Storage Locker Yields 42 Weapons

[Union Label]

PHOENIX -- Spread across a conference table at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Phoenix are enough weapons to equip several car loads of drug runners.

Agents said Thursday they found the 42 weapons in a storage locker about 10 days ago. The guns were worth $250,000 in all: Belgian-made "FN" handguns, semiautomatic AK rifles and other pistols. They also found four olive boxes loaded with 50-caliber bullets -- ammunition that's big enough to take out an airplane.

"These are, quite frankly, weapons of war," ATF special agent Tom Mangan said as he picked up an assault rifle and examined it.http://www.kpho.com/news/14935357/detail.html

I've said the same thing as the last paragraph myself and no I dont care what the gun nuts of the forum think of that. I will support your rights to own any kind of hunting guns you want but these have no place in a civilized society. On a different thought is it even legal to store guns in a storage locker? I mean in California I think you have to have them in a safe or locked up somehow.

[karlrschneider]

1. Average value of $5,950.00 ???????? Each???? Bullshit.

:grr:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. for 3 grand you can buy the top of the line belgian

hand gun, with laser scope.

for four grand, you can get a sniper rifle with incredible accuracy at 1000 meters, including scope.

maybe they included shipping fees, them being a first class seat from the Hague.

of course, cops love tall tales. I'll never forget how a pot bust value kept going up, which eventually made the cost of an ounce close to $5,000, when the going rate was $300.

[karlrschneider]

4. Yeah, hand delivered by a Playboy Bunny maybe

:eyes:

[Sugar Smack]

8. It's high time we called in the experts.

:-)

[BrotherBuzz]

10. How many 50 Cal rifles were in the inventory?

A couple dozen M-82 'Light Fifties' might just do it, but I suspect, had there been that many 50 Cal's, THAT would have been the story.

[Deep13]

2. I'm not a nut.

Disagreement does not equal insanity.

Obviously supplying a criminal enterprise isn't the same as private ownership.

[virginia mountainman]

5. Yea Deep,

But many anti-gunners equate Private Ownership, with Criminal enterprise..

Like the "hunter" bullshit talk. They feel like that statement, somehow gives them credibility on the issue, when in fact, it shows how little they really know.

[Bandit]

35. Why does a private citizen need weapons of war instead of hunting

weapons? I feel my opinion is every bit as credible as yours and I don't think any citizen needs a fifty caliber machine gun..

[madeline_con]

37. I wold never shoot an animal unless it was attacking someone.

I don't hunt.

My weapons are for protection from those who would do me or my family harm.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Ah narco terrorism moves north

had to happen...

By the way, this has precious little to do with the second amendment.

[lonestarnot]

7. What, no rocket launchers?

[balantz]

9. There are mountains of arsenals with much more dangerous weapons

all over this country.

[NickB79]

11. LOL

"They also found four olive boxes loaded with 50-caliber bullets -- ammunition that's big enough to take out an airplane."

Yeah, when fired out of a heavy machine gun, not a civilian .50 cal rifle.

[pnorman]

14. I have zero practical knowledge of guns,

but I can use the internet. Here's one hit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_Barrett_rifle (I ignored a few that were passionately anti-.50 caliber).

For robbing liquor stores and such, these wouldn't be weapons of choice. But if someone wanted to bring down an airplane at take-off or landing, these would do it very nicely, and from a very "safe" distance. I imagine shoulder-firing would be out of the question, but it still looks like something that a single person could handle with relative ease and dispatch. And it would be anything but a "suicide mission".

pnorman

[benEzra]

16. Please read your link...

But if someone wanted to bring down an airplane at take-off or landing, these would do it very nicely, and from a very "safe" distance. I imagine shoulder-firing would be out of the question, but it still looks like something that a single person could handle with relative ease and dispatch. And it would be anything but a "suicide mission".

Please read the link you posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M82_Barrett_rifle

The Barrett M82 has been seen in a number of Hollywood action films (e.g Navy SEALs, RoboCop, Miami Vice, Smokin' Aces), often depicted with exaggerated capabilities. Misconceptions include being able to shoot down airliners; while the M82 was designed to disable parked aircraft, it is extremely unlikely that even the most highly trained marksman would be able to bring down a flying airplane firing the entire 10-round magazine, let alone one shot.

(emphasis added)

There's a reason why all antiaircraft weapons made since 1910 have been either machineguns firing streams of tracers/incendiary, automatic guns guided by radar and using proximity fused ammunition, or missiles that are steered to the target.

[Xithras]

17. No, the M82 is one pull one shot.

The odds of a single bullet taking down an airliner are so astronomically small it isn't even worth considering. As I said in my other post, a bird has a better shot at doing it than a guy with one of these rifles. A .50 caliber weapon CAN take down an airliner, but doing so requires an automatic action capable of putting a large amount of ammunition on the target in a very short period of time. A .50 caliber Browning machine gun could do it, but that browning can put out several hundred rounds a mintute. A nut with a Barrett, even a highly talented one, will only get one or two shots before the aircraft is out of range. You can't bring down an aircraft with one or two shots.

[-..__...]

25. From your own link...

The Barrett M82 has been seen in a number of Hollywood action films (e.g Navy SEALs, RoboCop, Miami Vice, Smokin' Aces), often depicted with exaggerated capabilities. Misconceptions include being able to shoot down airliners; while the M82 was designed to disable parked aircraft, it is extremely unlikely that even the most highly trained marksman would be able to bring down a flying airplane firing the entire 10-round magazine, let alone one shot. After the advent of the autocannon and its highly successful use in World War II, the .50 BMG was phased out of first line air-to-air use. In spite of clear disadvantages, it persisted in US use through the 1950s, most notably as the primary armament of the F-86 Sabre.

[pnorman]

26. "From your own link..." --- Hoist on my own petard! (Almost)

I probably didn't study it enough, but for the 2 or 3 minutes prior (or subsequent) to that aircraft being in a "parked" state, it could be vulnerable to a single shot fired from that weapon. The result would be nowhere as destructive as if it were "damaged" in full flight, but it could still be severe. I haven't seen any of those "action" films cited above, but I've seen enough YouTube videos of take-offs and landings that have gone horribly wrong. Some were "pilot error", but many were caused by things less dramatic than a fragmenting round in the cockpit space.

And as usual here on DU, I learn more information than I convey.

pnorman

[pnorman]

30. This is what was on the back of my mind, and what I probably should have written:

Modern security protocol has evolved to the point where a specific person can be be protected from assassination with reasonable certainty. But that's provided that the area to be "secured" is within a zone of a few hundred yard radius. (I'm guessing as to the effective range of a high power rifle, but I'm probably not too far off). Now extend that range to a half mile or further, and "securing" that zone becomes exponentially more difficult. More so if the probability of the shooter escaping becomes acceptably "high". That's the concern of "oppressive tyrants", but it's also the concern of those who have to suffer the Blowback of such "attentats". Sarajevo comes to mind.

pnorman

[benEzra]

33. The effective range of a .50 precision rifle

isn't significantly more than that of a .416 precision rifle, or a .338 precision rifle, or a .300 precision rifle. FWIW, Carlos Hathcock's 1200-yard sniper rifle in Vietnam was a commercial Winchester Model 70 deer rifle in .30-06 Springfield, the most common deer caliber in America.

[pnorman]

36. Apparently, Google is unable to compensate for near-zero iinitial knowledge of a subject.

Going by web-search, I had concluded that a .50 caliber weapon was MANY times more effective than ordinary 'high power' rifles. That is: it could do significant damage to a stationary (or slowly moving) target at distances up to a mile. I seem to be mistaken, so it's back to the books for me!

And a Happy and Fruitful New Year to all my Brothers and Sisters here on DU!!

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake." That was by Thomas Jefferson, and in reference to the Alien & Sedition laws of his time. But he could very well have been referring to the present time. So have "a little patience" and NEVER give up hope!

pnorman

[krispos42]

12. Kudos to the reporter

Despite some problems with the article, such phrases as "semiautomatic AK rifles" and "assault-type weapons" are showing up, which IMO is a more accurate way of describing them.

The "shooting down the airplane" line was BS, though. Unless you have a quad-mount .50-caliber machine gun handy.

So is the "sophisticated weapon" line. However advanced the design of the gun may be, it's still shooting comm, everyday, unguided, non-explosive ammunition.

And Wal-Mart only sells hunting-type long guns. Yeah, you can buy a Mini-14 there, but the rest of the stuff it typically lever-action or bolt-action hunting or target rifles. Plus the shotguns, most of which are pumps.

You're not getting a pistol or an AK at Wally World.


And God forbid we get rid of the violence from trafficing illegal drugs by *gasp* making the drugs legal! :eyes:

[Hangingon]

13. Is that an FN pistol in the sidebar?

Doesn't look like one to me. I'm not anxious to have narcoterrorists get their hands on sophisticated weapons, but the article doesn't describe anything illegal. And you would deny the same weapons to us for our defense against narcoterrorists. Why? Looks like the ATF was doing their job. Too bad they can't enforce the law without scare propaganda. Go after bad dealers and prosecute straw purchasers.

[Xithras]

15. Oh god, not the old "take down an airplane" canard again.

It's been tested. You CAN NOT take down an airplane with any kind of 50 caliber rifle available to civilians in this country. That myth was dreamed up by someone at HCI and has been spread around like so much BS ever since. A BIRD has a better shot at taking down a jetliner than a nutjob with a semiauto .50 cal does.

By the way, do you know what the difference is between an AK-47 and a Remington 750 semi-auto deer rifle? The 750 has better range and more accuracy.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

18. the AK was never intended to accurate, nor long range

it was meant to deal with sand, heat, ice, snow, mud, water, dirt, dust, and still be well designed enough to be taken apart, put together, and used by someone mentally unable to work the deep fryer at MacDonalds. In that respect, it was a genius design. And within 50 meters, it spewed enough bullets in a general area, that it did not matter.

but the remington, nice gun. Of course, it needs care, cleaning, and training.

[benEzra]

21. I think he was speaking of civilian AK's, not military weapons.

A civilian AK will do 2.5-3.0 MOA with decent ammunition and 5 MOA with cheap crap, which is still good enough to keep every shot on a paper plate at 200 yards. Comparable to a Winchester M1894 .30-30, which it resembles, but not as good as the Remington or a typical bolt rifle.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

22. the question remains.

who the HELL needs 40+ weapons? and all that ammo?

Then again, the way our government is going, having a personal defensive armory is looking better and better.

[EstimatedProphet]

31. 40 guns? So what?

I just don't get the idea that people don't need but one or two. 1) no one can shoot more than at most 2 guns at once - those have to be handguns, since rifles and long guns require 2 hands to operate - so what diffrence does it make how many someone has; and 2) there are collectors who have well over 40 guns and are normal citizens, as opposed to someone dealing in narcoterrorism.

[LanternWaste]

32. Someone with a rather small... er, um-- imagination? n/t

"who the HELL needs 40+ weapons? and all that ammo? "

Someone with a rather small... er, um-- imagination? (yeah--imagination, that's the ticket)

[benEzra]

19. Not "weapons of war" unless they were restricted Title 2 firearms...

"These are, quite frankly, weapons of war," ATF special agent Tom Mangan said as he picked up an assault rifle and examined it.http://www.kpho.com/news/14935357/detail.html

I've said the same thing as the last paragraph myself and no I dont care what the gun nuts of the forum think of that.

If they were actual "weapon of war" military assault rifles, they're not legal for non-LEO civilians. If they were non-automatic civilian rifles, they aren't "weapons of war." No military on this planet uses civilian AR-15's or non-automatic civvie AK lookalikes.

BTW, if my non-automatic, small-caliber civilian-only carbine is a "weapon of war," what does that make the milspec machineguns used by the ATF or your local PD SWAT team?

I will support your rights to own any kind of hunting guns you want but these have no place in a civilized society.

Like this small-caliber prairie dog/coyote rifle?



Oh, wait, that's an "assault weapon."

Maybe this squirrel rifle?



Oops, that's an "assault weapon" too (good for 5 years in prison in New Jersey).

Turkey hunting shotgun?



Yep, "assault weapon."

Deer rifle?



That one's not an "assault weapon" yet...but it's identical in every way except looks to a civilian AK (same caliber, same rate of fire, same range of magazine capacities, same accuracy, same effective range).

On a different thought is it even legal to store guns in a storage locker? I mean in California I think you have to have them in a safe or locked up somehow.

Locked up in a storage unit would be considered locked up for the purposes of the law in most states. I suspect their bigger problem will be if the guns were illegally obtained or possessed.

[Dawggie]

20. ATF makes a good point in the straw buyers bit.

Just remember, if an honest RKBA activist and collector can get it, so can a drug cartel or anyone else with deep pockets and if they aren't all that law abiding, they can acquire even more.

The ease of access to weaponry here in the states needs to be readdressed seriously.

(Now I don my Kevlar apparel).

[benEzra]

23. Drug cartels could also get actual machineguns and RPG's in Mexico or Columbia...

and smuggle them into the States disguised as a routine cocaine shipment. As far as I know, they're not, at least not yet.

I'm wondering if this was someone trafficking in guns, or if it was someone stashing away guns as a hedge against future bans (the inclusion of FN pistols and civilian AK's would make sense in that light).

Rifles, at least, aren't commonly misused in this country.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

BTW, I'm curious about the "$250,000" statement. $250K divided by 42 guns is nearly $6,000 per gun. An FN pistol is like $800; a civilian AK (non-automatic) is $250-$1000 depending on the model (mine was $379 in 2003). If the total collection was worth $250K, there is either some restricted NFA Title 2 stuff in there they're not talking about, OR a lot of these were highly collectible antiques, OR the agent or reporter garbled the facts. Not sure which is the case at this point.

[pnorman]

27. "disguised as a routine cocaine shipment"

"routine" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I LIKE that phrase, and may make use of it in the future. Thanks!

pnorman

[-..__...]

24. "Civilized society"?!?

:rofl:

I guess you don't get out much or keep track of what's happening in the news?

[aikoaiko]

28. "Weapons of war" = fear mongering from the ATF

I wonder how he describes the weapons he uses -- I'm sure its something along the lines of useful tools for self-defense only to be used as a last resort.

[virginia mountainman]

29. Without fear mongering,

They would have NOTHING.

[slackmaster]

34. Interesting unit of measurement that I've never seen before

"enough weapons to equip several car loads of drug runners"

:crazy:

I've said the same thing as the last paragraph myself and no I dont care what the gun nuts of the forum think of that. I will support your rights to own any kind of hunting guns you want but these have no place in a civilized society.

Please give an example of a modern military force that arms its troops with semiautomatic weapons.

On a different thought is it even legal to store guns in a storage locker? I mean in California I think you have to have them in a safe or locked up somehow.

As a federally licensed gun collector living in California I am qualified to say you are mistaken about that. I do keep my collection locked up in a safe to protect it from theft, but I am not required by law to do so.

[madeline_con]

39. The "drug runner" comment was below the belt, IMO.

Thanks for the inof on CA law. :hi:

[Horse with no Name]

38. That's a fucking arsenal

:wow:

[mvccd1000]

40. What a slanted article from KPHO.

Read the AZcentral article on the same story:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1231gr-locker0102.html

---

According to Peter Forcelli, a supervisory special agent with ATF, most of the arms were assault weapons such as AK-47s and AR-15s.

Whether Bentley will face charges for the weapons will be based on such factors as whether the guns were bought before or after Bentley's conviction or if they were stolen, Forcelli said.

"You can own automatic weapons. There are certain things you can do to legally own them," Forcelli said. "We have yet to determine if he's done any of that or not."

---

"There are people who have large collections of weapons that are 100 hundred percent legit," Forcelli said. "We're still determining if these were."

---

Doesn't even sound like the same BATF. This guy sounds like he actually has a clue and knows the law; I wonder why he didn't make it into the kpho.com article?