A DHS question

[Trigger Time]

Another good reason not to post several guns at a time on the Internet. People always say "I'm not doing anything illegal and I've got nothing to hide". But when a swat team kicks down your door and points guns at you and maybe kills you for grabbing a golf club or waking up too fast for their comfort to go home safe at night, and your dog or kid gets shot, because you had one too many guns or ammo then you might start thinking hiding your LEGAL **** is a good idea!
this is sickening and WE are letting it happen and continue.

 

[Trigger Time]

I think it's fair to assume that those who possess firearms are more likely to shoot someone than someone who does not possess a firearm.
Just like folks who go to the bank wearing a scream mask are probably more likely to rob it than not.

The bulletin is not very informative

Or people who kick in doors wearing masks

 

[hooky]

I think it's fair to assume that those who possess firearms are more likely to shoot someone than someone who does not possess a firearm.
Just like folks who go to the bank wearing a scream mask are probably more likely to rob it than not.

The bulletin is not very informative

I took your comment a different way.

 

[Bennettjh]

I didn't know it was illegal to have "large amounts of weapons and ammunition". Learn something new everyday, thankfully all mine sank with my safe.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

describing the discovery of “unusual amounts” of weapons as a potential indicator of criminal or terrorist activity.

I'm having trouble understanding the problem. Note "potential indicator". It doesn't say that it means there is criminal activity for sure, just that it's something to consider.

This is the equivalent of situational awareness on a larger scale. Do you not pay more attention to certain people based on observable clues that indicate possible violent tendencies but aren't illegal? Of course you do. If I walked down the street with an ax muttering about voices in my head, I've certainly committed no crime but you're not going to need special training to realize that this is a potential indicator for someone who could be violent without much of push.

Is swerving in your lane illegal? No. If you see a car swerving in the lane ahead of you, does that mean he's drunk? No. He could be sleepy, playing with his GPS, painting his toe nails, whatever. Again, though, you realize that its a potential indicator for drunk driving.

As soon as you put "guns" in there, though, emotion takes over. Nothing says they are calling for the banning of guns, locking you up because you have too many guns, etc.

 

[Trigger Time]

The point is the govt is overplaying everything and creating terror where there is none. Gotta justify paying for all these fancy "agents" in dhs. Overpaid dog catchers

 

[pinshooter45]

If it wasn't for that INGO boating accident we would all be in trouble.

Yeah my son bought a boat a few months ago and we were transporting my guns to the other side of this lake to do some target shooting and well you know...

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

While the bulletin never clarifies what constitutes a “large” or “unusual” quantity of weapons or ammunition, it does say that such a quantity would “arouse suspicion in a reasonable person.”

If you listen to the panty peeing media types, a revolver, a shotgun and a pellet rifle constitute an arsenal, and more than one box of ammo for each couldn't possibly be of any legitimate use.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think it's fair to assume that those who possess firearms are more likely to shoot someone than someone who does not possess a firearm....

True. Should this guy be considered a threat?

Before anyone jumps on this as anti-cop or anti anything, I'll answer my own question: The answer is: It depends on his jurisdiction and his professionalism and his scruples. And his marksmanship skill, none of which are guaranteed present or absent solely because his shirt has a badge on it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The point is the govt is overplaying everything and creating terror where there is none.

The government is doing that, or people taking an internal memo, publishing it, and hyping it up as something it isn't are doing that?

Here's what they claim is the official bulletin:

http://info.publicintelligence.net/DHS-FBI-Weapons.pdf

Note its only supposed to be released to gov't agencies for official use only. Not a press release for public consumption.

Do you disagree with the premise of the readoff? "Possession of large amounts of weapons, ammunition, explosives, accelerants, or explosive precursor chemicals could indicate pre-operational terrorist attack planning or criminal activity."

 

[Robjps]

I think it's fair to assume that those who possess firearms are more likely to shoot someone than someone who does not possess a firearm.
Just like folks who go to the bank wearing a scream mask are probably more likely to rob it than not.

The bulletin is not very informative

People with access to cars are more likely to do a drive by. We should report people with cars.

 

[hookedonjeep]

People with access to cars are more likely to do a drive by. We should report people with cars.

Tonight I DID! Called to report a possible drunk driver ( swerving all over the road, crossing the center line, unable to maintain a speed...). On a busy road, near the county line. Hated to do it, but people who drink are more likely to drive drunk!

 

[Dead Duck]

True. Should this guy be considered a threat?

I think your answer depends on what color helmet he's wearing.

**Hint: The color rhymes with Blue.

 

[Hoosier45]

So the terrorists are the ones stockpiling all of the .22 ammo?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Note its only supposed to be released to gov't agencies for official use only. Not a press release for public consumption.

This in itself is indicative of a major problem. It stands in evidence as per the label on the page that the .gov is assigning standards regarding our behavior and/or possessions that are not intended to be revealed to us. This isn't too far from writing speeding tickets while keeping the speed limit a secret. It also opens reasonable suspicions that legal rights are not under consideration since there seems to be no distinction whatsoever made between legal and illegal items which fall into the general classification of arms, ammunition, and explosives. As much trouble as we have already had, anyone who was not deliberately setting the stage for future unnecessary problems would have made sufficient clarification between items which are legal and illegal (although one wonders how any of them could become illegal within the context of 'shall not be infringed'). By the standards of one of the examples included (involving no weapons which were illegal by nature in the car), the feds would have s**t their pants had they stopped me the last time I moved.

 

[TheRude1]

Good way to put it Dave.
And for moving weapons across states that you cant have one, guy on 93.1 the other day talking about that.
1986 firearm owners protection act(something like that) covers people in that event, juat the standard in a box disasmbled yada yada yaaa.

This is just another brick in the wall that is starting to block my view of things I cherish. But like so many others I was involved in a boating accident this last summer. Appears to have happened to several others. May have to look into a INGO life jacket ?

This in itself is indicative of a major problem. It stands in evidence as per the label on the page that the .gov is assigning standards regarding our behavior and/or possessions that are not intended to be revealed to us. This isn't too far from writing speeding tickets while keeping the speed limit a secret. It also opens reasonable suspicions that legal rights are not under consideration since there seems to be no distinction whatsoever made between legal and illegal items which fall into the general classification of arms, ammunition, and explosives. As much trouble as we have already had, anyone who was not deliberately setting the stage for future unnecessary problems would have made sufficient clarification between items which are legal and illegal (although one wonders how any of them could become illegal within the context of 'shall not be infringed'). By the standards of one of the examples included (involving no weapons which were illegal by nature in the car), the feds would have s**t their pants had they stopped me the last time I moved.

 

[Bummer]

then shouldn't the DHS be on the terrorist watch list?

They're on mine.

 

[sepe]

So the terrorists are the ones stockpiling all of the .22 ammo?

From going to several gun shows, the terrorists must be guys pushing 80. A couple of the vendors replied "some old guys bought us out" each time I asked if they had any .22lr bulk packs.

 

[Destro]

the .gov is assigning standards regarding our behavior and/or possessions

This is a general bulletin. It's no different than thebulletins that say to look out for people who buy a truckload of fertilizer,yet live in an apartment in New York. Sure, he might have a legit reason, butit would be more suspicious than someone who didn't have a truckload of it.

How about a homeless person buying 50 packs of lithiumbatteries? Guy owns nothing that runs on batteries but what does he need themfor.

The bulletin is not saying that everyone who owns 1000firearms is a threat, it's saying that, along with other potential indicators,possession of large amounts of firearms could be a sign of something else.

Example; the police raid human traffickers home and find 100 WASR 10's and 50,000 rounds,that should raise flags for anybody who knows anything about guns. Sure he has a RIGHT to own 100 WASR’s, but lawenforcement would not be doing their job if they were not suspicious of them.

Some old rocket scientist's collection Winchester 1873’srifles is not what they are talking about.

 

[drillsgt]

This is a general bulletin. It's no different than thebulletins that say to look out for people who buy a truckload of fertilizer,yet live in an apartment in New York. Sure, he might have a legit reason, butit would be more suspicious than someone who didn't have a truckload of it.

How about a homeless person buying 50 packs of lithiumbatteries? Guy owns nothing that runs on batteries but what does he need themfor.

The bulletin is not saying that everyone who owns 1000firearms is a threat, it's saying that, along with other potential indicators,possession of large amounts of firearms could be a sign of something else.

Example; the police raid human traffickers home and find 100 WASR 10's and 50,000 rounds,that should raise flags for anybody who knows anything about guns. Sure he has a RIGHT to own 100 WASR’s, but lawenforcement would not be doing their job if they were not suspicious of them.

Some old rocket scientist's collection Winchester 1873’srifles is not what they are talking about.

If you're an LEO and this "bulletin" came in you should probably be a little humiliated that those on high think you're an idiot and need to be told this.