About 40 guns stolen from Lowell home

[Billsail]

I never said that. But if I had 40 highly valuable guns, in a "vault" why didn't I have an alarm on my house wired into the phone system or something of that nature.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. I was playing out a scenario in my mind and asking input. Difference of opinions I guess. That's the great part of living here. We can all have our own opinions.

There is no "vault" that can't be compromised. How far should we have to go. Those gun safes that we pay thousands of dollars for, can be broken into in minutes with the right tools. According to the police, his vault was "very secure".

Why should anyone be forced to buy an alarm system, and pay monthly monitoring fees if they don't want to. I've had an alarm system for many years, but it was my choice.

 

[jasons]

A NH voter.

 

[dcmdon]

There is no "vault" that can't be compromised. How far should we have to go. Those gun safes that we pay thousands of dollars for, can be broken into in minutes with the right tools. According to the police, his vault was "very secure".

Why should anyone be forced to buy an alarm system, and pay monthly monitoring fees if they don't want to. I've had an alarm system for many years, but it was my choice.

Exactly. I believe strongly that if you choose to exercise your 2A right, with it comes the responsibility to keep them out of the wrong hands.

Reasonable care needs to be taken. I know some of the people on this board disagree with my opinion on this. However it is very very clear
that the man in Lowell took more than reasonable precautions.

While post-gaming this, we could say that he should have had a monitored alarm. But that is very different from saying that:

1) he had an ethical or legal obligation to have an alarm
2) the government has the right to require us to have an alarm.

He took more than reasonable precautions. He is the victim. He should be treated as such.

Now, to use this example for a completely different topic, if you want to minimize the chances of your guns being stolen, you need a good monitored alarm.
Without an alarm, the criminals had nearly unlimited time and could defeat even this very secure vault.

With the right alarm, even a moderately prices safe is more secure than this vault. Simply because the safe only has to last as long as it takes for the cops to arrive.
Simply stated, a safe buys you time and an alarm limits the time a thief has.

Don

p.s. My other hobby (before kids) was flying formation with some ex USAF guys. In the flying world, we do a lot of honest self reflection about what we did right and what we did wrong. No sugar coating. The guy in Lowell screwed up. He spent a lot of money on a vault but apparently didn't recognize the value of a layered system. If you have built up a good collection, you need to know that an alarm is a fundamental piece of the puzzle. There is much to be learned from this incident; specifically that the best safe in the world won't help if the bad guys arrive prepared to deal with a safe and have lots of time. How could he have done better? We know that. I say this only because we need to learn from this and adjust our security methods accordingly. Legally this can be brushed off, he was the victim. Practically, you dont' want to fail the same way he did.

 

[cekim]

Exactly. I believe strongly that if you choose to exercise your 2A right, with it comes the responsibility to keep them out of the wrong hands.

Reasonable care needs to be taken. I know some of the people on this board disagree with my opinion on this. However it is very very clear
that the man in Lowell took more than reasonable precautions.

The officer on the scene was quoted in the paper as saying that it was one of the most secure setups he had seen.

He did all he should have needed to do and then some. He has nothing to apologize for and is the victim here of both the theft and gross abuse of civil rights.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Most of them were recovered here in haverhill and in lawrence if I remember right, I believe a few are still at large.

I remember getting the LEO alert with a list of all the guns and their S/N's.

Vilified by the media as some sort of crazy gun nut, he was a legit collector who had a lot of stuff you don't see everyday.

This case is important for a number of reasons. What's next? Gun owners getting charged with possession of explosives when their safe gets broken into and the theif steals everything but the reactive target jar on the top shelf?

 

[dcmdon]

One other thing. Gun safes are crap. Even a $4000 browning or something like that is still just a sheet metal box with a lot of fancy stuff.
If you want a real safe look in places like craigs list for high security safes. Go to the "business" section and type "safe"

The botom safe in this ad is an old Mosler TL20 rated safe for $500. No, its not huge, but its a REAL safe.

http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/bfs/3385927796.html

A good strategy is to keep your every day stuff in a medium sized gun safe with a digital lock.
Then keep all your "collection" in a good TL rated safe. The only down side is that these safes
weigh anywhere from 1500 to 5000 lbs. But steel is what makes them safe.

This ad has an Amsec TL-15 rated safe thats BIG. at 64x40x30 and its fire rated for $1500.
This is real security folks. Not the false security provided by most gun safes
http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/bfs/3397803453.html

Don

- - - Updated - - -

The officer on the scene was quoted in the paper as saying that it was one of the most secure setups he had seen.

He did all he should have needed to do and then some. He has nothing to apologize for and is the victim here of both the theft and gross abuse of civil rights.

I said that a couple of sentences later.

But we need to differentiate between a legal/ethical discussion - he did everything he should have done

And a practical discussion - he left a huge gaping hole in his security by not having a wireless monitored alarm.

Good security involves layers.
A dog
an alarm
a safe

If you want to go nuts you can include
hidden areas
decoy "honey pot" safes positioned prominently
OC sprays

It all depends on what you have.
I know a guy whose retirement fund is a cache of new in the box unfired machine guns. He's got M60s still in the crate. He's got everything I listed above and then some.

 

[Billsail]

http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/bfs/3397803453.html

The Amsec TL-15 that Don linked is an unbelievable deal!

 

[japollner]

Exactly. I believe strongly that if you choose to exercise your 2A right, with it comes the responsibility to keep them out of the wrong hands.

Reasonable care needs to be taken. I know some of the people on this board disagree with my opinion on this. However it is very very clear
that the man in Lowell took more than reasonable precautions.

While post-gaming this, we could say that he should have had a monitored alarm. But that is very different from saying that:

1) he had an ethical or legal obligation to have an alarm
2) the government has the right to require us to have an alarm.

He took more than reasonable precautions. He is the victim. He should be treated as such.

Now, to use this example for a completely different topic, if you want to minimize the chances of your guns being stolen, you need a good monitored alarm.
Without an alarm, the criminals had nearly unlimited time and could defeat even this very secure vault.

With the right alarm, even a moderately prices safe is more secure than this vault. Simply because the safe only has to last as long as it takes for the cops to arrive.
Simply stated, a safe buys you time and an alarm limits the time a thief has.

Don

p.s. My other hobby (before kids) was flying formation with some ex USAF guys. In the flying world, we do a lot of honest self reflection about what we did right and what we did wrong. No sugar coating. The guy in Lowell screwed up. He spent a lot of money on a vault but apparently didn't recognize the value of a layered system. If you have built up a good collection, you need to know that an alarm is a fundamental piece of the puzzle. There is much to be learned from this incident; specifically that the best safe in the world won't help if the bad guys arrive prepared to deal with a safe and have lots of time. How could he have done better? We know that. I say this only because we need to learn from this and adjust our security methods accordingly. Legally this can be brushed off, he was the victim. Practically, you dont' want to fail the same way he did.

This is the essence of what I was getting at. It might have taken me way more posts to say it, but you outlined my whole point in one post.

Just because someone meets the legal requirements, doesn't change the fact that these criminals had unlimited time to break into his vault. Things could have been done better.

 

[jasons]

This is the essence of what I was getting at. It might have taken me way more posts to say it, but you outlined my whole point in one post.

Just because someone meets the legal requirements, doesn't change the fact that these criminals had unlimited time to break into his vault. Things could have been done better.

Well that's one hell of a backpedal. You said that people who are the victim of a theft should lose their right to keep and bear arms without due process. Big difference.

 

[dcmdon]

But he should not be held accountable for the actions of criminals. He did more than ethics and the law should ever require.

But he still failed.

How could he have done better? Simple. An alarm.

Its all about a cost benefit analysis. If you have a Remington 870 and a Glock that is with you most of the time, then a Stack-on cabinet is fine.

One other thing. I'm a strong advocate of HIDING guns, if you only have a few and there are no children in the home.
I used to keep a Glock under a false air register in my bedroom.

**if there are no children in the home** a well hidden gun is more secure than a gun in a "gun safe".
Remember, a thief is typically in your home for a few minutes. A child has a lifetime to find a gun.

Don

 

[cekim]

But he should not be held accountable for the actions of criminals. He did more than ethics and the law should ever require.

But he still failed.

How could he have done better? Simple. An alarm.

Alarms can be defeated as well - particularly by those who have access the house for otherwise legitimate purposes. I have personal experience of examples of people I know who were robbed despite a monitored alarm. Thieves had to do a more detailed case of the house to defeat the alarm, but the same can be said of this case. They needed tools and time - it wasn't a smash and grab.

 

[jasons]

But he should not be held accountable for the actions of criminals. He did more than ethics and the law should ever require.

But he still failed.

How could he have done better? Simple. An alarm.

Nah, alarms can be defeated. He should have had a moat. And armed guards, and satellite video coverage. And the moat should be filled with sharks. With laser beams. Yeah.

 

[japollner]

Well that's one hell of a backpedal. You said that people who are the victim of a theft should lose their right to keep and bear arms without due process. Big difference.

Say what you want. I'm not going to argue my beliefs on the matter anymore. The system is never perfect. If I don't like it, I can leave. We all can.

 

[jasons]

Say what you want. I'm not going to argue my beliefs on the matter anymore. The system is never perfect. If I don't like it, I can leave. We all can.

We can? Where can we go if we don't like it? NH?

 

[Len-2A Training]

I never said that it was the victims fault (especially this particular victim.) I was simply posing a question of what could happen.

Assume I have a clean record and can buy guns. Hell, assume I only have a clean record by sheer luck of not getting caught, and I have the in's to make a ton of cash by simply stockpiling guns legally (I am in NH) and making my gun safe "accesible".

Are you saying that I shouldn't be held accountable because my guns were simply "stolen"? Call me stupid if you wish, but I feel that the responsibility of gun ownership extends to keeping those guns within your possession, regardless of the circumstances. Does it suck that this guy had his life "turned upside down"? Of course. If I had half the shit in my house taken from me, I would be in a hard place too. But guns are not toys, tv's, cars, or whatever other items that had been used in an analogy. They are federally regulated weapons that can be used to kill.

In my opinion, if your vault is in a situation to be "cut through" as someone mentioned, then I wanna know where the alarm was on the house? Since this guy is well known within the community, this incident can be chalked up to bad luck for him, and just a shi**y situation overall. But the sketchy dude down the street with all the ar's that "go missing". I wanna know why those around me are careless enough with their weapons that they can be stolen.

This is all personal opinion here. I'm not advocating anyone be restricted of their right to keep and bear arms. I am well versed with the second amendment. But, in a situation where firearms are stolen, especially a mass quantity of them, I don't see an issue with temporarily restricting the victims ability to purchase more arms. Concealed carry (if applicable) and guns currently in the home should be unaffected if those guns are being stored safely (ie, in line with local and state regs.)

Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about here. You don't live in MA, don't have to put up with MA inane anti-gun laws and have no understanding of said laws.

MA gun STORAGE laws are NOT anti-theft laws, they specify that a simple trigger lock is adequate for storage. Thus, MGL makes it legal to leave ALL your guns with trigger locks on top of a bureau or leaning against the walls and leave your house. [I'll agree that it is unwise, but merely point out that it is 100% legal!]

MGL does not mandate any safes/vaults/alarm systems/anti-theft insurance. Might be nice to have all these, but if one is complying with the law they should NOT be penalized for doing so and becoming a victim of a crime (theft).

There was a recent update posted on NES wrt a bank vault theft that happened ~20 years ago on the North Shore. They made 3 trips to said bank over 2-3 days and emptied very many safe deposit boxes of money, jewelry, etc. Proves the point that NO vault is immune from burglary if the burglar has the knowledge and tools to do the job. By your analysis, the bank's charter to do business in MA should have been suspended/revoked.

There have been recorded instances of stolen cars being used to plow into pedestrians intentionally. I recall someone intentionally driving into a crowd of BU students in front of one of their dorms on Comm. Ave, Boston some years ago (don't recall if car was stolen). Should victims of stolen cars lose their DL permanently over the theft? BTW, cars are "federally regulated items" that definitely can and do kill . . . and much more frequently than guns!

In MA one needs that permit to merely OWN any guns/ammo/large-cap mags! Unlike NH where if the PD confiscates your permit, you can still go to Riley's/MFL and buy a new gun and ammo for same, you are totally screwed in Commiechusetts!

Chiefs that pull LTCs don't usually give them back. IFF you can convince a judge of the injustice, maybe after spending $10K or so in legal fees, you MIGHT get a ruling that the chief should re-issue your LTC . . . but even then there are documented instances where chiefs still refuse or restrict said permit to be just about useless. Under MGL they can declare anyone "unsuitable" or put any restriction they want on the LTC!

Yes, what you are advocating restrictions of VICTIMS rights to "keep and bear arms"!! Thus, making them the victim of two crimes! [For the record, I do NOT know the victim of this travesty.]

Sorry, but Massachusetts doesn't yank anything temporarily. They don't want you to have one at all.

A year ago the state was happy to suspend my LTC and green card over a gun charge that happened 25 years ago.

It didn't matter that I WAS NOT CONVICTED of the charge... my rights were suspended (to them) forever.

All in spite of the fact it was reported in every LTC application along with the judgment papers showing I was not convicted of anything.

For that oversight I had to pay two thousand dollars to an attorney so he could give them THE SAME information they had.

After leaving me in limbo for two months they "decided" to give me my licenses back.

They also made me pay another hundred dollars for the application because the first one was denied as a result of their negligence.

I will never trust this state's judgment on gun matters.

Having guns stolen out of a safe is not a crime (for the owner of the safe) and the thief is the only one who should pay any penalty.

Having guns stolen out of a locked gun safe and then taking away the safe owner's right to own a gun is a clear case of infringement.

The above is very well said!

 

[namedpipes]

Are you sure you live in New Hampshire??? With gun owners like you no wonder we are losing ground, Keep groveling at the boot of your masters.

The door of my home being closed is all I am obligated to do. NO ONE HAS A RIGHT IN MY HOME OR BUILDINGS WITH OUT MY PERMISSION!!! I am under no obligation to alarm or lock up my goods.
And if you think or advocate otherwise, You can ESAD!!!

And if someone breaks into your home and steals your guns or other property, you have only yourself to blame. Not the police. Not the state legislature. Not the Governor and certainly not Obama. It was your risk and your choice.

Should you have to pay for that choice by having your rights revoked and spending thou$and$ to stay out of jail?

Absol-***ing-lutely not.

 

[cekim]

And if someone breaks into your home and steals your guns or other property, you have only yourself to blame. Not the police. Not the state legislature. Not the Governor and certainly not Obama. It was your risk and your choice.

Should you have to pay for that choice by having your rights revoked and spending thou$and$ to stay out of jail?

Absol-***ing-lutely not.

I think there is a culture problem here on the first part of your statement.

Maybe it is the "commonwealth" concept or progressive programming, but the seriousness of property crime seems to have been lost in this area.

Saying you have no one to blame but the victim of a theft is as absurd as saying that a rape or murder victim has no one but themselves to blame for being where they were when they were raped or killed.

 

[joeendris]

I believe I had insinuated elsewhere in my comment that it was temporary, but yea. If you want to play semantics (as most conservatives do) YES, my statement should have read "I'm not advocating anyone be restricted of their right to keep and bear arms [permanently, for having their guns stolen.]"

Just temporarily, right? Due to something, thru no fault of your own, you're ok with being treated like a criminal, and having your constitutional right being revoked, because of some other a**h*** stealing your stuff? You, my friend, are part of the problem. Go ahead, neg rep this one, too.

 

[Admin]

But he should not be held accountable for the actions of criminals. He did more than ethics and the law should ever require.

But he still failed.

How could he have done better? Simple. An alarm.

Its all about a cost benefit analysis. If you have a Remington 870 and a Glock that is with you most of the time, then a Stack-on cabinet is fine.

One other thing. I'm a strong advocate of HIDING guns, if you only have a few and there are no children in the home.
I used to keep a Glock under a false air register in my bedroom.

**if there are no children in the home** a well hidden gun is more secure than a gun in a "gun safe".
Remember, a thief is typically in your home for a few minutes. A child has a lifetime to find a gun.

Don

My head is going to explode.

 

[jasons]

My head is going to explode.

Coming soon to a NH town near you: Statutory moat installation (with laser sharks!) for all gun owners. You heard it here first.


I'm going to start a petition.

 

[Dirtypacman]

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

I can not say it any better.

 

[flintoid]

I guess I better go turn all my guns in because I'm failing at owning them. Thanks for the heads up, gentlemen.

 

[jasons]

I guess I better go turn all my guns in because I'm failing at owning them. Thanks for the heads up, gentlemen.

Rifle into plowshare conversation party at Flintoid's house.

 

[atilla]

I guess I better go turn all my guns in because I'm failing at owning them. Thanks for the heads up, gentlemen.

i'll go, too. we can march down to the devil's office and hand them in.

maybe make out afterwards.

 

[namedpipes]

I guess the water of the PREM has corrupted your thought process. No one belongs in my home or buildings without my permission. That is a crime called "Breaking and Entering", whether the doors or windows be locked or not. It is the fault of the criminal who entered the premises with out authorization, and that person should be and needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent that the law provides for.
So it is not my responsiblity to chase criminals any more. I am not responsible for the social ills or cretans that exist.

Let's be clear here. I stated that you have the right to if you so choose to leave your guns around the house. If you choose. You have the right to if you so choose to keep your guns in a safe. If you choose.

Where in HELL do you get some directive from that?

Do you keep you china in a hutch or a cupboard?

You neg repped me for stating the obvious that you can keep your stuff in a safe or not.

 

[el duderino]

And if someone breaks into your home and steals your guns or other property, you have only yourself to blame. Not the police. Not the state legislature. Not the Governor and certainly not Obama. It was your risk and your choice.

Should you have to pay for that choice by having your rights revoked and spending thou$and$ to stay out of jail?

Absol-***ing-lutely not.

Cant I blame Bush?

Sorry but the only person at fault is the scumbag who robbed me.

 

[namedpipes]

I think there is a culture problem here on the first part of your statement.

Maybe it is the "commonwealth" concept or progressive programming, but the seriousness of property crime seems to have been lost in this area.

Saying you have no one to blame but the victim of a theft is as absurd as saying that a rape or murder victim has no one but themselves to blame for being where they were when they were raped or killed.

Re-reading what I wrote, I guess I can see how you read that from my words.

YOU and you alone are responsible to select and enforce the level of security you are comfortable with. It isn't the state's nor my business to tell you that you need a safe or cable locks or retinal scans and alarms.

If someone steals your property they are to blame. They are the thief.

Look. Nobody *should* go around stealing other peoples property. But they do. Just secure them to the extent YOU and YOU alone are comfortable with. How is this not obvious?

 

[joeendris]

Cant I blame Bush?

Sorry but the only person at fault is the scumbag who robbed me.

End of story.

 

[economist]

And if someone breaks into your home and steals your guns or other property, you have only yourself to blame. Not the police. Not the state legislature. Not the Governor and certainly not Obama. It was your risk and your choice.

Should you have to pay for that choice by having your rights revoked and spending thou$and$ to stay out of jail?

Absol-***ing-lutely not.

How about we put the blame on the criminal?

In this ****ed up world where the law is a behavioral modification scheme meant to control private acts, we seem to have lost the concept that crimes against property are extremely threatening to liberty and free enterprise. Apart from crimes against men, property crimes are the most serious offensive act imaginable. Now as it is, we put someone away for years if they happen to possess the wrong kind of powder or pill, but if they break into your home and steal stuff the punishment is far more lenient. That is severely screwed up and just goes to show how far we are from a just society.

And let's be very clear about this: The owner is not 5% to blame, not 1%, and not anything other than zero. There are two very important reasons for this. The first is the concept of culpability, lost on many. Second is the array of limitations the state puts on property owners who wish to protect what is theirs. Cut us loose to kill thieves on sight and to implement truly effective anti-theft (and anti-thief) devices and maybe we can talk about responsibility (culpability being off the table in any case).

 

[namedpipes]

I neg rep'd you as you said, I was to blame for being a victim. Reread your post, and tell us it didn't say that.

Cant I blame Bush?

Sorry but the only person at fault is the scumbag who robbed me.

I expressed my thoughts poorly. The blame is not for the theft, but for choosing whatever level of security you chose.