PDA

View Full Version : La Jolla billionaire Harry Rady pleads guilty to firearm charges


shonc99
08-01-2007, 7:00 AM
I just saw a quick news clip about Harry Rady, the son of a billionaire in La Jolla who has pleaded guilty to aquiring firearms without a license or going through a dealer.
Link:
http://www.cbs8.com/story.php?id=98376

Harry Rady Pleads Guilty To Federal Firearms Charge
Last Updated:
08-01-07 at 7:42AM
The son of a La Jolla billionaire is in trouble with the law after being accused of illegally possessing a large cache of weapons.

In federal court Tuesday, 40-year-old Harry Rady pleaded guilty to illegal possession of firearms. Court documents showed that Rady violated federal law by purchasing the weapons without a license.

Rady's attorney said he bought the guns after a home invasion robbery at his parent's home.

Rady faces up to five years in prison at his sentencing in October.
Anyone know anything about this?

THere was a picture of a FS200, either a G3 or HK91 and some others.

shark92651
08-01-2007, 7:13 AM
A quick internet search does not reveal anything, other than the Billionaire is his father, Ernest Rady, and that Harry is his son. Of course, this means his son is probaly very, very wealthy as well. One would think he would have more sense than this :rolleyes: Can anybody find a link to more info?

shonc99
08-01-2007, 7:17 AM
Found a link to the story

The father, Ernest and his wife were victims of a home invasion robbery in Feb, 2007 where they were bound and gagged while the perp ransacked the home for five hours looking for cash. The SD mayor, Jerry Sanders made a speech in La Jolla a dew days after.

Prc329
08-01-2007, 7:35 AM
He should have came here first and learned how to get those legally.

SemiAutoSam
08-01-2007, 7:36 AM
Here is a pic they were displaying.
Wonder if this was what he had.

http://www.cbs8.com/story_graphics/2007/08/rady_charges.0.jpg

Harry Rady Pleads Guilty To Federal Firearms Charge

Last Updated:
08-01-07 at 7:42AM

The son of a La Jolla billionaire is in trouble with the law after being accused of illegally possessing a large cache of weapons.

In federal court Tuesday, 40-year-old Harry Rady pleaded guilty to illegal possession of firearms. Court documents showed that Rady violated federal law by purchasing the weapons without a license.

Rady's attorney said he bought the guns after a home invasion robbery at his parent's home.

Rady faces up to five years in prison at his sentencing in October.

zefflyn
08-01-2007, 8:01 AM
At least he had a trigger-lock!

On the bright side, he has deep enough pockets to fight the charges, and hopefully get a good 2AM case to the Supreme Court. I hope he's motivated to fight for the Constitution.

Fate
08-01-2007, 8:02 AM
He'll get probation. :rolleyes:

SemiAutoSam
08-01-2007, 8:05 AM
Please explain how you can fight the charges when you enter a guilty plea ?

At least he had a trigger-lock!

On the bright side, he has deep enough pockets to fight the charges, and hopefully get a good 2AM case to the Supreme Court. I hope he's motivated to fight for the Constitution.

Powersauce
08-01-2007, 8:15 AM
He should have came here first and learned how to get those legally.

yep possible CCW permit?

Prc329
08-01-2007, 8:40 AM
At least he had a trigger-lock!

Doesn't look like a doj approved lock.

slick_711
08-01-2007, 9:24 AM
He had an FS2000 and a PS90 for sure, perhaps some other stuff. He told me he got the PS90 "through a friend in AZ" when he brought it to the range... I told him it was illegal and not worth the risk hahahaha. I gotta be honest, I don't feel bad at all. I warned him, and hes a rich full of himself daddy's boy anyway.

:chris:

Stanze
08-01-2007, 9:57 AM
All unconstitutional gun laws should be abolished!:mad:

slick_711
08-01-2007, 10:08 AM
All unconstitutional gun laws should be abolished!:mad:

Yes but until they are why should the rich be any less required to live by the existing laws than the poor? He knew he was breaking the law, he did it publicly, and apparently the wrong person finally saw him.

JALLEN
08-01-2007, 10:08 AM
It's a Federal charge; CA state laws weren't involved. Whatever he bought in AZ was just as illegal under Federal statutes there, it appears.

Jicko
08-01-2007, 10:16 AM
It's a Federal charge; CA state laws weren't involved. Whatever he bought in AZ was just as illegal under Federal statutes there, it appears.

Isn't it an ASSAULT WEAPON?

Should there be an "importation" of AW felony charge? I doubt that he uses a "fixed 10 rounds magazine"....

shonc99
08-01-2007, 11:22 AM
Isn't it an ASSAULT WEAPON?

Should there be an "importation" of AW felony charge? I doubt that he uses a "fixed 10 rounds magazine"....

Why would the CA BOF bother with this guy? They'd rather go after the smaller guys on more insignificant charges like mag locks and pistol grips.

simonov
08-01-2007, 11:25 AM
It's a Federal charge; CA state laws weren't involved. Whatever he bought in AZ was just as illegal under Federal statutes there, it appears.

The Federal charges might have been illegal acquisition and interstate transportation.

jdberger
08-01-2007, 11:37 AM
That rifle looks like an SBR, too. He got off easy with only illegal possession.

JALLEN
08-01-2007, 12:31 PM
I was thinking about it, and it doesn't appear to be merely a possession rap but illegal purchase, i.e. not doing the sale through an FFL, getting possession illegally. If it is full auto or short barreled, etc., then that's another problem, too.

I supposed he could be charged in state court for violations of the state laws without doing violence to double jeopardy.

CCWFacts
08-01-2007, 1:08 PM
The picture looks like the non-civilian SBR version. The civilian version has a barrel sticking out. But who knows if the picture is a file photo or the real gun in question or an airsoft that someone found or whatever.

These laws are unconstitutional, but as they are on the books, they should be enforced fairly on the rich and non-rich alike. What an idiot for doing this. With the money he had he could have gotten the right permits to own this stuff all legally. He could also have spent the money and time he had on training, and learned how to make proper use of a Mossburg that costs $350 at Big5. Someone who knows what he's doing with a $350 Mossburg is a lot more deadly than someone who is clueless with a PS90 or anything else.

Stanze
08-01-2007, 1:12 PM
Yes but until they are why should the rich be any less required to live by the existing laws than the poor? He knew he was breaking the law, he did it publicly, and apparently the wrong person finally saw him.

I didn't say that, you said that. I think the unconstitutional laws/charges are bull**** no matter social status.

CCWFacts
08-01-2007, 1:13 PM
More info here: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070801-9999-1m1rady.html

Prosecutors said Rady admitted buying 10 guns, including three Romanian-made AK-47 rifles, from an unlicensed dealer knowing that they had been purchased out of state in Arizona.

Of course, the media will call anything that looks like an AK an "AK-47" even if it's quite different from that.

The LA Times calls it a "a semiautomatic assault rifle", which is sort of like a four-wheel bicycle: the term is inherently impossible because full-auto is an essential part of the definition of "assault rifle".

StukaJr
08-01-2007, 1:13 PM
He could have bought a house in Nevada and acquired/kept it there legally, no problem...

ghettoshecky
08-01-2007, 1:32 PM
He had an FS2000 and a PS90 for sure, perhaps some other stuff. He told me he got the PS90 "through a friend in AZ" when he brought it to the range... I told him it was illegal and not worth the risk hahahaha. I gotta be honest, I don't feel bad at all. I warned him, and hes a rich full of himself daddy's boy anyway.

:chris:

I wish you would have really really pressed onto him about this site. Think about what a son of a powerful and influential man in California can do for gun owners. Who knows he might have even bankrolled the Alpine County Thing, so that he could have possibly owned a full auto....sigh... feels like a missed chance somehow:rolleyes:

slick_711
08-01-2007, 7:43 PM
I wish you would have really really pressed onto him about this site. Think about what a son of a powerful and influential man in California can do for gun owners. Who knows he might have even bankrolled the Alpine County Thing, so that he could have possibly owned a full auto....sigh... feels like a missed chance somehow:rolleyes:

You didn't meet the guy. :rolleyes:

triggerhappy
08-01-2007, 8:16 PM
With his $, one would think he could have gotten the sweetest legal setup possible in Calif. While the laws are stupid, this was just dumb on his part...

Riodog
08-01-2007, 10:24 PM
With enough $$$ anything is possible. Why, there might even be a few individuals that own full auto's, etc.:eek:
Rio

Cato
08-01-2007, 10:33 PM
On a side note...this guy is know as "son of a billionaire." It's too bad at 40 yo he is still know as "son of so and so."

socalguns
08-01-2007, 11:23 PM
Daddy, when will I be a man? Not even after I'm dead GW :D

Crazed_SS
08-02-2007, 2:48 AM
http://www.10news.com/news/13797495/detail.html

In addition to the Romanian rifles, he purchased a Smith & Wesson .357-caliber pistol, two FNH 57, 5.7x28 mm handguns, two FNH PS 90 5.7x28 mm rifles, one HK91 .308-caliber rifle and one FN 5.7 handgun, according to court documents.

lol.. what a complete dummy.. Coulda got the pistols here in Cali. As far as semi-auto battle rifles go, why didnt he just go down to the local gun shop and pick up a couple SOCOMs and M1As? Sure, they dont have the cool pistol grip or evil looks of AKs, HK91s, PS90's, etc, but they're still pretty effective weapons.

ts
08-02-2007, 4:24 AM
http://www.10news.com/news/13797495/detail.html

In addition to the Romanian rifles, he purchased a Smith & Wesson .357-caliber pistol, two FNH 57, 5.7x28 mm handguns, two FNH PS 90 5.7x28 mm rifles, one HK91 .308-caliber rifle and one FN 5.7 handgun, according to court documents.

lol.. what a complete dummy.. Coulda got the pistols here in Cali. As far as semi-auto battle rifles go, why didnt he just go down to the local gun shop and pick up a couple SOCOMs and M1As? Sure, they dont have the cool pistol grip or evil looks of AKs, HK91s, PS90's, etc, but they're still pretty effective weapons.

seems like someone does not like body armor.

simonov
08-02-2007, 5:36 AM
As far as semi-auto battle rifles go, why didnt he just go down to the local gun shop and pick up a couple SOCOMs and M1As?

Because he was brought up from an early age to believe that rules and laws are for people like us, not for people like him.

I'm posting from Newport Beach. There are a lot of tards like that here, as well.

m1match
08-02-2007, 6:00 AM
I think Mr. Rady made a very stupid mistake which he is going to have to be accountable for, but without knowing him personally, I wouldn't condemn his personal character. His father is a self made man with a very good reputation for his character in local business circles and the family has until recently studiously avoided publicity. Also remember that the family was not ultra wealthy when the sons were growing up, so they didn't grow up as spoiled brats who could have anything they wanted.

Having said that, buying this many guns with at least knowledge that the seller was not legal is so incredibly dumb as to make me shake my head in wonder. It also shows that except for "gun guys" like us, most non enthusiasts are completely ignorant of what firearms are legal or illegal in California, a result of our ridiculously complex and restrictive laws.

WolfMansDad
08-02-2007, 8:25 AM
seems like someone does not like body armor.

I wonder if the crooks who tied up his parents and ransacked their house were wearing body armor. It's been done before, in home invasions, and would be a perfectly good reason to get a fiveseven or even an ordinary rifle.

That said, why didn't he just go down to Turners, fill out the paperwork, and buy something over the counter just like the rest of us? The only reason I can think of is that he has some prior drug conviction or something that would prevent him from passing the background check.

jdberger
08-02-2007, 8:38 AM
http://www.10news.com/news/13797495/detail.html

In addition to the Romanian rifles, he purchased a Smith & Wesson .357-caliber pistol, two FNH 57, 5.7x28 mm handguns, two FNH PS 90 5.7x28 mm rifles, one HK91 .308-caliber rifle and one FN 5.7 handgun, according to court documents.

lol.. what a complete dummy.. Coulda got the pistols here in Cali. As far as semi-auto battle rifles go, why didnt he just go down to the local gun shop and pick up a couple SOCOMs and M1As? Sure, they dont have the cool pistol grip or evil looks of AKs, HK91s, PS90's, etc, but they're still pretty effective weapons.

interesting. I don't see the FN 2000 that was pictured in an earlier screen grab on the list. And the pic didn't have "file photo" printed on it.

CCWFacts
08-02-2007, 8:52 AM
With his $, one would think he could have gotten the sweetest legal setup possible in Calif. While the laws are stupid, this was just dumb on his part...

He had a few options. First, if he wanted to own new MGs, he could have created a FFL business, gotten the class license to deal in MGs, and gotten a letter of interest from some local LE entity. He could have gotten a CCW; surely the sheriff would say yes to someone like that. He could have set up a movie industry props company, which would have let him get licenses, but not own new MGs. He could have gone through the reserve deputy program. This is a lot of work, but he probably had time for such things. As a full reserve deputy he could have gotten authorization from the sheriff to own a whole variety of stuff. He could have started an armored car company to at least get the exemption for large-cap mags. There are other, more exotic avenues of legal possession, too.

He had about a dozen different avenues to own large-caps, AWs, and even new MGs in this state. But no, he does it the easy way, and will have to enjoy the life of a multi-millionaire, in jail.

Jicko
08-02-2007, 9:14 AM
Probably, he wanted MANY guns, and he wanted them NOW.... he wouldn't want to wait 30days per handgun.... he wouldn't want to "buy an FFL business" which would have taken... months, maybe years...

He wanted to buy the guns... and walk...

He plead guilty probably in order to get away from all those SBR, AW charges..... just plead guilty claiming "scared" state-of-mind etc...

The only way he can get off THIS light, probably due to his wealth, anyone else... you are in for deep ****....

sigguy552
08-02-2007, 9:33 AM
I wonder if the crooks who tied up his parents and ransacked their house were wearing body armor. It's been done before, in home invasions, and would be a perfectly good reason to get a fiveseven or even an ordinary rifle.

Not sure if you guys realize this but only one specific type of ammo from the 5.7 will penetrate body armor. That type of ammo is not available to civilians and can only be drop shipped to depts if they order it. Otherwise, the pistol is just a super zippy 22 on roids.

ghettoshecky
08-02-2007, 9:55 AM
somehow I'm get this feeling that Rady just wanted to screw around with the guns. If you read the news http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/13798955/detail.html

"According to his attorney Robert Grimes, Rady purchased the guns as a result of the home invasion robbery of his parents on Feb. 7." That reason was said from an attorney to maybe gain public support.
I'm guessing that reason is not the real reason, maybe a side reason, to purchase these guns. It's a real shame if he was just a gun enthusiast who just thought he could get around the law. I don't have too much sympathy for him as his unlimited legal fund probably gave him a favorable plea bargain, but really I don't like he is as the rest of us are limited from owning certain firearms.

tiki
08-02-2007, 10:12 AM
He had a few options. First, if he wanted to own new MGs, he could have created a FFL business, gotten the class license to deal in MGs, and gotten a letter of interest from some local LE entity. He could have gotten a CCW; surely the sheriff would say yes to someone like that. He could have set up a movie industry props company, which would have let him get licenses, but not own new MGs. He could have gone through the reserve deputy program. This is a lot of work, but he probably had time for such things. As a full reserve deputy he could have gotten authorization from the sheriff to own a whole variety of stuff. He could have started an armored car company to at least get the exemption for large-cap mags. There are other, more exotic avenues of legal possession, too.

He had about a dozen different avenues to own large-caps, AWs, and even new MGs in this state. But no, he does it the easy way, and will have to enjoy the life of a multi-millionaire, in jail.


With his cash, he could have just bought a house in Nevada or Arizona, gotten the damn permits for title II and been done with it.

CCWFacts
08-02-2007, 10:22 AM
With his cash, he could have just bought a house in Nevada or Arizona, gotten the damn permits for title II and been done with it.

Oh of course he could do that. That's easy. I was just suggesting ways that a mega-rich person could own new MGs, AWs, etc, here in California.

1911su16b870
08-02-2007, 11:49 AM
Maybe he could finance the repeal of CA's crazy AW laws so that what he had, and had done would have been legal...:D...

oh...sorry...I'm awake now...:sleeping:

CCWFacts
08-02-2007, 12:10 PM
Maybe he could finance the repeal of CA's crazy AW laws so that what he had, and had done would have been legal...:D...

It really is a shame that he was not in contact with the community here. He could have had the law changed. It's hard to put a financial value on what he is going through now, but whatever it's worth, it would have been a lot cheaper to get CA's law changed. A few million dollars in lobbying, plus the threat of a few million dollars in campaign contributions scattered all over the state, would easily have changed the law. Maybe not a total repeal, but some change whereby he could have gotten those things legally. Maybe opening the reg period, creating new procedures for issuing AW permits, etc.

He also could have funded a legal effort to undermine the law.

He could have done so many things. He had a dozen different ways he could have owned those guns legally.

oh...sorry...I'm awake now...:sleeping:

Ha ha, but seriously, if he had done any searches on Google he would have found this community. This site comes up #5 on Google when you search 'california assault weapon'. Pure stupidity of him.

DrjonesUSA
08-02-2007, 12:11 PM
The son of a La Jolla billionaire is in trouble with the law after being accused of illegally possessing a large cache of weapons.

In federal court Tuesday, 40-year-old Harry Rady pleaded guilty to illegal possession of firearms. Court documents showed that Rady violated federal law by purchasing the weapons without a license.

Rady's attorney said he bought the guns after a home invasion robbery at his parent's home.



1) What exactly passes for a "large cache of weapons" these days? Two guns, maybe three? :rolleyes:

2) There is no license required to purchase a long gun in CA, only for handguns - the HSC.

3) Why would someone with such means do something so stupid? Why wouldn't he just go to the closest gun store & have them take care of him??

4) Home invasion at his parents....I bet they live in a "good neighborhood", being that they are billionaires and all. Just goes to show there is no such thing as a "safe place" or a "good neighborhood" and that it truly can happen anywhere at any time.

To think otherwise only proves your ignorance.

DrjonesUSA
08-02-2007, 12:13 PM
Why would the CA BOF bother with this guy? They'd rather go after the smaller guys on more insignificant charges like mag locks and pistol grips.


No, actually, mega-rich guys like this are their favorite targets because they have more money to spend fighting, paying fines & fees, etc.

You haven't read Unintended Consequences, have you?

shonc99
08-02-2007, 2:00 PM
I should have inserted a 'Roll Eyes' smily. Sorry the sarcasm didn't come through:D

But truthfully, this case is federal and not related to CA AW laws. It is always ironic to see someone with ties to great wealth doing very dumb things.

DrjonesUSA
08-02-2007, 2:03 PM
I should have inserted a 'Roll Eyes' smily. Sorry the sarcasm didn't come through:D

But truthfully, this case is federal and not related to CA AW laws. It is always ironic to see someone with ties to great wealth doing very dumb things.

Oh.


Sooooo.....have you read Unintended Consequences?

:)

http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross/dp/1888118040/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1255068-4281634?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186092213&sr=8-1

EF&D is excellent too:
http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Foreign-Domestic-Matthew-Bracken/dp/0972831010/ref=pd_bbs_4/002-1255068-4281634?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186092213&sr=8-4

ibbryn
08-02-2007, 2:15 PM
When I am a billionaire I will show everyone how to develop the ultimate bad-*** battery of CA legal weapons.

Just you wait...

slick_711
08-02-2007, 7:13 PM
Hes a member at the range I frequent, and someone "very close to me" has sold him guns (lol). He brought the PS90 (&50rd. mags) to the range and made it very clear he knew they were illegal and he didn't care because he didn't intend to get caught. I reiterate, no sympathies here.

But yeah... I'd take an SA SOCOM 16 over the HK91 or PS90 w/o hesitation. Even if the latter two were legal.

Fate
08-02-2007, 7:54 PM
Looks like slick_711 will be a witness for the prosecution soon.

CCWFacts
08-02-2007, 9:32 PM
Hes a member at the range I frequent, and someone "very close to me" has sold him guns (lol). He brought the PS90 (&50rd. mags) to the range and made it very clear he knew they were illegal and he didn't care because he didn't intend to get caught. I reiterate, no sympathies here.

Fact 1, billionaire businessmen are conscious of legal risks, and get legal advice all the time. Fact 2, there are numerous legal options for owning AWs, MGs, new MGs, etc, here in California, legally, for someone with that much money. Fact 3, this guy could have had his own private range installed and no one would ever have found out.

I put these facts together, and come to the conclusion, some part of him must have wanted this trouble. Maybe some part of him wants a real drama, a real conflict, a real hardship. Now he's got it.

But yeah... I'd take an SA SOCOM 16 over the HK91 or PS90 w/o hesitation. Even if the latter two were legal.

Totally. The one thing we can be thankful for, with this AWB, is that more people are switching from 223 to 308, thereby increasing the general safety of everyone in this state.

slick_711
08-02-2007, 11:50 PM
Looks like slick_711 will be a witness for the prosecution soon.

No. I have a distaste for people who blatantly break the law and think they're above it. I am not however, a tattletale. lol :p

ghettoshecky
08-03-2007, 9:40 AM
No. I have a distaste for people who blatantly break the law and think they're above it. I am not however, a tattletale. lol :p

..sad I am starting to feel like the only San Diegan who frequents the different ranges down there who didn't get the chance to even see PS90 with a 50 round mag in action, but out of curiosity did he ever let anyone else shoot it?

Crazed_SS
08-03-2007, 11:56 AM
I never shot it. What range did he frequent?

slick_711
08-03-2007, 9:50 PM
I hate to admit it after rambling about how he blatantly broke the law, but I shot the PS90. He was a bit cocky/over confident, but a friendly enough guy. I only remember him bringing it to the range once that I noticed, and I didn't like the "halo" style sight, the reticle was too dim. Nice rifle though, black stock, lightweight, virtually no recoil. I assumed it was just an illegally purchased civ model & didn't try to flip the safety to a 3rd position, so I can't answer any questions there. Only put ~10 rounds through it anyway. The other firearms I noticed him shooting regularly were a 5.7 pistol, a shotgun (think Benelli) and an M1. Never saw any AKs or HK91.

I very clearly remember him putting about 300 rounds of steel core milsurp .308 into the traps on lane 8, and the guy I know that works at the range told me that when they had to re-weld all the traps over the past month lane 8 was one of the ones that was worse off. They all needed to be repaired though so that is of little relevance, just a note as to the reality of the PITA issues of steel core ammo at indoor ranges. :rolleyes:

Crazed_SS
08-04-2007, 7:12 AM
Generally, isnt a Federal Firearm's License required to transfer guns across state lines? Im guessing he's being charged because as a California resident, he bought guns from Arizona without having or going through someone with a FFL.

Smokeybehr
08-04-2007, 7:23 AM
If he's established legal residence in AZ, then he can buy guns P2P all day long (provided they are not Title II) from another AZ resident. He can bring them back and forth across the state line as many times as he wants, as long as he is not breaking state laws (AW/normal cap mags).

The fed law comes into play if he's not a resident, buys the guns out of state, and transports them into CA.

IANAL.

Crazed_SS
08-04-2007, 7:29 AM
If he's established legal residence in AZ, then he can buy guns P2P all day long (provided they are not Title II) from another AZ resident. He can bring them back and forth across the state line as many times as he wants, as long as he is not breaking state laws (AW/normal cap mags).

The fed law comes into play if he's not a resident, buys the guns out of state, and transports them into CA.

IANAL.

I dunno.. Is he an AZ resident? I assumed he's a CA resident since he's the son of the La Jolla (San Diego) Billionare.

mumbleypeg
08-08-2007, 7:02 AM
Rady break-in was catalyst for weapons buy, lawyer says

By Greg Moran
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

August 8, 2007

The road that led Harry Maxwell Rady, the son of La Jolla billionaire Ernest Rady, to plead guilty to a federal firearms charge last week began in a Yuma, Ariz., gun shop.

It was there that an El Cajon construction contractor named Jason Bornholdt purchased 10 weapons – including three Romanian AK-47 rifles – and ammunition in February and March.

That led to an investigation by federal agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that culminated in search warrants served on Harry Maxwell Rady's mansion in La Jolla and Bornholdt's home and business in El Cajon. In each home, agents found a trove of firearms, according to court records. They pulled out 18 firearms from Rady's home, including the 10 purchased in Arizona.

An additional 74 weapons were seized from Bornholdt's home, all detailed in a three-page list itemizing various pistols, shotguns and rifles.

The warrants also uncovered a $10,000 check from Rady to Bornholdt – payment for the weapons purchased in Arizona and illegally brought back to California.

What brought the unlikely pair – the heir to a La Jolla fortune and an El Cajon businessman – together? Rady's lawyer, Robert Grimes, said the weapons were purchased on the advice of a security consultant hired by the Rady family in the wake of a violent February home-invasion robbery of the senior Rady.

In that bizarre incident, an intruder burst into the home and used a Taser on Ernest Rady and his wife, tying up the couple and their housekeeper and spending six hours in the home before leaving with $43.

No one has been arrested.

The security consultant told the Rady clan the greatest danger they faced was a potential kidnapping for ransom, and that Harry Rady's two small children were vulnerable, Grimes said.

The security consultant advised Harry Rady that he needed more firepower, and that weapons should be placed throughout his family's home, Grimes said.

Weapons such as AK-47s, shotguns, rifles or pistols can all be effective choices for personal safety, depending upon the circumstances, said Robert Soldenski, manager of Discount Gun Mart in San Diego, and a firearms instructor who consults on home security. Soldenski was not the expert consulted by the Rady family.

“It depends on where your home's located,” Soldenski said.

In a potentially dangerous neighborhood or city, perhaps Mexico City, an AK-47 might be a good choice, he said.

In a generally quiet neighborhood such as La Jolla, a .38-caliber handgun special would be a better choice because it is smaller, ammunition is easily available and it is easier to operate, Soldenski said.

Rady, 40, pleaded guilty last week to one count of receiving firearms without a license. He faces a possible sentence of 12 to 18 months in prison. Sentencing is set for Oct. 22.

Bornholdt has been charged with transporting firearms across state lines without a license, and federal prosecutors expect him to plead guilty later this month. McCabe said prosecutors are recommending a two-year sentence.

Federal gun law prohibits residents of one state from buying firearms in another state. The weapons can't be brought across state lines and sold by someone who doesn't possess a gun dealer's license.

Federal authorities said Rady bought the guns from an unlicensed person who purchased them out of state.

Bornholdt had once done construction work for Harry Rady on his La Jolla house, said Michael McCabe, Bornholdt's lawyer. The two struck up a friendship.

“They shared an interest in firearms and were shooting enthusiasts and collectors,” McCabe said. “They started hanging around together.”

After the home-invasion robbery, McCabe said, Bornholdt agreed to purchase the weapons Rady wanted for him.

“He wasn't motivated by profit. He was doing a buddy a favor,” McCabe said.

An affidavit for a search warrant for Bornholdt's home and business details the investigation. On April 2, a Yuma police detective tipped ATF agents to Bornholdt's firearm purchases at Sprague's Sports in the Arizona city. The warrant said checks of federal firearms registries showed Bornholdt was not a licensed dealer. In addition, Bornholdt had listed an Arizona address when he bought the guns but gave a San Diego phone number.

Federal agents soon determined Bornholdt's residence was in El Cajon.

On May 1, the federal agents were told that Bornholdt had picked up the guns at the gun store in Yuma and was on his way back to California.

ATF agents spotted Bornholdt on Interstate 8 in his black BMW and followed him to a restaurant in La Jolla, where he met a man who was later identified as an employee of Harry Rady's.

The two men transferred the guns from Bornholdt's car to the employee's car, according to the warrant. The ATF agents then followed the employee to Harry Rady's home in La Jolla.

At 10:30 the next morning, agents served a search warrant on Rady's home. They found the guns, as well as syringes and steroids, records show.

McCabe said the government has demanded proof from his client that the cache of weapons found in Bornholdt's home was purchased legally.

If that proof can't be provided, the 74 guns will be seized, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Alessandra Serano.

Staff writer David E. Graham contributed to this report.

Greg Moran: (619) 542-4586; greg.moran@uniontrib.com




Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070808-9999-1n8rady.html

Crazed_SS
08-08-2007, 8:08 AM
Wow.. All I can say is, "What the hell were they thinking!?"

You would think the guy with 74 guns would know better.

spgk380
08-08-2007, 8:58 PM
Anybody notice that the San Diego Union Tribune article on this story was completely devoid of anti-gun bias, quoted knowledgeable, gun-friendly sources and was quite accurate and insightful?? You would NEVER get an article like this from the LA Times or Washington post.

Crazed_SS
08-13-2007, 12:47 AM
Anybody notice that the San Diego Union Tribune article on this story was completely devoid of anti-gun bias, quoted knowledgeable, gun-friendly sources and was quite accurate and insightful?? You would NEVER get an article like this from the LA Times or Washington post.

Yea.. a pretty fair write up.. here's another one..
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/08/13/government/682rady080707.txt

Crazed_SS
11-03-2007, 2:18 AM
Looks like the guy was sentenced..

http://www.10news.com/news/14497594/detail.html

Harry Maxwell Rady, 40, pleaded guilty July 31 to one count of receiving firearms without a license. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez.

SC_00_05
11-03-2007, 9:31 AM
No. I have a distaste for people who blatantly break the law and think they're above it. I am not however, a tattletale. lol :p
Although I agree about the "feeling above the law" aspect, I have much respect for people that are willing to break ridiculous laws openly. If only everyone was like this, these laws would be unenforceable. Instead, most of us (including myself) cower in the face of these.

Richie Rich
11-03-2007, 10:13 AM
Was he convicted of a misdemeanor? The sentencing makes it hard to figure out (no jail, house arrest, probation and a huge fine).

Watch the contractor that purchased the weapons for him get 10+ years in federal prison.

Daddys money bailed him out big time on this one.

mike100
11-03-2007, 11:17 AM
No doubt a billionaire's son got off light. Nobody in the city would want to be on a billionaire's s-list.

anyways..if this guy had no crim record, why wouldn't he just go down to the local gun store and buy a 12ga and a glock? I was thinking that maybe he assumed all the brady crap and that guns were illegal here and that it never occurred to him to buy a couple legitimately.

either that or he really is a dumbass that has been bailed out of situations before, hence the clean record.

I remember this story..it sure seemed strange.

MedSpec65
11-03-2007, 11:32 AM
I think Mr. Rady made a very stupid mistake which he is going to have to be accountable for, but without knowing him personally, I wouldn't condemn his personal character. His father is a self made man with a very good reputation for his character in local business circles and the family has until recently studiously avoided publicity. Also remember that the family was not ultra wealthy when the sons were growing up, so they didn't grow up as spoiled brats who could have anything they wanted.

Having said that, buying this many guns with at least knowledge that the seller was not legal is so incredibly dumb as to make me shake my head in wonder. It also shows that except for "gun guys" like us, most non enthusiasts are completely ignorant of what firearms are legal or illegal in California, a result of our ridiculously complex and restrictive laws.Sounds like a decent guy who neglected to indulge his local gun store in some basic conversation about CA gun ownership before using "outside connections" to purchase some home protection. This is one of the pitfalls of being wealthy and prudently insulated from the mainstream. It's now a huge problem for him and his family because his sentence will definitely exclude him from purchasing firearms in CA for a very long time. He won't be able to legally purchase guns in any other State either. He'll have to petition the court to allow him to hire licensed private investigators or lawfully armed bodyguards to protect his family.

DedEye
11-03-2007, 12:04 PM
At least he had a trigger-lock!

On the bright side, he has deep enough pockets to fight the charges, and hopefully get a good 2AM case to the Supreme Court. I hope he's motivated to fight for the Constitution.

He pleaded guilty.

artherd
11-04-2007, 1:18 AM
What a fool, I own an FN 5.7 handgun in CA, completely legally. It's on the dam list. (shakes head).

duenor
11-04-2007, 6:34 AM
It is sad, really - this could have been the poster case for 2A rights. Home invasion robbery, 5 hours of traumatic helplessness, man sees the light and embraces gun ownership... remember the texas congresswoman whose parents were killed at a McD while her handgun was in the trunk because TX at the time would not allow carry?

with such a perfect shock story and pop's money, rady could have become a 2A hero.

so the lesson is this - we as a gun community need to also be on the lookout for OFFENSIVE ways to fight for the 2A. If we had caught this last year, and made an honest attempt to bring Rady over to our side, this year may well have seen us in the MSM educating the masses about how guns give the honest citizen a fighting chance.

kev

slick_711
11-04-2007, 8:58 AM
It is sad, really - this could have been the poster case for 2A rights. Home invasion robbery, 5 hours of traumatic helplessness, man sees the light and embraces gun ownership... remember the texas congresswoman whose parents were killed at a McD while her handgun was in the trunk because TX at the time would not allow carry?

with such a perfect shock story and pop's money, rady could have become a 2A hero.

so the lesson is this - we as a gun community need to also be on the lookout for OFFENSIVE ways to fight for the 2A. If we had caught this last year, and made an honest attempt to bring Rady over to our side, this year may well have seen us in the MSM educating the masses about how guns give the honest citizen a fighting chance.

kev

No?

We did catch it last year, at least some of us. This would not have been a good "poster boy" 2A case. The guy illegally imported a bunch of assault weapons from Arizona, violating multiple state & federal laws in the process. But it was ok for him to do this, because he is a member of the financial elite. What about that strikes you as a poster case?

KenpoProfessor
11-04-2007, 11:27 AM
It is sad, really - this could have been the poster case for 2A rights. Home invasion robbery, 5 hours of traumatic helplessness, man sees the light and embraces gun ownership... remember the texas congresswoman whose parents were killed at a McD while her handgun was in the trunk because TX at the time would not allow carry?


kev

It was a Luby's cafateria, not a McD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

duenor
11-04-2007, 11:33 AM
His being a coalescing cause for the 2A in CA would naturally preclude any involvement in illegal activities. I am presuming that, had he been properly indoctrinated into the movement, he would know how to adjust to the law accordingly while challenging it as well.

CCWFacts
11-04-2007, 11:39 AM
He could have been great for the cause. And we could have helped him develop a legal strategy to own whatever he wanted to own. With the amount of money he has, he could have created a NFA-licensed FFL. He could have also created a DoJ licensed movie props company. He would have had several legal options for owning whatever he wanted to own. And if he were committed to the cause he could have done a bunch of legal things to help, also, like a carefully planned lawsuit, lobbying, PR dollars, etc. Instead he's going to be spending a few years in jail and will never have the right to legally possess a gun again.

attitudinal
11-04-2007, 10:34 PM
Hi
I'm a new member and this is my first post. That aside ...

I recall from high school, perhaps it was American History but I don't clearly recall, a lesson about having a law declared unconstitutional. It went like this: you can scream til you're blue in the face about an unconstitutional law, but you can't do anything about it until someone violates the law and is tried under it. During the trial, the defense can plead guilty but nevertheless argue the law is null and void due to being unconstitutional. If the court agrees, then the law is stricken.

Would anyone here with a legal background like comment to the affirmative (or negative) about this?

Regardless of whether you think the person who broke the law is just a spoiled or "troubled" rich "kid", if the "kid" can have the law stricken in court it helps not just him, it frees everyone from under the yoke of that unconstitutional law. We don't need a pristine poster child. We just need someone who can afford to be sitting in court for years rather than working for a living to feed his family. Also remember that a convicted felon will have a hard time getting good work for the rest of his life (another issue for argument), so again chock up another reason for letting someone who doesn't need an employer to be the legal guinea pig. He could redeem himself as a "man" by taking responsibility and trying to do something to help not just himself but everyone.

Also, if the history lesson as I recall it is true, then why the doenst the NRA, the richest, most litigative pro firearms association in the country, have "political protesters" who knowingly, clearly, and publically (that is, with much publicity) violate various unconstitutional laws for the sole purpose of having the laws stricken in court? Even if the anti-gunners knew that was the plan and wanted to avoid the fight because they feared they'd lose, they'd have to take up the fight anyway because otherwise they'd lose automatically; that is, if the law was publically broken (that is, had significant publicity and was a clear violation) and the police didnt press charges, then the law would be as good as stricken anyway, since anyone could refer to that in their own court case as a legal precendent of non-enforcement.
And who would volunteer to be such a protester? My point with the rich "kid" case is that there should be more than enough people being tried already to make protesters unnecessary; any existing case would suffice, the NRA could generate publicity about the case and take up all legal fees, and hire the best lawyers in the nation. If the violator is a billionare, he can certainly be expected to pay the fees himself. But, if someone thinks that's too tainted by ... ewww, criminals ... then how about volunteering to be a protester ;) (only with signed NRA legal defense commitment, of course)?

Last but not least ... if the history lesson holds true and the NRA doesnt follow this path ... what else is it good for?

slick_711
11-04-2007, 10:51 PM
Ok... I understand your points about a wealthy firearms advocate sticking it to the state, but this guy was not interested in helping the CA 2A case. I've tried to beat around the bush to avoid feeling involved, but I've shot half the guns that he got in trouble for, he was a member and regular shooter at my work. I talked with him on more than one occasion. Don't get me wrong, he's a nice enough guy, but he is definitely an elitist, and he didn't buy these guns because he was scared. His father bought a S&W .357 because he was scared. Harry bought these guns because he quickly became interested in shooting and wanted all sorts of cool stuff that he didn't care he couldn't [legally] have. That's not the type of figurehead we need at the front of a gun case.


then why the doenst the NRA, the richest, most litigative pro firearms association in the country, have "political protesters" who knowingly, clearly, and publically (that is, with much publicity) violate various unconstitutional laws for the sole purpose of having the laws stricken in court?

Good question. Some possible answers: Then the NRA would lose the support of some of it's politician backers. Furthermore, what if they lost the case and precedent became anti-gun? Most importantly, the majority of the laws at issue are just CA state laws and the NRA long ago gave up on CA.

Steyr_223
11-04-2007, 11:01 PM
Thanks for the inside scope, slick_711!

CCWFacts
11-04-2007, 11:04 PM
you can scream til you're blue in the face about an unconstitutional law, but you can't do anything about it until someone violates the law and is tried under it.

Actually, if you can get standing, it is safer and a lot more effective to challenge the law as a civil plaintiff, not as a criminal defendant. Standing may or may not be easy to get.

Why don't we do civil disobedience and challenge a bunch of laws

It would be a disaster, with the protesters likely having convictions upheld, if that were done in this state (circuit).

People get busted for firearms stuff all the time and the convictions stick. A lot of criminal defendants invoke the 2A against their firearms charges, and it is ignored. For a recent example of firearms civil disobedience against a law which I believe is unconstitutional, see the US v. Fincher (http://usvfincher.blogspot.com/2007/04/sentencing-set-in-machine-gun-case.html) case, which was an absolute disaster for Mr. Fincher, and that was in gun-friendly Arkansas. As you say, he knowingly, clearly, publicly violated a law which most of us in the gun advocacy community think is unconstitutional (under both 2A and 10A). If a thousand people did what Mr. Fincher did, it would be an absolute disaster for a thousand people. There's plenty of room in there.

The Heller case, and its progeny, might change a lot of this, obviously.

attitudinal
11-04-2007, 11:33 PM
For a recent example of firearms civil disobedience against a law which I believe is unconstitutional, see the US v. Fincher case, which was an absolute disaster for Mr. Fincher, and that was in gun-friendly Arkansas.

I said the NRA, or something better, fund the legal defense, raise public awareness, etc.. Poor schmucks on their own is what we all are without that. Together we stand, divided we fall.

A lot of criminal defendants invoke the 2A against their firearms charges, and it is ignored. When at first you don't succeed, try, try again. That's the value of an association, fighting for everyone's rights, rather than being isolated, otherwise law-abiding people suddenly in need of legal defense upon being charged with a non-violent felony (possession, transportation, etc.).

Then the NRA would lose the support of some of it's politician backers.
Which could be made into a clear campaign issue come reelection time.

Furthermore, what if they lost the case and precedent became anti-gun?
Precedents today are history tomorrow. In other words, it never stopped the anti-gun people from trying again and again and again to get laws passed, etc.. Who cares about precedent if you can argue the mores of a previous time no longer apply, or that the precedent-setting trial was the result of a failed defense? The 1021st try could be the charm! That is exactly how the 2nd Article of the Bill of Rights is attacked today - "we live in different times" or "we know better, now". Nothing is permanent, every generation has to fight for its rights, and fifty years of (muddle-headed/great) legal precedents can be swept away in one (great/muddle-headed) trial.

attitudinal
11-04-2007, 11:50 PM
Actually, if you can get standing, it is safer and a lot more effective to challenge the law as a civil plaintiff
I'm not educated in the law so "legal standing" has only a vague meaning to me. I'd love to know more. I can search the vault of all truth, aka the internet, but I'd love to hear you expand upon this.

If that's the most effective vehicle for aggressively hunting down and mounting unconstitutional laws in a trophy case, then that's what my ideal civil rights association would use. Would you happen to know of any examples of the NRA doing things that way?

CCWFacts
11-05-2007, 11:33 AM
I'm not educated in the law so "legal standing" has only a vague meaning to me. I'd love to know more. I can search the vault of all truth, aka the internet, but I'd love to hear you expand upon this.

In the common law, and under many statutes, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.

If the party wants to challenge some law, the party must show that he was injured, the law caused the injury, and the court could redress the situation in some way.

Should be easy: "I have a right to own a machine gun. 922(o) is injuring me." Except courts take a very strict view of "injury". It must be actual or imminent harm. If the BATF made a statement that "we're going around searching every home for MGs and we will arrest and prosecute every one we found", then that is imminent harm. That is effectively what happened in DC. The chief opened his yapper and said, "yeah we'll bust these guys!" Thanks for the standing, chief! If he hadn't done that, then maybe the injury wouldn't be imminent and Heller wouldn't have had standing at all.

If that's the most effective vehicle for aggressively hunting down and mounting unconstitutional laws in a trophy case, then that's what my ideal civil rights association would use. Would you happen to know of any examples of the NRA doing things that way?

NRA does a bunch of stuff like that. They fought the SF gun ban (Prop H) using something like that I think. But as I said, it's not easy to get standing; the injury must be imminent. And if we don't have a right to keep and bear arms (ie, "the people" is a euphemism for "the government"), then denying us ownership of some gun or other isn't an injury, is it?

This stuff isn't easy.

You suggested civil disobedience, and I'll say something about that. Our court system relies on plea bargains to function. More than 95% of crim. cases never go to trial; they are plea bargained. And the court system is still overloaded. There are not very many trials every year in the US, at either federal and state levels. The system is vulnerable to "me and 100,000 of my friends are breaking the law and we want full jury trials" type of attacks. Couple that with some informed jurors, who will not convict, which results in mistrials, and you have the potential for a small number of dedicated and brave / foolish people to render a law unenforceable. This is happening now with marijuana issues; local levels don't have the resources to prosecute, so no one bothers arresting the small-time guys. The same could happen with guns, but the stakes are high. If you had 100,000 people signed up to violate some law, and if they start plea bargaining, then the whole civil disobedience collapses and everyone comes out with a conviction. If all these people stick to their guns (so to speak) and refuse to plea and demand full jury trials, whatever law they are taking on would be hopeless.

How could you get 100,000 people to stick to their guns? Going back to this La Jolla billionaire, someone in that position could announce a legal defense fund, providing enough money to give 100,000 people a full legal defense and a full jury trial. That might give these people the confidence to stick to the plan, which would make it work.

Alas this guy didn't do any of this and now he has a) done nothing for our movement and b) is now in a lot of trouble and his life is very non-fun.

Liberty1
11-05-2007, 12:48 PM
I would love to see a Gun Owners Legal Defense Fund insurance plan along the lines of the peace officers LDF I have. It costs me about 15-20 dollars a month out of my association dues for LDF; less then we pay for cable TV!.

CCWFacts
11-05-2007, 1:34 PM
I would love to see a Gun Owners Legal Defense Fund insurance plan along the lines of the peace officers LDF I have. It costs me about 15-20 dollars a month out of my association dues for LDF; less then we pay for cable TV!.

This guy could have started something like that. Announce that he has created (incorporated, funded with $100mil) a legal defense insurance company. It writes policies to anyone with a clean background, and provides crim. defense insurance for certain listed offenses. Then he could do some marketing to get thousands of people to sign up. Then get a top-notch legal team ready to go. Then announce, "I am now owning this FA converted AR-15. I attempted to pay the transfer fee to the BATF but they declined to accept it. If necessary I will surrender and face trial, and defend myself vigorously, using this team of the best lawyers money can pay for." Then 100,000 of his best friends could do the same thing.

Also he would spend an extra $100mil or so on educating the citizens about the full power of juries.

Note that there are less than 100,000 Federal-level trials a year, and a similar number of California state-level trials. They can't process even 10,000, or even 1,000 technical gun jury trials in a year. That's like a snake trying to swallow a hippo. And right now, today, some murderers, rapists and other violent criminals are being let go because there aren't resources to mount an adequate prosecution. Are they going to let go 10,000 more murderers, rapists and kidnappers so they can have the joy of 10,000 non-violent technical firearms violation prosecutions? If a full jury trial against a defendant with a strong legal team costs $1mil (my estimate) are they going to be thrilled to blow $10bil on such an endeavor? Who is happy when $10bil goes to prosecuting a bunch of law-abiding non-violent gun rights activists? Even the most fanatic anti-RKBA people should be able to see that spending $10bil on community development projects, job creation, affordable housing and schools is a better deal than preventing people from putting fun switches on their ARs.

Btw, I'm focusing on MGs because that's an area that is so out there that they "have" to prosecute it or react in some way. It's also something which is black-and-white illegal (although the law might not be constitutional). It's also something which is meaningless; very very few crimes are committed with FA weapons. And there is an easy resolution: strike 922(o) and let people start going through new NFA regs. But the idea applies to a lot of things.

Anyway, this is something that your average billionaire could set up and do. I hope I'm a billionaire someday.

bwiese
11-05-2007, 1:40 PM
I would love to see a Gun Owners Legal Defense Fund insurance plan along the lines of the peace officers LDF I have. It costs me about 15-20 dollars a month out of my association dues for LDF; less then we pay for cable TV!.

The problem is, this would likely be seen as a sort of license to act cavalierly - kinda like how health insurance isolates people from their bad behavior (smoking, drinking, etc.) and how people play Road Warrior with rental cars when they fill out the CDW.

For such a plan to have effective coverage and stay solvent, it would likely require several hundred dollars per year or more.

LE plans have a bit of a shield from this: there's already legal/departmental support for the cop so it's "umbrella" coverage instead of primary, and the general perception that LE is doing whatever behavior in the line of duty.

bwiese
11-05-2007, 1:46 PM
They can't process even 10,000, or even 1,000 technical gun jury trials in a year.

Correct. This is one of the reasons we wanted the OLL craze - esp after we saw "Two weeks" stretch to "forever" - to get as many folks around the state involved - and this intentionally included cops/CHP, DA investigators, lawyers, etc.

Can't snipe one or two folks at the beginning and then break the run. They tried that with Ben (artherd) without him breaking a sweat.

In fact some fair fraction of the CHP officers "guarding" the Aug 16 '06 regulatory hearing about 'detachable magazine' issues were in fact OLL owners who apparently jimmied their duty scheduling to be present.

grammaton76
11-06-2007, 12:17 PM
..sad I am starting to feel like the only San Diegan who frequents the different ranges down there who didn't get the chance to even see PS90 with a 50 round mag in action, but out of curiosity did he ever let anyone else shoot it?

I handled a completely illegal FS2000 last night. Think the guy got it in Missouri - he insisted that it was covered because his AR's and AK's were registered, and wouldn't hear a single word otherwise.

I don't know what it is about these FN rifles that make folks more willing to break the law. I know my FS2000's disassembled, and the PS90 hasn't been assembled without its mag lock kit.