Ammo For Sale

« « Speaking of turning things in | Home | NRA statement on bump stocks » »

Troubling

Police in Vermont stopped a school shooting. Sounds good, right? Except:

After confirming the whereabouts and establishing short-term plans for both young suspects, police turned their attention to securing their alleged source of guns.

We executed what is called an extreme risk order (Monday) night at a relatives house who had all these firearms, Hanley said. They were locked up (in the home), but one of these kids said he had access to them and could get them. So we took advantage of that extreme risk order statute that was passed. We needed to separate the person from their ability to do this.

Hanley on Tuesday morning wasnt sure of the exact inventory of the more than 10 confiscated weapons, but said they largely consisted of hunting rifles and handguns. He doesnt believe any semi-automatic assault rifles or shotguns were among the bunch.

A relative, not involved in the potential shooting in any way, had their guns confiscated? Wouldn’t just arresting the suspects kind of take care of that?

13 Responses to “Troubling”

  1. Lyle Says:

    “Wouldn’t just arresting the suspects kind of take care of that?

    Take care of what? What do you think is their objective; crime mitigation or the methodical disarming of a nation? It can’t be both, as they are contradictory goals.

  2. blounttruth Says:

    It is the plan so far, to see how much they can get away with via skipping the whole pesky due process thingy. It so gets in the way of law enforcement that are just “doing their jobs” whilst violating their oath and the protections that oath would provide.

  3. Billll Says:

    Gun laws are written to the benefit of the criminals, hence if the kids are the criminals, the parents are the ones who must be punished.

  4. Publius Says:

    Also, why not–politely–inform the gun owner of a specific threat against his property & of the urgent need to keep a close eye on things, maybe change the combination. Or put them in contact with a 3rd party who can help out, either for temporary offsite storage or better onsite storage.

    Give people the opportunity to work positively with you to do the right thing & most of them will, most of the time.

  5. boardsnbikes Says:

    Real policing is hard and often dangerous work. Removing guns from an uninvolved, compliant and innocent third-party is easy and safe. Mission accomplished.

  6. Ron W Says:

    Billll” writes , “Gun laws are written to the benefit of the criminals,…”
    That’s absolutely correct and I would add the legalized version thereof, like those who conducted the government armed robbery.

  7. Paul Says:

    They wanted the guns. The kid was just an excuse. All they needed was that excuse.

  8. randy Says:

    Couple of quotes from the article:

    “ So we took advantage of that extreme risk order statute that was passed. We needed to separate the person from their ability to do this.”

    “There may be some other charges down the road, but right now it’s the treatment issues we’re dealing with.”

    Sounds to me as if they are stating right up front that the mere existence of firearms is the problem, not the person who stated how, when, and who he would use them on.

  9. HL Says:

    Wasn’t that the town in SooperTroopers? More comedy.

  10. Jay Dee Says:

    So if the kids planned to steal guns from the mayor and the Chief of Police, the police would trot right over and seize their guns?

  11. Mike Says:

    So much for anything even resembling due process.

  12. Muzzle Blast Says:

    The tell will be that they’ll never get them back …

  13. Bruce Says:

    So, having a conversation with the possible shooters wasn’t going to deter them or provoke them into doing something that would justify their arrest?