Makes my blood boil

12151791

GUNS AND COFFEE
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Messages
12,347
Location
Clover, SC
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Veteran says police tried to confiscate his guns without a warrant, due process.

Disabled Iraq war veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. alleges New Jersey State Police attempted to confiscate his firearms last month without a warrant. He stood his ground, held to his Second Amendment rights, and did not let police take them.

Now, Cottrell is blaming a recently implemented New Jersey law, which he says targets law abiding gun owners.

Special: Seniors can collect $480 per week from this unusual 'side job'
What happened?
NJ.com explains:

Cottrell, 40, said he was working at Wawa on June 14 when he got a call from his wife around 9:30 p.m. that two police officers from the New Jersey State Police’s Hamilton station were at the doorstep of his Millstone home.

The troopers, who patrol this sprawling Monmouth County township, were there, he said, because his 13-year-old son had made a comment at school about the Millstone Middle School’s security, and the officers wanted to confiscate Cottrell’s firearms as part of an investigation.

Cottrell said his wife allowed the officers to search their home, including his son’s room, but they did not locate any weapons. Still, Cottrell said police wanted to confiscate his firearms — a shotgun and pistol — despite not having a warrant to do so.

But Cottrell, who served three tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom, was having none of it.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” Cottrell told NJ.com.

Cottrell said the incident is related to a law New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) signed into law in March. The law allows police to seize guns from law abiding citizens who the state determines pose a threat to themselves or others — even without due process.

Cottrell says he questioned the officers who showed up to his house, asking if they were there because of the new law, but they “danced around the issue,” he said.

What did New Jersey State Police say?
Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn, a spokesman for the state police, declined to say whether the Cottrell incident was related to the new law. However, he told NJ.com it was determined the Cottrells did not pose a threat.

“Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized,” Flynn said.

Anything else?
Despite being cleared as a threat, Cottrell said his son was not allowed to attend his school’s graduation.

“He’s upset. He didn’t do anything wrong, and he doesn’t understand why it happened – he was just having a conversation with nothing as far as threats. It shouldn’t have blown up the way it did. But he understands it happened, there are consequences and there’s fallout from his actions,” Cottrell explained.
 
While this story is old, a dad posted a photo of his son with the new M&P 15-22 rimfire rifle to the family FB page,
social services and police demanded the wife open the family gun safe without any warrants of any kind.

https://www.nj.com/salem/index.ssf/2013/03/facebook_gun_photo_controversy.html

josh-moore-carneys-point-gun-photo-88adfa62f81821b6.jpeg
 
So the police didn't confiscate any weapons and even though the kid made some kind of gun related threat in school that required investigation they determined everything was OK.

What's the problem?
 
So the police didn't confiscate any weapons and even though the kid made some kind of gun related threat in school that required investigation they determined everything was OK.

What's the problem?

No, the kid talked about security at the school.

No threats were made.

Just hoplophobic administrators and guys intent on "just doing their jobs."
 
AMENDMENT IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
Last edited:
AMENDMENT IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You know, the criminal justice classes I am taking for my degree are all really the same. The main theme for all the classes are ethical behavior while acting in the duty of a criminal justice professional.

Reason I bring this up is because while not the majority but a good portion is about search warrants and illegal searches and seizures
 
So the police didn't confiscate any weapons and even though the kid made some kind of gun related threat in school that required investigation they determined everything was OK.

What's the problem?
I didn't see anything in the story that said he made "some kind of gun related threat" it said "his 13-year-old son had made a comment at school about the Millstone Middle School’s security". That hardly constitutes a gun threat.
 
I didn't see anything in the story that said he made "some kind of gun related threat" it said "his 13-year-old son had made a comment at school about the Millstone Middle School’s security". That hardly constitutes a gun threat.
So you don't know what the comment was, as it was purposely left out (hint) , but you are confident it didn't constitute a threat from your chair.
 
Nope.
The police job is to investigate complaints. They had a complaint, they investigated and declared it unfounded. What were they supposed to do?

They were suposto "investigate". Up hold laws and follow the laws, they should also be truthful, moral and just.

NOT start by demanding his guns. <- that's the issue.
How can you not see that as an issue?
 
So you don't know what the comment was, as it was purposely left out (hint) , but you are confident it didn't constitute a threat from your chair.
And how did you decide the left out comment was valid?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
F new jersey
I have never met anyone from that state that wasn’t a horrible person.
There was even a Southpark episode about the douchiness of that terrible, terrible state.


I was born in that cesspool of a state. I ran out of the state as soon as I was old enough to leave. That place sucks on so many levels. Every single one of my immediate family members ran too. Most went to the open, free states of the mid West. I ran South!

However, I will say that I am a freedom loving, god fearing, family man that works hard for what we've saved. While 90% may be horrible people, I like to think that I'm part of the 10%.

Just something to consider as you make your generalizations.

Have a great day!
 
Last edited:
I may buy a couple beaters to keep out in the open. I think I'd have let them confiscate them just to see how that plays out.
 
The troopers, who patrol this sprawling Monmouth County township, were there, he said, because his 13-year-old son had made a comment at school about the Millstone Middle School’s security, and the officers wanted to confiscate Cottrell’s firearms as part of an investigation.


So the police didn't confiscate any weapons and even though the kid made some kind of gun related threat in school that required investigation they determined everything was OK.

What's the problem?

Since you seemed to miss the part where they came to talk AND confiscate his weapons.

Are we to assume you would have been just fine if the wife let the cops take them because "she gave permission" even though they are playing the game to make her think it's official and she has to give them up? Sounds like the husband wasn't buying that. But also sounds like they tried to play that card. Which is what's wrong here.

BTW, where is this reference to gun related threat? I see reference to a school threat. But no specific reference to gun related.
 
Since you seemed to miss the part where they came to talk AND confiscate his weapons.

Are we to assume you would have been just fine if the wife let the cops take them because "she gave permission" even though they are playing the game to make her think it's official and she has to give them up? Sounds like the husband wasn't buying that. But also sounds like they tried to play that card. Which is what's wrong here.

BTW, where is this reference to gun related threat? I see reference to a school threat. But no specific reference to gun related.
You're missing that they didn't confiscate jack. Do you really think that if that had been their intent they wouldn't have taken them? What scared them off?
 
You're missing that they didn't confiscate jack. Do you really think that if that had been their intent they wouldn't have taken them? What scared them off?
They should never have tried. Honestly behavior like this and lots of other examples by govt. crapping on constitutionally enshrined rights is why I’ve reached the point where they can take their silly warrant and stick it in the backside and chase it with a box of donuts. The govt. has lost the illusion of legitimacy.
 
Last edited:
They should never have tried. Honestly behavior like this and lots of other examples by govt. crapping on constitutionally enshrined rights is why I’ve reached the point where they can take their silly warrant and stick it in the backside and chase it with a box of donuts. The govt. has lost the illusion of legitimacy.

So, if the police come to your house with a legal warrant, you will tell them to get lost?
 
I was born in that cesspool of a state. I ran out of the state as soon as I was old enough to leave. That place sucks on so many levels. Every single one of my immediate family members ran too. Most went to the open, free states of the mid West. I ran South!

However, I will say that I am a freedom loving, god fearing, family man that works hard for what we've saved. While 90% may be horrible people, I like to think that I'm part of the 10%.

Just something to consider as you make your generalizations.

Have a great day!
Same here. My imediate family left when I was an infant, the rest fled over the years. Pop ran into trouble with the unions. Seems they want members who don’t see nothin’ and do what they’re told. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard “NJ is a good place to be from
 
Last edited:
F new jersey
I have never met anyone from that state that wasn’t a horrible person.
There was even a Southpark episode about the douchiness of that terrible, terrible state.
This is a mis-statement. A large portion of the state was farmland and beautiful country. With a lot of country raised farmers and decent people. The whole state is not Newark and Bayonne.

Just like upstate NY should not be judged by NYC.
 
F new jersey
I have never met anyone from that state that wasn’t a horrible person.
There was even a Southpark episode about the douchiness of that terrible, terrible state.

I have some really great friends from Jersey. A couple still live there. Agreed, most are liberal, pro-government, nanny-state-loving people. I like the southern part of the state; and the western edge along Pennsylvania is beautiful. But to hell with living there.
 
Don't answer the door!!!! If they have a warrant you'll know about it and even if they do they could always LIE to establish the probable cause for said warrant.
If a cop wants to "talk" as was said before, go talk with your buddies.....
 
Back
Top Bottom