50 Weapons Seized in Santa Cruz Raid

[Friendo]

Here is a little update in the paper today for all the dope smokers still following this thread

LARKIN VALLEY

Charges remain undecided in gun case
The District Attorney's Office on Monday had yet to file charges in last week's arrest of a 25-year-old man on a rural Larkin Valley Road property where more than 50 guns and 100 marijuana plants were found, authorities said.

Prosecutor Dave Genochio said he has yet to receive a complete report from the Sheriff's Office.

Wednesday, Reid William Nottoli was arrested on suspicion of drug and weapons charges. Deputies said he lives on the property with his father and other family members.

Nottoli posted bail Thursday, authorities said.

He is due in court in Watsonville on Tuesday on a separate case in which he is accused of possessing a loaded weapon in a vehicle while driving under the influence of drugs, court officials said.

[HUTCH 7.62]

Surely you've noticed by now that most of Calguns outside of the Marketplace is full of racist/xenophobic commentary that's thinly veiled at best.

If your a white male everything you say can be considered racist.

[goober]

Tons of FUD here in the analysis/opinions posted regarding this event.

Smart thinking,,,,,, to release him on bail.
Let s see,,,, bail set at $110 thousand,,, deposit is 10%,,, so he's out after paying $110 dollars.

I feel sorry for the family members, also living on the property.

your bad arithmetic aside, you don't quite understand how bail/bond works; if the arrested party (or his agents) put up the bail money themselves, they get it ALL back if and when the defendant appears in court and is found not guilty. the state/local authorities do not keep 10%. there may be a small (~$10) fee, but nothing like 10%.
what you are probably thinking of is the fee a bail bondsman would charge if his services are used. in that case, one only has to put up 10-20% of the total bail (the rest is covered by the bondsman), but that amount is not returned regardless of the outcome of the case. it is the bondsman's fee for putting up the balance. (and in this case would be $11,000 @ 10%).
of course none of this is considered when determining whether an individual is granted bail or not.

UGH really?

no.

I'm going to make an assumption that someone growing that much pot isn't go to bother making sure their OLL has a bullet button.

bad assumption. i know of people who both grow and are very savvy about CA firearm laws, which they obey explicitly.

Hah wow he had a m203 grenade launcher!!

as pointed out by several others, not.

what an idiot though, growing plants and keeping illegal unregistered weapons.

not sure how you know all that...

I'm willing to bet many of those are stolen, FOR SURE the newer ones with the Magpul stocks. I'm sure the guy also sells guns too. That was a cool looking M16A1 though! I'm betting full auto.

what makes newer rifles w/ Magpul (or any other) stocks "FOR SURE" stolen?

Potheads deserve the felony charges.

as others pointed out, it just might be more appropriate to get all the facts before making a knee-jerk response due to the fact that there are "potheads" involved.

You guys are worse than the FUD in the news, because your supposed to know better than to make unsubstantiated claims about the legality of weapons which you obviously are unaware of, sad

So the seized 50 legal guns belonging to one person, wow at a local gun store there is 80 belonging to one person including a 50 cal and so many ebr's and other ak's and hk01's ect ect - he must be the great satan!

If the guns are legal and the weed is no big deal - this is all police fail. Too much money spent stopping soft crime.

If he was out starting drug wars with his guns and weed different story but they make no claims of any of this.

this and a few other posts at least have some sense.
i'm not condoning or defending the defendant's behavior. at best he made some very poor decisions, and the traffic stop that preceded this bust does suggests he's not the brightest or most conscientious person out there (although i find it disturbing that such an altercation could be used as PC to raid his home).
just saying that at least the folks here ought to have some degree of understanding of the law and the way the media sensationalizes these events. you know how it works, whether there is pot or some other "questionable" or illegal activity going on as well or not, the big (unsubstantiated) story is all about the evil "assault weapons" that are seized and taken "off the streets".
which is (usually) crap.

[Barney Gumble]

Your missing the point. The U.S. Constitution grants us all certain rights. The 2nd amendment is one of them. It doesn't say anything about a right to smoke pot.

The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. Go back and read it. Nowhere do you find anything that says, "The right to do xyz is hereby granted to the people."

The Constitution assumes our rights already existed and merely provides protection from infringement on those rights by the Government. That's why the amendments are written like "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Mitch]

I hate to tell you this, but in high school civics they taught you that the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights, among its many amendments, grants you the right to bear arms. No where does it grant you the right to smoke dope. Thats not hypocritical, thats just a fact.

Holy cow, I hope they are not teaching this in high school civics.

The Constitution does not grant rights.

[GrizzlyGuy]

The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. Go back and read it. Nowhere do you find anything that says, "The right to do xyz is hereby granted to the people."

The Constitution assumes our rights already existed and merely provides protection from infringement on those rights by the Government. That's why the amendments are written like "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's right (no pun intended). We have a discussion going on right now about that over in this 2A forum thread, if anyone is interested: What is a Right? - By Judge Andrew Napolitano

The first post says what you said, and in the second post, a member expresses a contrary view of rights which happens to agree with Karl Marx's view. Fun discussion.

Anyhoo, back to the original topic of guns and drugs in Santa Cruz...

[223andme]

The Constitution doesn't grant any rights. Go back and read it. Nowhere do you find anything that says, "The right to do xyz is hereby granted to the people."

The Constitution assumes our rights already existed and merely provides protection from infringement on those rights by the Government. That's why the amendments are written like "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You are right and I stand corrected. I should have used the words "The U.S. Constitution provides protection from infringement on those rights", as you pointed out. Excuse my poor use of the English language to express myself.

[jdberger]

You are right and I stand corrected. I should have used the words "The U.S. Constitution provides protection from infringement on those rights", as you pointed out. Excuse my poor use of the English language to express myself.

that's not a simple word selection issue. It's a fundamental misunderstanding.