Confiscation has begun in CT....

[shda5582]

Most people are going to think "FUD" upon reading the thread title, but you need to read the article to see that it really isn't.

MILFORD >> A 65-year-old man faces an array of charges after he allegedly shot a squirrel in his yard Monday morning.

James Toigo, 258 Housatonic Dr., was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm, cruelty to an animal, first-degree reckless endangerment, second-degree breach of peace, failure to register an assault rifle and three counts of possessing large-capacity magazines, according to a police press release.

tl;dr: The long/short of this is that the actual rifle used was not an "assault rifle". They only found it after they searched his home.

[Citadelgrad87]

Most people are going to think "FUD" upon reading the thread title, but you need to read the article to see that it really isn't.



tl;dr: The long/short of this is that the actual rifle used was not an "assault rifle". They only found it after they searched his home.

No, the long and the short of it is he shot a squirrel in his front yard. Edit, nobody even called the cops, the cops simply heard him shoot and investigated.

Those seeking to avoid attention should not do things to attract attention.

This isn't confiscation, it's idiocy.

[shda5582]

No, the long and the short of it is he shot a squirrel in his front yard. Edit, nobody even called the cops, the cops simply heard him shoot and investigated.

Those seeking to avoid attention should not do things to attract attention.

This isn't confiscation, it's idiocy.

I don't argue that it's idiocy; in fact I should have put that in OP that I feel it was, my bad.

But the confiscation bit that gets me....they searched his house, found the rifle and magazines, and confiscated them under CT's new law, despite all the assurances from police that they weren't going to enforce it.

[toby]

Popcorn please.

[skirunman]

According to the story they "seized" his "unregistered assault rifle". Sounds like confiscation to me as this particular weapon was not used to shoot the squirrel so not needed for evidence of the alleged crime.

As a matter of course, should LEO search a home when someone discharges a weapon in their own front yard to shoot a squirrel? Is this not a misdemeanor and even possibly just an infraction? I also wonder about the charge of "cruelty to animals". Here in California squirrels are considered small game and we can hunt them.

I personally would not shoot a squirrel in my yard, but does seem like LEO was looking for chance to seize other weapons.

[Calgunner739]

They are enforcing the new law.

Therefore, this is confiscation of "assault weapons."

It has begun.

[Tasty]

I'm not saying that it's right, but someone's gotta say it... Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Even with all of my guns complying with CA laws that I don't think are constitutional, you don't see me shooting ANYTHING in my front or back yard. I don't want the attention from doing something that I'm pretty sure is illegal anyway.

[socal-shooter]

Always use a pellet gun when shooting varmints in your yard !!

The right tool for the right job

[shda5582]

Always use a pellet gun when shooting varmints in your yard !!

The right tool for the right job

Various commentators on that article were saying/suggesting that what was used wasn't the actual firearm that was confiscated.

Moreso though...I'm curious if the police had a search warrant. From what I read on the article, it seems that the police were nearby doing a traffic stop, and immediately went into the house to search it after hearing a gunshot. Which, to me, is the more relevant question; kinda fast for them to get a search warrant from driving down the block.

[CSACANNONEER]

They are enforcing the new law.

Therefore, this is confiscation of "assault weapons."

It has begun.

Than it began decades ago in California. Sure, LE doesn't go door to door looking for unregistered AWs but, if they happen on them, they confiscate them and have been doing so since the late 80's.

[blkside]

The question at hand is if the crime was committed in the front yard, why were they searching his home.

"I do not give consent....."

[chris]

No, the long and the short of it is he shot a squirrel in his front yard. Edit, nobody even called the cops, the cops simply heard him shoot and investigated.

Those seeking to avoid attention should not do things to attract attention.

This isn't confiscation, it's idiocy.

yeah no kidding shooting a firearm in your front yard at a squirrel not a smart move on his part.

[IVC]

The "confiscation" in context of the new law would be using *registration database* to go specifically after people who own a particular type of firearm.

What happened here is bad because of all the add-on charges that are unrelated to the shooting the squirrel, but it wouldn't be what we would use word "confiscation" for.

[Citadelgrad87]

Various commentators on that article were saying/suggesting that what was used wasn't the actual firearm that was confiscated.

Moreso though...I'm curious if the police had a search warrant. From what I read on the article, it seems that the police were nearby doing a traffic stop, and immediately went into the house to search it after hearing a gunshot. Which, to me, is the more relevant question; kinda fast for them to get a search warrant from driving down the block.

They heard the gunshot, not sure they'd need a warrant depending on what they were doing/searching for. If they tow a car for DUI, they search it. If the police witness a crime, they don't need a warrant to pursue.

Depends, like many things.

[Citadelgrad87]

I don't argue that it's idiocy; in fact I should have put that in OP that I feel it was, my bad.

But the confiscation bit that gets me....they searched his house, found the rifle and magazines, and confiscated them under CT's new law, despite all the assurances from police that they weren't going to enforce it.

Ok, I get that. But saying they aren't going out of their way to enforce it doesn't mean, to me, you can flaunt the law. I would not force the cops hand and rely on them having said they wouldn't enforce it. Not saying this guy went that far.