner the 4473 forms are filed by the owner. Gary later stole the 4473 from the file attempting to cover his trail - knowing that no one would look at the paperwork until the next ATF check. The missing 4473's even though all info was logged in the Federal Bound Books could cause the store to lose their license if not found during routing annual BATF audit.
*

Over the past 5 1/2 years Gary systematically before opening or after hours stole thousands of dollars of Ammunition and firearms accessories and $$ from the registers and safes. ( as well as the invoices) Along with the firearms Gary purchased with the $$ stolen from us, BATF confiscated well over 1.5 million rounds of ammunition (Thousand rounds per case average) which required three full size pickup trucks.. Based on past history the BATF will destroy the firearms (Our property) as well as the over $70,000 in ammunition.
*

No evidence at this time that Gary was selling anything online. - As of the time of the 1st reported stories the LEO had not an opportunity to go thru his computers.
*

Gary systematically stole approx 1.2 - 1.5 million dollars in goods and dollars over a 5 1/2 year period. Now told that most likely State or Federal Government will keep the cash just as the BATF may well destroy of our property in the form of $70,000 worth of ammunition and the firearms Gary purchased with our money. How is that for an inside job - Not! It is our understanding the Detectives, ATF agents and prosecutors at the scene will attempt to have the courts release the above after the trial which could be up to 2-3 years from now. However the case most likely will go federal and we will be at mercy of the Federal system??!

http://www.indyshootingrange.com/storetheft.htm

Investigators said they believe Williams used money he stole from his employer, Family Indoor Shooting Range, to buy millions of dollars in guns over the course of four years.

"We're not sure what he was going to do with them. He had them labeled and cataloged in almost an inventory situation, but there didn't appear anything else he had done," Deputy Prosecutor Andrea Props said earlier this week.

Mike Hilton, who owns the shooting range where Williams worked, said he believes Williams was trying to open his own operation.

Court documents identified Williams as a former law enforcement officer and a current federal security consultant.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/28683845/detail.html

The FFLC will review the fingerprint cards you submitted for clarity and, as required by law, will then conduct an electronic background check on all the “responsible persons” you have identified on your application. ATF defines a responsible person as a sole proprietor, partner, or anyone having the power to direct the management, policies, and practices of the business as it pertains to firearms. In a corporation this includes corporate officers, shareholders, board members, or any other employee with the legal authority described above.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/become-an-ffl.html

The thief in this case was a friend of 26 years, was a "former law enforcement officer and a current federal security consultant" and the store manager.

I don't know about you, but to me it sounds like he was more than an "ordinary employee".

[iverglas]

52. updates are always useful

You gave a link to "how to become an ffl" ... does this mean that the accused was a licensed firearms dealer?

If not, he was an "ordinary employee", regardless of how it sounds to you.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mikeb302000]

30. you're right, it was probably nothing n/t

[pipoman]

8. Well..

It's the same with the home owner who leaves unsecured weapons around the house and then shrugs his shoulders when they're stolen, saying "It wasn't my fault."

If a homeowner's house is locked, then the weapons were secured.

And unrec for flogging the blog...

[iverglas]

9. if firearms are stolen

then they weren't secured.

In some cases all reasonable efforts were indeed made to secure them, so no blame might attach.

But it's kinda definitional, actually.

And no, leaving firearms lying around loose and unattended in a locked house is not "secured". Not even remotely.

[pipoman]

10. Maybe by Canadian definition of 'secured'

but by most any reasonable person's definition, a locked door would define secured. Any lock can be breached, including vault doors, it becomes an issue of definition. Is my Honda secured when the doors are locked? Is it secured knowing that the ignition key code is clearly stamped into the passenger side door lock cylinder?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Does the Canadian defintion of anything having to do with personal firearms matter?

Their laws on the subject are repressive at best.

[gejohnston]

76. I remember reading about a collecter that got ripped off in

Toronto. His guns were in a vault with an alarm system, but the cops and the Crown charged him for unsafe storage. The screwed up thing was that while the police knew that criminal gangs were collecting intelligence on registered gun owners, but rather being pushing to plug the leak, the mayor at the time's priority was

Mayor David Miller said it's time to rid the city of privately-owned guns.

"That's exactly why I supported Prime Minister Paul Martin's call for a ban on the ownership of guns," Miller told the Star's Christian Cotroneo yesterday during an anti-gun rally.

"Guns are stolen from so-called legal gun owners and used to shoot people on the streets of Toronto and it's not acceptable," Miller said. "We have to put a stop to it. And the only way to do that is to ban the ownership of guns. I say the rights of us to be safe trump the rights of that so-called legal gun collector and that's why I've called for handguns to be banned in Toronto."

My question is, since the registry is operated by the feds, did the RCMP find the leak? If there is a provincial level registry, did the OPP find it? If on a city level, it does not look like it was a priority.

[iverglas]

91. that was such a good try

but just in case it wasn't clear to anyone, the only "guns" in issue were HANDGUNS.

I say the rights of us to be safe trump the rights of that so-called legal gun collector and that's why I've called for handguns to be banned in Toronto.

Miller never proposed, suggested or intimated that he wanted a ban of any other guns. Everybody actually concerned in this matter knew that.

I remember reading about a collecter that got ripped off in Toronto. His guns were in a vault with an alarm system ...

You could have read about it right here, because I posted quite a lot of information about it way back when. If we're talking about the same one.

The one whose guns were in a vault in a vacant apartment in a high-rise building in a subsidized housing development ... while the so-called tenant was in Florida?

Or if it was another of the "collectors" whose caches were stolen around the same time ... was the alarm system faulty or something? Maybe you can find the details.

The screwed up thing was that while the police knew that criminal gangs were collecting intelligence on registered gun owners, but rather being pushing to plug the leak ...

Was a leak established? The "collector" I'm thinking of wasn't exactly shtum about his collection, I think. And was obviously a bit of a criminal. Obtaining the tenancy of a subsidized housing unit in order to store one's gun "collection" while one is living in Florida is a bit of what we generally call fraud.

[gejohnston]

118. A police spokesman said

criminal gangs were gathering intelligence.
My point about Miller is not about banning guns per se, it was more about attacking people who committed not crime, potential victims in fact, rather doing something useful. I fail to see how that would make a safer society. Did not work so well in UK or Jamaica did it? That was my point. His priorities were misplaced.

Same guy. The part I found interesting was that he had machine guns, legally, that were not grandfathered. He was a firearms instructor for the police and private security firms.

Did the Crown charge him with fraud?

[iverglas]

123. yes ... ?

A police spokesman said
criminal gangs were gathering intelligence.

Where? You seem to be implying that they were gathering it from the firearms registry.

?

My point about Miller is not about banning guns per se, it was more about attacking people who committed not crime, potential victims in fact, rather doing something useful.

First, they were doing NOTHING useful. Wtf are you talking about? Do you know anything about the laws governing handgun acquisition and possession in Canada? Are you seriously suggesting that sports shooting is "useful"?

"Attacking"? How dare he attack people who allowed dozens and dozens of really fancy firearms to get into the hands of criminals who used them to KILL people?

You've been doing your reading. You know who Jane Creba is.

But of course the point is that he wasn't ATTACKING anyone. He was proposing that there be no legal private possession of handguns.


Same guy. The part I found interesting was that he had machine guns, legally, that were not grandfathered. He was a firearms instructor for the police and private security firms.

Yup. Passed all those background checks, to be a collector of restricted and even prohibited weapons, it seems.

Did the Crown charge him with fraud?

Last I looked he was happy staying in Florida, but I haven't kept track ...

I suppose you're saying that if he wasn't charged with fraud, how could he have committed fraud?

Did OJ do it?

Does someone who gets a subsidized housing unit (leaving many people on a waiting list who actually need housing), i.e. housing for low-income people who can't afford market rent and have to pass a means test, when he has a gun collection worth many thousands of dollars and owns a home in Florida commit fraud?

[gejohnston]

131. Every thing I know is

what I read in the Star article. As for someone illegally getting information from the registry, the possibility has occurred to me. I doubt it. I'm sure it occurred to the police too. Of course if such a scandal were to come to light, I doubt it would be good news for the 1995 law's supporters. Since it was concentrated mostly in Toronto area, my guess is they cased shooting ranges and gun shows and followed the owners.

Sorry, the mayor was engaging in theater. Nothing more. The issue is how useful you think sports shooting is, the issue is actually doing something besides scapegoating people who committed no crime, who are following the law to the best of their ability including complying with safe storage laws to the best of their ability. In my view, he was scapegoating law abiding Canadians simply for political theater. I don't give a shit what his party label is. If I were an informed independent voter someplace there, I would be thinking (the same thing I am thinking now) "Harper is an asshole and a tool for the plutocrats, but Miller is fucking lunatic."

No, I was just curious. I'm not a lawyer in either country, or any country for that matter.
OJ did it. The Dim wits in the DAs office were used to minimum wage public defenders and were out matched. Of course the racist cops, a crime lab that lost its FBI certification IIRC, cops that broke the chain of evidence did not help, and a jury made up of people who know too well of LAPD's piss poor race relations pushed it over the edge.

If I were the Crown, I would charge him with fraud. Based on the Star article, the "safe storage rap" looks kind of flimsy if the safe was anything like he described it.

[iverglas]

133. having read up on it again

the actual theory was that records of ammunition purchases were being pilfered from gun dealers' premises, or in this case might have been stolen in an armed robbery of a gun store in which an employee was killed. (I don't find it really likely that someone would stage an armed robbery in a gun store in order to get records of who had bought ammunition, myself, but there you are.)

There has never, ever, to my knowledge, been any credible allegation of any leak from the firearms registry.


Sorry, the mayor was engaging in theater. Nothing more. The issue is how useful you think sports shooting is, the issue is actually doing something besides scapegoating people who committed no crime, who are following the law to the best of their ability including complying with safe storage laws to the best of their ability. In my view, he was scapegoating law abiding Canadians simply for political theater. I don't give a shit what his party label is.

He was proposing that private handgun possession be prohibited.

There is no "scapegoating" in this. Scapegoating is when someone is PUNISHED (or proposed to be punished) for someone else's offence. He was not proposing that ANYONE be punished, unless they themself broke a law.

You really can't just use language to mean anything you like.

When speed limits are imposed, people who drive safely at high speeds are not being scapegoated for what other people have done. A law is being made to protect the public interest. This is exactly the same thing.

If I were the Crown, I would charge him with fraud. Based on the Star article, the "safe storage rap" looks kind of flimsy if the safe was anything like he described it.

Reading back, apparently he stated that he rented the apartment a decade before when he qualified as low-income. I fail to see how it is possible to qualify as low-income and either already have or subsequently acquire the inventory of firearms he had. Nonetheless, he had obviously ceased to qualify at the time, as he was living in Florida and seems to have been for some time. Subsidized housing tenants are required to report their financials annually.

Not much point in charging him with anything when he's simply refused to return. I wonder whether the fraud would have been extraditable ...

As for the safe storage: sorry, no, really. It doesn't matter how big and strong the vault is. If it is in unoccupied, unmonitored, unattended premises, that is unsafe storage. And that's exactly what this was.


Of course OJ did it. Whatever the reasons (and there were some doozies), he was acquitted. Acquittal isn't "found innocent". ;)

[gejohnston]

136. If pistols were banned and

city residents had to turn them in, would they be compensated for the gun's market value? The fifth amendment would require that here. If that is not the case there, you are talking a distinction without a difference. Here it is punishment without due process.

Since fraud is also a crime here, probably.

So someone with a weekend trip, his vault is broken in during the weekend, that is still unsafe storage? That sounds like some of the self defense cases there, prime candidates for jury nullification. There is no way that is justice.

[iverglas]

138. it really helps to know whereof one speaks

There are only two purposes for which it is legal for anyone in Canada to own a handgun.

Sports shooting -- in which case they must be a member of an approved shooting facility in order to get and keep their licence, and they must keep it securely stored at all times when it is not in use in that facility and may transport it only, and securely, to and from the facility.

Collecting -- a garbage category for people who want to own lots of guns.

Neither class has any need to keep firearms in their homes or at their business premises.

Sports shooters could store their firearms at the facilities where they use them at no inconvenience to themselves, and in fact at much less inconvenience to themselves than storing them at home, since the entire rigamarole of approval for transporting them would be eliminated. Obviously some people do that now.

Collectors, I don't give a shit. Let them organize some place with appropriate security to store their toys/investments.

So no one would have to "turn in" anything. Please just do not make stuff up.


So someone with a weekend trip, his vault is broken in during the weekend, that is still unsafe storage?

We could invent ten times as many scenarios as there are firearms owners.

Leaving a vault full of restricted and prohibited firearms unattended and unmonitored in a vacant apartment in a high-crime area is not "safe storage". A reasonable person would not think it is. Reasonable person is a generally applied standard.

My personal opinion is that any unattended firearm is not safely stored, period. I don't expect my personal opinion to become law anytime soon, and I would not ask that it be, because there are many legitimate reasons for possessing firearms and it is not reasonable to ask that everyone in each of those situations make arrangements for their firearms to be under supervision every time they are absent.

Nobody is under the illusion that perfection can be achieved in this or any other human endeavour. Really.

That doesn't mean that some things aren't so blatantly the opposite of perfect that they aren't tolerable, or that cases can't be considered and decided on their merits. That really is what we all do, individually and collectively, every day. Decide what meets standards and what doesn't. This apple is too ripe, this almost identical apple is good. And so on.



typo fixed .....

[gejohnston]

142. not making anything up

it is a legitimate question. As for a reasonable person standard, a reasonable person consider the vault and other security systems.
But then, there is a difference how a "reasonable" person in a country rooted on individual freedom and autonomy would view it and how a "reasonable" person in a society still rooted in the divine right of kings.
life, liberty, pursue of happiness vs peace, order, good government

I am not making anything up as in turn in. UK and Australia come to mind. That is a reasonable question. And if all of this does not make your society safer?

[iverglas]

148. you should have sent me that pm first

But then, there is a difference how a "reasonable" person in a country rooted on individual freedom and autonomy would view it and how a "reasonable" person in a society still rooted in the divine right of kings.

You would have spared yourself this embarrassment.

I'll say what I said in reply. Basically: even if this is what they teach you in school, you are all free to inform yourselves once you're grown up. I absolutely cannot believe the depth of ignorance that would prompt someone to refer to Canada or any other constitutional monarchy as "rooted in the divine right of kings". You may still be mired in the 18th century, but please don't assume that the rest of us are still living in the caves with you.

Constitutional monarchy: the worst system of government, except for all the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy

Constitutional monarchy (or limited monarchy) is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the parameters of a constitution, whether it be a written, uncodified or blended constitution. This form of government differs from absolute monarchy in which an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution.

Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the monarch may have strictly ceremonial duties or may have reserve powers, depending on the constitution. Under most modern constitutional monarchies there is also a prime minister who is the head of government and exercises effective political power.

... Contemporary constitutional monarchies include Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bahrain, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Grenada, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tuvalu, and the United Kingdom.

Most of the countries on the list of the top 10 countries to live in are on that same list: Norway, Sweden, Canada, Japan, Australia ... . Stable, democratic, prosperous, free and very happy indeed, thank you.

Oooh, some pretty pictures ... and they won't bloody post ... please do click (right click on the little picture icons and open in new tab).


Democracy Index 2010:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Democracy_Index_2010_green_and_red.svg
- Canada gets top ranking (with Australia, NZ, Scandinavia); the US and part of Western Europe are in the next rank.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Democracy_Index_-_The_Economist_-_2007.svg
The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy index map for 2008, with lighter colours representing more democratic countries.
- Canada gets top ranking (with Australia, NZ, Scandinavia ... Scandinavia may be higher, hard to tell); the US and part of Western Europe are in the next rank.

Note the differences between Canada and the US in both instances ... and in whose favour they are.

2010 rankings

Note: Rankings are for 2010. Some information may be out of date.
No. - Location - Index - Category - Nominal type of government
1 Norway 9.80 Full democracy Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
2 Iceland 9.65 Full democracy Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
3 Denmark 9.52 Full democracy Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
4 Sweden 9.50 Full democracy Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
5 New Zealand 9.26 Full democracy Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
6 Australia 9.22 Full democracy Federalism, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
7 Finland 9.19 Full democracy Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
8 Switzerland 9.09 Full democracy Federalism, Directorial system, bicameralism
9 Canada 9.08 Full democracy Federalism, constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism, semi-direct democracy
10 Netherlands 8.99 Full democracy Constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
11 Luxembourg 8.88 Full democracy Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
12 Ireland 8.79 Full democracy Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
13 Austria 8.49 Full democracy Federalism, parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
14 Germany 8.38 Full democracy Federalism, parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
15 Malta 8.28 Full democracy Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, unicameralism
16 Czech Republic 8.19 Full democracy Parliamentary republic and parliamentary democracy, bicameralism
17 United States 8.18 Full democracy Federalism, Constitutional republic, presidential system, bicameralism
...

7 of the top 10 are constitutional monarchies; note that all but Switzerland are parliamentary democracies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World_%28report%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_House_world_map_2008_blue.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electoral_democracies.png

Nothing to see there, eh? Oh, except that we in the outer darkness ... Canada, Western Europe, the Antipodes ... look pretty much like you.

... oops ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reporters_Without_Borders_2008_Press_Freedom_Rankings_Map.PNG

Reporter without borders thinks the press is free-est in Canada, Scandinavia, NZ and some parts of Western Europe, with what look like Australia and Japan (and others) in the next rank, and the US in the third category going down.


This is reality. Not USAmerican mythology.

What is so dismally depressing is that I think that a load of people who post in this forum actually believe that mythology. They actually think that I am a subject of the monarch who reigns over my land, and that I believe she rules by divine right. Atheist social democrat that I am.

She is the head of state of Canada and a number of other Commonwealth countries because it says so in our constitutions; she's welcome to visit, or send her offspring along, and we'll serve them up a few concerts and rodeos, as long as they don't hang around or start talking too much. The queen has nothing, absolutely nothing, zero, to do with governing Canada. Formalities like "royal assent" for legislation to come into effect just mean that the Governor General signs off on it, like s/he has a choice (not), having been appointed by a prime minister anyhow.

This all suits me just fine. We have elected governments that run the country in every way, every day, and a constitution and courts that are admired and copied the world over to keep the governments in line if need be (which it sometimes is). What more could I ask? What you've got? Not on a plate, ta. To each our own.

[iverglas]

156. so I guess I can take it as read

that anyone who needed to has now educated themself about the political philosophies and the rights and freedoms and the democratic processes that prevail in the great big world outside the USofA -- and we need hear no more hereabouts about "subjects" and the rights "granted" to them, or about the higher esteem in which USAmericans hold their rights and freedoms as compared to the citizens of other countries, etc. etc. etc.

Good!

[ileus]

18. If I'm not a FFL then yes in my house is secured. Locked or not.

[iverglas]

55. cancel your insurance policy right away

It is absolutely unreasonable to pay for insurance against theft from a secured house.

"Locked or not", your house is "secured"?

Well then why would you lock it??

:eyes:



typo fixed

[ileus]

75. Because methheads will break in, and I may not be there with my insurance policy.

Besides my policy covers everything theft, loss, fire, slips, trips, and falls.

Is your argument that it's unreasonable for one to expect their home not to be broken into? There's not a sign in my yard saying "come get some"

[iverglas]

87. well, unless you want to say it's unreasonable to buy insurance ...

Is your argument that it's unreasonable for one to expect their home not to be broken into?

... then the bleeding obvious answer is "yes".

There's not a sign in my yard saying "come get some"

Then, as I said, I guess you are safe and it would be unreasonable not to cancel your insurance.

Do you seriously think you can try to have this both ways and nobody will notice?

:rofl:

[ileus]

89. so one should expect and accept home invasions?

[iverglas]

90. so you have no regard for the truth?

So you have no hesitation in alleging that someone said something they never said? Something that only a very foolish or unpleasant person would say? So you'll do or say anything it takes to persuade anyone in the vicinity that your interlocutor is a fool or unpleasant person who should be disregarded? Even when it involves going completely counter to the truth?

Just questions.

If you want to "accept" home invasions (not the subject anyway), then you feel free.

Your idea and nobody else's.

[ileus]

92. the answer is yes...ok.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ileus]

97. and the truth is we shouldn't carry home ownere insurance

if we believe people shouldn't break into our homes? That somehow the gun owner is the criminal if someone breaks in and steals a firearm.

[iverglas]

107. the truth -- by your own admission --

is, as you say, we shouldn't carry home ownere insurance if we believe people shouldn't break into our homes?

It makes no bleeding sense to me whatsoever, but you are the one saying it.

It is 100% on all fours with and indistinguishable from the claim that one should not secure one's firearms against theft (so as to reduce the risk of harm to other people in this world) because people shouldn't break into your homes.

100%.

Oh, well, the difference being ...

Your insurance protects YOU against loss (by compensating you for it)
Securing your firearm protects OTHER PEOPLE against loss.

And that's one big honking difference, it seems. To some people.

[ileus]

141. You're the one that said drop my homeowners insurance.

I simply said that people should expect their homes to be secure by right of private property. You countered by saying I should drop my insurance that it's unreasonable of me to expect my property to remain mine.


Anyway....no doubt every gun owner should have a safe or safes for their collection. I have two a main safe with the bulk of my collection, and a handgun safe in my bedroom. I have done all within my means to secure my firearms, but they're still pretty portable if someone breaks in with the right tools.


I suppose my argument is I'm not to blame if someone breaks into my home and steals my property then uses it in a way it's not designed/intended. I'm pretty sure the court system would agree with me in most areas of the country.

[iverglas]

149. you're the one making not a stitch of sense

I simply said that people should expect their homes to be secure by right of private property.

That isn't what you said, but I'm too bored to go find it yet again.

And it makes no sense.

Should I expect my tummy to be full by right of my right to life?

How does having a right to something -- private property -- give you the expectation that nobody will interfere in your exercise of that right?

Hell, you've gone one better now. If having a right means that you expect no interference in the exercise of it, then you can toss your guns in the lake. Nobody's going to try to kill you, because you have a right to life.

The one thing in the world that you seem to think you need take no precautions against is the theft of your firearms.

You have a right to life but somebody might try to kill you, so tote them guns along.

You have a right of private property but somebody might steal it, so pay that insurance premium.

But don't secure those guns. Because you have a right of private property, so you won't expect that somebody might try to steal them. Goldarn it, you won't. And the devil take anyone who is hurt when you might have prevented that happening by securing your guns. You have a right of private property. Goldarn it.

Just not a stitch of sense.

[PavePusher]

159. Jello, man. Jello. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

20. I disagree.

I bought a $150 gun safe from Dick's Sporting Goods. It meets the California Department of Justice requirements for a gun safe. I bought it primarily to keep my children away from my firearms.

But all it is is a lockable filing cabinet.

It would be no harder to break into it than it would be to break into my house. Anyone with a crowbar could do it.

Safes are rated by UL for the number of minutes that can stop a determined attack.

http://www.thesafesource.com/safe_ratings.htm

A safe that is UL rated to provide 15 minutes of protection against break-in will cost you a minimum of about $3000.

But what constitutes "secured" by the State of California is not much more secure than a house.

[ileus]

21. It's not unreasonable to expect your belongings to remain in your home.

I don't care if you have the floor stacked full of AK clones and 100 cases of 7.62 it's your home anything removed from there without permission is a criminal activity.

[iverglas]

54. really

It's not unreasonable to expect your belongings to remain in your home.

I guess that's why so many people buy insurance against theft from their homes.

They're just plain unreasonable.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. The California approval requirement is an ill disguised ripoff

Really shamefull

[Hoopla Phil]

101. NO KIDDING!!! Before California came out with that BS law "gun safes" had

a LOT of steel in them. The various manufactures were trying to outdo one another by adding a little more thickness every year. Then after California passed that law the most all went to 10 guage steel with lots of fire proofing to out do one another - much cheaper that way.

FYI, try to keep an eye out for banks going out of business or shutting down branches. Then try and put a bid in on the safe they have there. You'll have to redo the interior yourself but its a good way to pick up a TL-15 or TL-30 for a reasonable price.

[RSillsbee]

23. All my guns except the one I'm carrying

are in a gun safe. I also have an angle grinder and an air compressor in my garage. In theory a theif could break into my home and use the grinder to defeat my safe, would I still be accountable?



The thief is 100% accountable for the for anything that results from him stepping outside the law. He had no business in my home and no business w/ my guns.

[ileus]

39. and mine....don't forget me.

[mikeb302000]

31. wrong

weapons are not secured by locking the front door. Weapons are secured by locking them in a safe.

[pipoman]

38. By who's definition?

By the definition of 'secured', a locked house is, by definition, secured. This doesn't even get into your definition of a safe.

Having worked as a locksmith, I could defeat this safe quicker than I could defeat a reasonably good quality residential entry lock.



OTOH, this would create a bit more of a challenge..



Safe and secured are relative terms which you are not qualified to determine for me.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. In the united states, we have no such requirement.

And your typical home safe door presents about as much of a problem to me, as your house front door.

It's just one more door.

Edit: In most states, I should say, not the entire united states. A couple states have silly 'safe storage laws'.

[iverglas]

56. what requirement?

The post to which you replied said:

"weapons are not secured by locking the front door. Weapons are secured by locking them in a safe."

Where do you see a requirement there?


And your typical home safe door presents about as much of a problem to me, as your house front door.

Did the poster say he was talking about a "typical home safe"?


A couple states have silly 'safe storage laws'.

You're perfectly aware that firearms thefts from homes are mainly crimes of opportunity committed by run-of-the-mill druggies and such. Not by mobsters looking for safes to crack.

And yet you call laws that require householders to make an effort to reduce that opportunity by placing a barrier between burglar and firearm "silly".

The young man shot in Canada's capital city while stroling down the main shopping street at noon hour, but a carload of young teenagers who had just stolen an insecurely stored firearm from a home, might not agree with you. But then, he's dead, so we can't say for sure. Ditto for the many other people I could name killed with stolen firearms ...

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Why do you read things into a post I did not state?

Just as you are implying that I wrongly suggested there was some question of a requirement, you yourself are wrongly suggesting that I suggested any such thing.

*I* brought it up. It is a statement of fact. It is not a 'correction' of the other poster. I am elaborating.

Now, that dispelled, a typical home safe would include safes marketed to home consumers. Even the big liberty home safes are no problem at all for me to get into, in a short period of time. Though I may damage some of the contents doing so.

On 'crimes of opportunity', the barrier between personal property and the burglar, is a locked door/window. They are fair game for the justice system at that point. There is no further burden upon a firearm owner to further secure a weapon, any more than a knife block or other dual use device that can be used to injure and kill. (outside certain states)

[iverglas]

65. "home safe"

I failed to see the implied word, "home gun safe". I'm seeing now that this seems to be what you referred to.


On 'crimes of opportunity', the barrier between personal property and the burglar, is a locked door/window. They are fair game for the justice system at that point.

I said absolutely nothing about the justice system, or blame, or punishment, or blah blah blah.

I am talking about keeping firearms out of criminal hands.

Obviously doors and windows DO NOT DO that. Obviously leaving a firearm hanging on a wall or standing behind a door or lying in a nightstand drawer does not do that.

Even putting it anywhere other than the obvious -- all of the above, or in a shoebox at the top of the closet or under the bed -- might even do it.


There is no further burden upon a firearm owner to further secure a weapon, any more than a knife block or other dual use device that can be used to injure and kill.

And once again we are back to "requirements", about which no one was talking.

The assertion is that there is a moral burden, a moral obligation to keep one's weapons out of the hands of people who will use them to harm one's neighbour.

Many people actually believe such a burden exists, and some people with firearms actually act accordingly.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. I act so, but it is my choice.

And I do so at great personal expense. (The state is kind enough to forego sales tax on such safes) (And I keep my torch heads inside the safe, no point providing someone breaking into my garage with the tools to open my safe)

There are lots of counter measures people could take to secure potentially dangerous devices. If your spare keys are hanging in the hall, you might similarly lock them up. I would not fault my neighbor if someone broke in, stole his spare keys, stole his car, and ran over my child in the getaway. It is not my neighbor's fault.

You might be surprised how hardened a window, door, or other points of entry can be made.


I agree with you, a wise firearm owner will further restrict access beyond locking the door, I am only pointing out that in most states, there is no legal requirement, and I would argue: no moral requirement.

[Hoopla Phil]

102. "I keep my torch heads inside the safe" Excellent advise. I do this also.

On edit. I never bothered with gun safes UNTIL I got into the Title II game. I got a very good safe mostly because I really don't want to deal with the Feds if I loose a Title II item.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. It seems quite clear to the rest of us in post #31

that some sort of strongbox is being discussed, and mandating their use (as is done in some states) is controversial since the delays they incur may be life threatening.

[Hoopla Phil]

103. Didn't Heller address mandatory locking of guns?

I seem to recall audio of one of the justices fumbling with a trigger lock. . .

[iverglas]

109. why don't you go find a nice digital copy

and use that "find" function ... and tell us?

Be sure to tell us which right-wing member of the bench you're quoting when you do.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

113. Not according to the State of CA or some Canadians, best I can tell

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

120. Here it is:

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.

Not sure how this would be interpreted when know one is home though.

[iverglas]

127. oops, missed this one: so the answer is NO; see 127 (nt)

[iverglas]

137. I think you meant Kalifornia and Soviet Canuckistanians

Given that right-wing slurs of that kind play so well here. (I can't speak for California, but of course I and most Canuckistanians consider Soviet Canuckistan to be one of the funniest jokes of the millennium, so don't worry on my account.)

But I know really you meant to say "not according to Heller", because Heller had nothing to say about it at all.

Or maybe you know better than ... oh, Heller.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

147. I meant what I posted

and I live in California

[iverglas]

126. since you've posted it elsewhere now: so the answer is NO

Heller did not address a requirement that a gun be securely stored when not in use ... that being what the discussion you've plonked yourself into is actually about.

[Hoopla Phil]

100. Didn't Heller address "safe storage laws"?

I seem to recall listening to audio of one of the justices trying to fumble with a trigger lock.

[iverglas]

108. why don't you go find a nice digital copy

and use that "find" function ... and tell us?

Be sure to tell us which right-wing member of the bench you're quoting when you do.

[Hoopla Phil]

121. Found what Heller said on the topic.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.

Not sure how this would be interpreted when know one is home though.

[iverglas]

125. Ah, so the answer is: No, Heller didn't address "safe storage laws"

Ta.

[Starboard Tack]

62. Isn't it somewhat ludicrous to hide guns in a "gun safe"?

If I were a thief looking for guns, the first thing I'd go for would be the gun safe. If you want to rob a bank you don't go to the butcher.
Are gun owners so lacking in imagination that they can't find better places to secure their weapons than the one labeled "GUNS ARE LOCKED IN HERE". Just another way to get consumers to buy more shite.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. My safe did not come with a sign that I must affix on the front of my house, advertising the presenc

e of a firearm safe.

Externally, my firearm safe is indistinguishable from a fire proof safe of any other potential contents.

Defense in depth. No external indication, so security through obscurity. Hardened entry points. No advertising of contents (I do not advertise the fact I am a firearms enthusiast on social media, for instance). Contents secured in a non-obvious location, inside a very strong safe. Plus other counter-measures to restrict the amount of time someone would have to attack the safe, whether the safe could be easily moved, etc.

[Starboard Tack]

71. So it doesn't look like a safe? Nobody would recognize it as such?

Otherwise it would seem to announce that there's something really valuable in there. But then it would take an expert to open it, like a professional safe cracker, maybe. You should be OK, as long as you didn't tell anyone about the safe and the folks who sold/delivered it don't know where you live. Otherwise you might as well put the sign up. Just saying.

[rrneck]

94. Are you advocating

not securing firearms? Think about it. If you want them secured, the device designed for that purpose will look like a "gun safe". Unless you're James Bond. You're advocating an impossible solution without remedy.

[Starboard Tack]

99. I'm pointing out the absurdity of "securing" guns in the most obvious place.

Rather than throw away more money to an industry which, in my mind, is a social polluter, I would use my imagination and/or skills to hide my weapons in a less obvious place. And how did you know I was James Bond?

[rrneck]

129. How would one acomplish that?

Not everyone has the ability or the lattitude to camouflage a gun safe. A lot of people rent and can't reconfigure their space. As someone who has spent many years remodeling homes I can tell you they are all alike. They all have rooms. The rooms have closets. So unless you're an artist, which I also am, "camouflaging " a big box is a helluva lot harder than it sounds.

You are setting people up to fail your personal test of moral opprobrium. According to you nobody needs a gun, and if they have one they shouldn't carry it, And when they don't carry it they should keep it locked in a house in a safe that is camouflaged to not look like a safe.

The injustice if your opinion is obvious to everyone but you.

[Starboard Tack]

135. OK here we go. Let me clarify where I stand on this.

Obviously, under current social conditions, cops, security guards and others in this country are well justified in carrying handguns, as it is part of their job to confront armed individuals. So. I completely accept their "need" to carry a gun.
I have no problem with individuals who choose to own a shotgun for the protection of home and family, or any long gun (not automatic or pump) to hunt with.
That leaves a lot of people owning a lot of guns. Where they keep/store them is their business. If I lived in a rural area known for predators of any kind, I would probably keep a shotgun handy at all times, not locked in some "gunsafe", which kinda defeats the purpose of being "prepared".
Like you, I have spent many years fixing up houses and apartments and anyone who knows how to hang drywall can design and build an "invisible" storage area. The simple way is often the best, but DIY doesn't help fill the corporate coffers. I have created many of these spaces, often in small apartments, for securing valuables and personal papers etc.. I doubt, with your talents, you would find it hard.
I have no personal test of moral opprobrium, just a humble opinion and, I think, sane point of view, which is shared by many people. I would venture to say by the majority of people outside of this forum.

[rrneck]

139. Careful parsing of who can carry what

is an exercise in futility. If it's legal to own it should be legal to carry.

I make a living, among other things, hanging drywall for people who don't know how. And landlords frequently take a dim view of people doing things like that to their property because they have to pay people like me to fix it. Such is the regressive nature of your opinion. People who can't afford to own a home have a more difficult time fulfilling your criteria.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. All I am doing is trying to point out how hard it would be for an average person to make you happy against the criteria you have expressed. That's because your criteria does not take into consideration the reality of most people's lives - which is fine as long as you are the only one affected by it. Unfortunately you probably vote, as do the thousands of people reading this. Thus, it becomes important to try to make you see how unfair your opinion is.

If you make demands of your fellow citizens you should consider yourself responsible for those demands or adjust your expectations.

[Starboard Tack]

143. Expressing my point of view is hardly making demands.

I float ideas and offer opinions. I call it as I see it, as you do. You think if it's legal to own then it should be legal to carry. I respectfully disagree. There are many things that are legal to do in one's home, but not in public, that have far less potential consequences than carrying a gun. Masturbating comes to mind as a good example.
I make no demands of others, except to keep their word and be honest in their dealings with me. Outside of that, people are free to do what they want. I don't demand they leave their guns at home or open carry if they must tote them around. I would just prefer it, that's all.

[rrneck]

144. Sure.

But the question, for which I neither deserve nor require an answer, is how would you vote?

That is a question you have to answer for yourself, as do I. And to find that answer we each have to ask ourselves, "Who is making more sense; which opinion is more fair?" Floating ideas isn't enough. We have to build ideas that won't sink when buffeted.

[iverglas]

150. "Masturbating comes to mind as a good example."

The traditional one in these parts is "poop on the grass".

;)

[oneshooter]

72. How do you know?

[mikeb302000]

78. you mean

unrec for disagreeing with you.

[Oneka]

11. Is it really

Your opinion, that if leave a gun on my coffee table, in my locked house,
then get robbed while I'm away,
That I should be held criminally, or civilly liable, for the theft of my property?

[mikeb302000]

32. yes n/t

[Oneka]

37. Thank you for your honesty.

Now to take this a step further, would i get a separate criminal charge for my computer being stolen, during the same robbery, while it sat on my desk unsecured? Or would this, blame the victim, legal tenet be reserved just for guns?

Perhaps when we find my wife's jewelery at the local pawn shop, we can retrieve it from police evidence, after she serves her 2 to 5 years
because it was obviously her fault for leaving her rings and bracelets in a jewelery box.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. The OP is quite upfront with his repressive views and blog spamming

[mikeb302000]

79. I'll answer your sarcasm with seriousness

my idea only applies to guns.

[iverglas]

114. may I answer with a question?

Or two?

Now to take this a step further, would i get a separate criminal charge for my computer being stolen, during the same robbery, while it sat on my desk unsecured?

Are there persons in your society who are ineligible to possess computers and unable to walk into a store and buy a computer over the counter? Is someone who wants to use a computer to commit crime likely to break into a house to acquire the necessary computer?

Perhaps when we find my wife's jewelery at the local pawn shop, we can retrieve it from police evidence, after she serves her 2 to 5 years because it was obviously her fault for leaving her rings and bracelets in a jewelery box.

I'd just be repeating myself, but this one is actually more absurd. Does society have some interest in keeping jewelry out of the hands of criminals? If it does, do would-be jewelry owners have to pass background checks in order to buy at retail? Are there a lot of stranglings-by-gold-chain where you are?

Or would this, blame the victim, legal tenet be reserved just for guns?

Blame the victim for what? Failing to secure their firearms? It's perfectly possible to violate a law that requires safe/secure storage without having one's firearms stolen, you know. What is one the victim of then? One's own malice/stupidity?

That, you see, is what the victim is being "blamed" for. Not for having their guns stolen. For failing to secure their guns.

No matter how much you'd like to pretend otherwise.

[Oneka]

157. If a criminal breaks into my house while I'm away

, and steals my computer , or jewelry, I am a victim.

If this same burglar steals my guns , am I no less a victim?

My resposibility for securing any of my property in my house ends when I lock my doors.


I will not be held accountable for the actions of criminals. Nor should I.

[one-eyed fat man]

51. So, Mikey

some war-driving pervert downloads a couple gigabytes of kiddie porn through your wi-fi connection, the Feds should haul your ass away?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/wifi-hacking-neighbor-from-hell-gets-18-years-in-prison.ars

Or would you plead that it was really the criminal that was responsible???

[mikeb302000]

80. I'm talking about guns

what the hell are you talking about?

[beevul]

84. Hes talking principles. That would be why you had to ask. N/T

[one-eyed fat man]

85. Double standards

Just plumbing the depths of your hypocrisy.

[iverglas]

117. you beggar belief

You didn't even get an answer to your moronic question -- you got the answer you deserved, which was that it was rejected as nonsense by someone who more than reasonably had no clue what you were yammering about.

And yet you go right ahead and assert that the person you aimed the fool thing at has "double standards" and assert that he is a hypocrite. (Yes, you did. You can't shovel shit if there's no shit to shovel, and you shovelled shit when you said you were plumbing the depths of the hypocrisy that you plainly claimed exists.)

Do you get away with this in real life?

I guess maybe some people do have reasons to tote guns around.

[one-eyed fat man]

130. In 11, 32 and 79

You hero says precisely that if someone has a gun stolen from his locked house they should be criminally charged. And his standards apply only to guns.

"Is it really your opinion, that if leave a gun on my coffee table, in my locked house, then get robbed while I'm away, that I should be held criminally, or civilly liable, for the theft of my property?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=441559&mesg_id=441684

"yes n/t"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=441559&mesg_id=442212

"my idea only applies to guns."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=441559&mesg_id=442656

Are the dots too far apart?

[iverglas]

134. you beggar belief

The post of yours, the reply to which is what you based your allegations of "double standards" and "hypocrisy" on, was incoherent.

You didn't base those allegations on the posts to which you now refer.

Maybe if you ask the poster whether, if someone steals a venomous snake kept in a box in your home and uses it to commit murder, the snake owner should be charged with improepr storage of the snake. I'd say yes. I suspect he should too. I actually expect there are laws about the possession and storage of venomous snakes. Quite analogous, I'd say.



syntax fixed

[iverglas]

93. "WiFi-hacking neighbor from hell gets 18 years in prison"

You have a problem with this??

A Minnesota hacker prosecutors described as a “depraved criminal” was handed an 18-year prison term Tuesday for unleashing a vendetta of cyberterror that turned his neighbor’s lives into a living nightmare.

Barry Ardolf, 46, repeatedly hacked into his next-door neighbors’ WiFi network in 2009, and used it to try and frame them for child pornography, sexual harassment, various kinds of professional misconduct and to send threatening e-mail to politicians, including Vice President Joe Biden.

His motive was to get back at his new neighbors after they told the police he’d kissed their 4-year-old son on the lips.

Do you seriously suggest that the victims would have preferred that the offender's activities not be traceable????

What on earth did you think you were proving with that little link?

Or would you plead that it was really the criminal that was responsible???

Uh ... it was, and it was the criminal that got charged, tried, convicted and sentenced.

Then, in May 2009, the Secret Service showed up at Kostolnik’s office to ask about several threatening e-mails sent from his Yahoo account, and traced to his IP address, that were addressed to Biden and other politicians. The subject line of one e-mail read: “This is a terrorist threat! Take this seriously.”

Yeah, the Secret Service tends to do that. In the winter of 2001, an acquaintance of mine was in rehab in Illinois, actually in detox at the time. He started ranting that if Bush tried to send his son to Iraq he'd kill Bush. His son was 10 years old. The detox facility called police and the Secret Service paid a visit. I imagine they felt kinda like the cop checking the gun guy in that video ...

As it turned out, it was all part of what got the bad guy caught:

The FBI got a search warrant for Ardolf’s house and computer, and found reams of evidence ...

Thanks for that little tale!

[one-eyed fat man]

98. I have no problem at all with it

The hacking neighbor should have gone to jail. But your friend Mikey has argued the victim was at fault in similar circumstances.

After all, if the shit-head was able to gain access, it was not secure.

I do recall that argument being echoed around here. If someone could break in it was evidence that whatever was stolen was not secure enough and the victim should be held accountable for any crimes committed.

Or are you saying, "That's different?"

In this particular case, were it not for the victim's employer having the resources to obtain packet traces and give exculpatory evidence to the Secret Service and FBI the neighbor from hell might have succeeded in his diabolical attack.

[iverglas]

110. lordy jayzus

But your friend Mikey has argued the victim was at fault in similar circumstances.

First, the circumstances were not similar.

The gun dealer knowingly and intentionally gave the offender access to the firearms. It does not appear that he was negligent in doing so, from what we know -- but this is in no way "similar" to having someone use one's internet service without one's knowledge or consent. Yeesh.

The internet services customer was not negligent. Not by our current standards. Would it be reasonable to require that people password protect their wi-fi internet access? It just might be. Like I'm required to remove my keys from my car when it is unattended. No biggie.

I do recall that argument being echoed around here. If someone could break in it was evidence that whatever was stolen was not secure enough and the victim should be held accountable for any crimes committed.

Can you give me a link?

I've certainly said that if something is stolen it is evidence that it was not secure (duh), but I have never said that it is evidence of negligence. And I've very certainly never said that an owner of a stolen item should be held accountable for any crimes committed using it. I have said that failing to secure a firearm (and I'm just not interested in any eyewash about how that is determined; these things are determined by legislatures and courts ever day) should be subject to meaningful penalties, completely regardless of whether they are stolen or what happens if they are.

In this particular case, were it not for the victim's employer having the resources to obtain packet traces and give exculpatory evidence to the Secret Service and FBI the neighbor from hell might have succeeded in his diabolical attack.

I don't think you're reading that quite right. The FBI executed searches.

Do you think that if the victim had gone to police with a complaint about what that man was doing to him, and the evidence of the emails he was sending, etc., it would not have been investigated?? Do you think that even if he had not known about what was being done, and he was the one first contacted by police, the truth would not have come out?

Do you really really believe that police/government are that stupid and/or evil?

I don't really really believe you do.

[one-eyed fat man]

146. It is hard to say.

In far too many cases, the very people who are responsible for ensuring truth and justice – law enforcement officials and prosecutors – lose sight of these obligations and instead focus solely on securing convictions. Prosecutorial misconduct plagues Illinois.

Goverment Misconduct

Common forms of misconduct by law enforcement officials include:

• Employing suggestion when conducting identification procedures
• Coercing false confessions
• Lying or intentionally misleading jurors about their observations
• Failing to turn over exculpatory evidence to prosecutors
• Providing incentives to secure unreliable evidence from informants

Common forms of misconduct by prosecutors include:

• Withholding exculpatory evidence from defense
• Deliberately mishandling, mistreating or destroying evidence
• Allowing witnesses they know or should know are not truthful to testify
• Pressuring defense witnesses not to testify
• Relying on fraudulent forensic experts
• Making misleading arguments that overstate the probative value of testimony

The police are generally looking to put someone away. Prosecutors are as well. The police may or may not have any interest in looking for exculpatory evidence. In the hacking case the victim's status as an attorney and the resources of his employer played a role in determining the truth. Had he been of a lower social status, or worse an ex-con how much incentive would there have been for the FBI to go further than the victim's ISP? The threatening e-mails were sent from his Yahoo account, and traced to his IP address. Slam dunk.

After Kostolnik explained to his law office superiors that he had no idea what was happening, his bosses hired a firm that examined his network and discovered that an “unknown” device had access to it. With Kostolnik’s permission, they installed a packet sniffer on his network to try and get to the bottom of the incidents.

A forensics computer investigator working for Kostolnik’s law firm examined the packet logs, and found the e-mail sessions sending the threats. In the data surrounding the threatening traffic, they found traffic containing Ardolf’s name and Comcast account.

It seems that had not his employer believed him and taken steps to monitor his network the incriminating packets that pointed to the true culprit might never have been intercepted. Would the FBI invested the time and resources looking for evidence that Mr. Kostolnik was NOT GUILTY as his employer had? One would like to hope so. The FBI executed searches of the malefactor's computers and premises AFTER he had been identified by the law firm;s experts. Doubtless, it was his information that provided the "probable cause" need for the FBI to obtain the warrants.

He could just as easily been dragged off to Leavenworth screaming, "I've been framed" with the guard saying, "Yeah, right! They all say that."


Oh and by the way, "My personal opinion is that any unattended firearm is not safely stored, period."

Sound at all familiar?

[iverglas]

151. um

Oh and by the way, "My personal opinion is that any unattended firearm is not safely stored, period."
Sound at all familiar?

... Yes? Because I said it? But hey, you feel free to pretend I didn't say anything else, if that's what you're doing.

My personal opinion is also that all religion is evil. Have you heard me calling for the churches and temples and mosques to be burned down?

My personal opinion is that anyone who names their child Cassidy or River is a total moron unfit for human society. You'll never hear me proposing that those names be "banned" or that such parents be prosecuted.

We all have our personal opinions about just about everything. They commonly have little to do with one's positions on public policy. There are people whose personal opinon is that abortion is evil who would never vote for an anti-choice party. There are people whose personal opinion is that mainstream pornography is degrading and oppressive to women who would never agree that it should be outlawed. Need I go on?

My personal opinion is that no unattended firearm is safely stored. That simply doesn't mean (and I said it didn't mean) that I would propose any law that would require that no firearm ever be left unattended.


Too bad you spoiled it all with that.

I have read and noted the rest of your post. Certainly I am aware of flaws in police and prosecution conduct. We have wrongful convictions up here. If we had the death penalty, we might have some wrongful deaths.

That doesn't make it reasonable to assume or predict that a credible individual who is victimized (so obviously) in a situation like the one in question would be unable to avoid prosecution, let alone conviction.

[one-eyed fat man]

154. "a credible individual"

The victimization is only obvious because the hacking of his network was discovered. A discovery which took the efforts of specialists using sophisticated equipment and techniques to uncover the tracks of the true culprit. It was that information that led to the searches which produced the unmistakable physical proof of the real malefactor, and the discovery that he HAD done the same thing before to another family long prior, and gotten away with it! Perhaps they weren't credible enough, or did not have sufficient social and professional standing?

Had the victim been a less sympathetic individual I doubt the police would have done much more that arrest him based on the fact the offending material came through his account from his IP address. Protestations that he hadn't done it would likely have fallen on deaf ears.

Copies of the nasty emails, dirty pictures, etc would be dumped on the prosecutor's desk along with the technical information from the victims Internet Service Provider that it was HIS account and HIS IP address.

They are there to clear cases, the only evidence they are looking for is to prove the person arrested guilty. They waste no time, talent or resources in looking for evidence to the contrary.

[iverglas]

155. "I doubt"

Had the victim been a less sympathetic individual I doubt the police would have done much more that arrest him based on the fact the offending material came through his account from his IP address. Protestations that he hadn't done it would likely have fallen on deaf ears.

And I find your prognostications fascinating.

The fact is that someone with no history of doing anything like what was done in this case, and no motive for doing it (death threats to co-workers, wasn't it? which his employer plainly found to be non-credible as having been made by him?), and just plain no reason to believe they did it, is pretty likely to be seen as a victim.

Your view of police and prosecutors as stupid and vicious notwithstanding.

I actually know perfectly well that credible, honourable, innocent individuals are occasionally prosecuted based on falsified evidence given by non-credible, dishonourable individuals.

I'm not sure how you're saying that the legislation that was actually under discussion in this instance would increase the chances of that happening. Perhaps there should be no record kept anywhere of individuals' ISP addresses. I'm sure the ISPs would be happy knowing they would be unable to bill their customers for their internet use.

[one-eyed fat man]

158. Back to the beginning.

This came to his employers attention when when the Wi-Fi hacking neighbor sent the messages through Mr. Kostolnik’s genuine e-mail account. He e-mailed child porn to one of Kostolnik’s coworkers and sent sexually explicit e-mail to women in his office. Up to this point the authorities were not yet involved.

After the husband explained to his law office superiors that he had no idea what was happening, his bosses hired a law firm that examined his network and discovered that an “unknown” device had access to it. With Kostolnik’s permission, they installed a packet sniffer on his network to try and get to the bottom of the incidents.

The victim, you will note, was an attorney, presumably of good repute and social standing. It would not be far-fetched that his bosses called him in with a view to terminating his services were his explanations not compelling. It was their investigative efforts that unraveled the frame. Would they have expended the resources if instead it had been the janitor who was being accused?

The death threats to the Vice-President and the Secret Service came later.

"Your view of police and prosecutors as stupid and vicious notwithstanding."

They don't have to go that far, venal and lazy is not even needed. All they need is the expediency of "enough" evidence to "probably" convince a jury and clear a case.

Eons ago, one my classmates in high school showed up with the back end of his car bashed up. Asked as to the cause, he recounted with great mirth his exploits of the weekend. Seems he, a friend and a couple of girls had been riding around town when they came upon a drunk driver. Short version, they got in front of him at a light, when the light changed he deliberately backed into the front of the drunk's car. Cop comes, drunk complains the kids backed into him. Cop sees the man is decidedly drunk, does not believe him and hauls him off to jail.

The cop was not stupid or vicious, the victim was unsympathetic and the cop felt he was not credible. Would it had made a difference if the guy had not been drunk? Quite likely. As it was the cop decided he had all the evidence he needed for the crimes he though had been committed, why bother to look for more?

"I'm not sure how you're saying that the legislation that was actually under discussion..."

What legislation? What was under discussion is the Mikey blames the woman who owned the gun shop for being duped by someone who took advantage of the trust from a 26 year relationship, inside knowledge of audits and controls, and used that to embezzle over a period of years a massive amount of money and inventory.

Persons prohibited from buying firearms under Federal law are likewise prohibited from possessing them, and have been for over 50 years. As the malefactor in this case was a part-time employee and at least for part of the 26 year time period a full-time Law Enforcement Officer what elements of the offense escape him that he should wish to assign more blame to the victim than the thief?

He gave us his answer, "my idea only applies to guns."

[one-eyed fat man]

12. Nice bit of "wordsmithing"

"Robbed" is used to connote robbery. Robbery is used to refer to a confrontational crime where the thief uses force or the threat of force to steal the victim's goods. Frank and Jesse James were ROBBERS. This is no robbery.

Here you actually have an employee who used his position of trust as steal from his employer.

Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taking by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

A person is guilty of theft by deception when the person obtains property or services of another by deception with intent to deprive the person thereof.

A person deceives when the person intentionally creates or reinforces a false impression.

A person who does this with goods is a thief. A person who does that with words is a liar.

[iverglas]

17. the author of the OP can maybe answer this

But I'm not entirely persuaded that "Indianaapolis gun shop robbed" was not the original title of the newspaper article that you read some time after this item was posted here.

When I opened the article just now, the blue bar thing at the top of Firefox did, I think, flash those words momentarily before becoming "gun theft suspect faces 13 felony counts".

So you may have meant to say "A newspaper that does that with words is a liar". You might want to look into it. This wouldn't be the first time this week that an online news article was altered and people who made wild and unpleasant accusations based on the altered version ended up looking pretty ... silly.

[mikeb302000]

33. iverglas is right, of course

the one-eyed fat man could very well look silly for going on a mini-rant about a newspaper headline that wasn't perfectly accurate. But reagrdless, he already looked pretty silly going on the pseudo-intellectual rant anyway. Absolute precision in word choice is wonderful, but when complaining about it hinders communication it's just silly.

[iverglas]

57. a person who accuses another person of being a liar

and is demonstrated to be wrong retracts the accusation.

Well, an honourable person does ...

[one-eyed fat man]

61. What is your quibble?

"A person deceives when the person intentionally creates or reinforces a false impression."

What was inaccurate about that statement?

"A person who does that with words is a liar."

Is it your contention that whoever crafted the headline was merely being artfully salacious?

Is it your contention that he accurately quoted an errant headline?

Did I accuse the OP of anything?

When you fling a rock at a pack of dogs the one that yelps is the one you hit.

[iverglas]

111. cha cha cha

Is it your contention that whoever crafted the headline was merely being artfully salacious?
Is it your contention that he accurately quoted an errant headline?
Did I accuse the OP of anything?

Is it your contention that you were talking about the headline writer?

:rofl:

When you fling a rock at a pack of dogs the one that yelps is the one you hit.

When you fling a rock at a pack of dogs you're an asshole.

[Hoopla Phil]

104. Excellent point. Wasn't it George Carlin (sp?) that did a bit about

not letting people control the words we use?

[iverglas]

112. nice lateral thinking there

Well, that would be the polite characterization.

Puts me more in mind of the homeless fellow who used to slip 10-page handwritten philosophical treatises under my office door at night. He clearly knew what he was talking about. I hadn't a clue.

[rrneck]

13. Our daily delivery of blogspam is here.

Sounds like the owner was negligent even though he may have been in compliance with the law.

Given the size of the theft and the nature of the items stolen he might have been working with the authorities. If any of those guns found their way into the wrong hands the authorities were negligent.

But that could never happen...

[Atypical Liberal]

22. How about we punish the CRIMINAL?

Should the owner of the gun store be responsible for any of that? Yes, indeed.

Sadly, in this day and age, someone will probably sue the gun store owner saying that he could have known or should have known what was going on in his store.

But this is a classic reason why people incorporate. The corporation should bear the responsibility, not the executives, unless they were somehow personally negligent or otherwise directly responsible.

Unless it can be shown that someone else was negligent, there is only one person who was doing criminal things here. Punish him.

[mikeb302000]

34. absolutely, punish the criminal

that's why it should be a crime to not secure your guns at home or to own a gun shop and not properly supervise the gonings-on.

[Atypical Liberal]

42. What constitutes secure? What constitutes due dillegence?

that's why it should be a crime to not secure your guns at home or to own a gun shop and not properly supervise the gonings-on.

Are you satisfied with the safe storage requirements for firearms by the State of California?

If an employee is qualified to own firearms would this be sufficient background check for employing such a person to work in your store unsupervised?

Is it realistic to expect that a gun store owner will be on-site at all times employees are there?

[iverglas]

58. who can say? how can we know?

What constitutes secure? What constitutes due dillegence?

How have questions like that ever been settled? Surely this is a novel problem that has never been addressed by a legislature or a court before! Never has anyone had to decide whether someone's actions were negligent, whether their actions failed to meet a duty-of-care standard, whether what someone did was reasonable ... what an insoluble conundrum!


Is it realistic to expect that a gun store owner will be on-site at all times employees are there?

Is it REASONABLE to require that anyone in charge of the premises of a gun store and the contents of the store have a dealer's licence?

Rhetorical question. I can't imagine anyone thinking it is not reasonable.

[Atypical Liberal]

64. Reasonable? That's not even legal!

Is it REASONABLE to require that anyone in charge of the premises of a gun store and the contents of the store have a dealer's licence?

Rhetorical question. I can't imagine anyone thinking it is not reasonable.

Not only is it unreasonable, it's illegal.

The FFL is for the person who owns the gun store. I'm not sure how it works for a corporation - presumably the FFL is in the name of the CEO.

You cannot obtain an FFL just because you work in a gun store. I wish you could - I'd go get a part-time job at a gun store so I could obtain an FFL.

[iverglas]

66. well, then, I guess

the one that holds the licence should be required to have some sort of check done on employees, as daycare centres are where I'm at, for example. Maybe that's the case. The explanation you gave re the actual licence is obvious now that you mention, but it does seem that some sort of enhanced security measure should be applied to employees.

Yes, in this particular case, it seems the individual would have got through with flying colours. Just as a child abuser may get through a background check and be employed by a daycare centre.

Few problems, few kinds of harm, can be eliminated. We can but attempt to reduce the incidence.

[Atypical Liberal]

68. No privacy concerns?

I don't recall going through any background checks for any of the jobs I have ever done. Perhaps they were done without my knowledge, I don't know. I'm sure they needed my SS number at some point in the process. We run all prospective tenants for our rental property through a background check.

Seems a shame to have to submit to a background check just because you want a job at a gun store, but if I owned one I would try and have background checks on my employees. Hell if I had any kind of employee handling the cash of my business I'd want them to have a background check.

[iverglas]

69. yes, a crying shame

Who wants daycare operators and employees to have to submit to background checks to try to screen out child abusers?

Who wants gun store employees to have to submit to background checks to try to screen out criminals?

Seems a shame to have to submit to a background check just because you want a job at a gun store

but

We run all prospective tenants for our rental property through a background check.

?? Okay to violate privacy to protect your own interests, but not the public's??

[Atypical Liberal]

140. I was agreeing with you.

I was agreeing with you.

I just found it interesting that you were so concerned over privacy for people having FOID information on their driver's license, but are not concerned about the privacy of people working in gun stores or day cares.

[iverglas]

152. good grief

I just found it interesting that you were so concerned over privacy for people having FOID information on their driver's license, but are not concerned about the privacy of people working in gun stores or day cares.

Why would you say I am not concerned about the privacy of those people? Have I said I'd be perfectly happy to see their homes searched, their phones tapped, their mail read, their medical records copied off and stored somewhere?

The public has a hugely obvious interest in ensuring that people working in those capacities do not have backgrounds that make it foreseeable that they will steal guns or abuse children. That's why criminal records checks are mandated where I'm at, in the latter case anyhow. I have no idea about gun store employees, but I might think they would have to have firearms licences. Dunno.

The public has no interest in the medical history of an individual who never applies for a firearms licence / attempts to purchase a firearm.

Analogies can't just ignore the big honking differences between things.

[pipoman]

77. I have gone through background checks by my employers

and/or by law enforcement for every job I've had for the last 25 years. I really see no problem for federal, state or local government to place requirements on the ffl to submit their information to nics or some other background check. I think it would be constitutional if it went to scotus (which it never would make it)...I believe it is settled law.

[iverglas]

88. one more reason I'm glad I live here

I think it would be constitutional if it went to scotus (which it never would make it)...I believe it is settled law.

... because it's pretty settled law in Canada that disclosing someone's medical history for a reason having nothing to do with their medical care, to be held in a databank for purposes that will probably never arise, would be as unconstitutional as unconstitutional can be. And just plain contrary to a bunch of privacy legislation.

[one-eyed fat man]

145. In fairness,

You would have to consider the employer doubly victimized. It doesn't matter if is a church secretary skimming from the offering plate, a sheriff dipping into tax receipts, a teller short-changing, the essence of embezzlement is using a position of trust to take what is not yours.

The more trusted the embezzler generally the longer it takes for them to be discovered. Often the embezzler knows what internal safeguards are in place and devises means to circumvent them. Even when losses are discovered, the victim's misplaced trust may cause him to unwittingly elicit the embezzler's "help" in catching the thief.

The breach of faith is often as painful as the monetary loss.

[iverglas]

153. and

as we all know, there is nothing in the world that will keep anyone or anything safe and secure from all alarm. We can't expect anything to, or expect that no one will ever do what they oughtn't.

I am the one who said right off that it sounded like perhaps the employer had discovered what was going on and perhaps cooperated with the police by assisting in surveillance. It's a pretty muddled tale still, unfortunately. If the employer took reasonable precautions, and/or whatever measures the law might require, to protect his inventory against theft, then he met society's standards and requirements.

[mikeb302000]

81. Oh, I know it's so difficult to define

As a starter let's say this. Gun under the pillow is not secure enough even if the front door is locked. Gun in a proper gun safe is.

[Hoopla Phil]

105. Insurance companies disagree with you. What was it Heller said about

mandatory locking of guns? I don't recall the decision on that but I DO recall audio of one of the justices fumbling around with a trigger lock.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

122. Found what Heller said.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional.

Not sure how this would be interpreted when know one is home though.

[iverglas]

128. Yup, there we are: Heller said nothing at all

about safe/secure storage of firearms.

You're batting like minus 1000 here, aren't you?

[ileus]

41. No No.....criminals are innocent victims....victimized by evil guns.

[iverglas]

96. I love a good rhetorical question

How about we punish the CRIMINAL?

Okey dokey.

Next?


Unless it can be shown that someone else was negligent, there is only one person who was doing criminal things here.

True.

Legislation requiring that safety/security measures be taken by people who sell/possess firearms is very helpful in that regard.

Not just in showing negligence ... also in refuting allegations of negligence if the legislation was complied with, eh?

Nonetheless, it is at least arguable that if someone hires a person to work in a business where the person has access to firearms and does not have an appropriate background check done, that person is negligent. (As I've said before, there is nothing to suggest that such a check was not done here, or if it was not done that it would have turned anything up anyway.)

And it is certainly arguable that someone who leaves a firearm lying around unsecured in their home when they are not present is negligent, since theft of the firearm is reasonably foreseeable ... or no one would bother insuring against home theft.


html fixed ...

[gravity556]

24. Blogspam again

But the feds should throw every book on the shelf at the theif, enough to make sure he doesn't ever see the light of day again.

I hate theives, particularly ones who abuse someone's trust to carry out their crimes.

[PavePusher]

25. If I lock my house, that is legally and morally sufficient.

Even if I don't lock my house, it is illegal to enter without my permission.

Why do we need any laws above and beyond that?

[mikeb302000]

35. because we live in the real world

not some fantasy land of god-given natural human rights protected by the Constitution.

[PavePusher]

40. Well, I never mentioned "god"...

but the rest of your post is pretty revealing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. You claiming to live in the real world is hilarious

[Hoopla Phil]

132. Snark does not answer the question. Please try again.

[SteveM]

26. Spamarama!!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Unrec and complaint filed for spamming

If it continues I take it up with blogspot as well.

[mikeb302000]

36. wait a minute

as soon as I stop laughing, I'd like to ask what in the hell you're talking about, you silly self-proclaimed blog monitor? Report me to Blogspot!!????

I think there are real monitors around here, I've seen some moderator activity. If I'm breaking DU rules they'll tell me like that time I blocked too much text from the original source. I edited that and it seemed to satisfy.

I think what you're doing and a few others is just pain-in-the-ass whining becasue you disagree with my ideas about guns. So, please I ask you sincerely, either get with the discussion about guns or fuck the hell off, please.

[rrneck]

44. If you had any ideas about guns

we might find something with which to disagree. Unfortunately, you're just lifting the work of journalists for hyperbolic fodder to troll internet message boards. Alternately annoying people and preying on their fears is a business model in the finest tradition of Fox news and august professional bloviators like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Such transparent manipulation of others for profit is deplorable, but not surprising.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. On your last spam post over half the replies were about your spamming

Get a clue bubba...take off the blog link like a civilized person would

[mikeb302000]

82. You get a clue

when you and a dozen others comment only about my post and say nothing about the discussion, you're the ones who are spamming. You're trying to disrupt the thread because you disagree with my opinion. That's fucking pathetic. And you're trying to say it's uncivilized to have a liink back to my blog. That's just stupid.

Get a clue yourself.

[bellcrank]

116. You sure do talk about fucking a lot.

:eyes:

[-..__...]

50. Hmmm....

apparently you lack the decency, honesty and integrity to either remove or update the story on your blog, and inform your "readers"

with the truth about this shocking "robbery".

Allow me to assist you if you're unable to look into the facts yourself...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x441559#441747

http://www.indyshootingrange.com/storetheft.htm

[pipoman]

60. I'm curious...

of coarse not curious enough to compile, but maybe you know how many of your 130 posts have been in your own threads vs. in other people's?

[Hoopla Phil]

106. After you stop laughing you may want to wonder over the the ask the admins section.

Just sayen. . .

[iverglas]

59. snork

Everyone back to discussing the merits of various colours of fanny packs now.

:rofl:

[gejohnston]

74. Why not?

A nice one in CADPAT would look cool, don't you think?

[oneshooter]

73. Un-Rec Don't care what a Italian thinks about American gun laws. n/t

[mikeb302000]

83. maybe you missed it

but I'm as American as any of you. I just don't agree with your ideas about guns, that's all.