Gun Grab Attempt

PUBLISHED: 7:22 PM 17 Jul 2018
UPDATED: 8:15 PM 24 Jul 2018

New Jersey Police Attempting Gun Seizures Without Warrants, Veteran Declines

It was all based off a comment the man’s son made at school.

New Jersey state police attempted to take a veteran's guns simply upon learning that he owned them.

Gun-grabbing democrats continually insist that they have no intention of infringing on the second amendment, nor actually, physically, taking law-abiding citizens’ firearms. This has, unsurprisingly, proven to be false already, most recently seen in an incident in which New Jersey police attempted to seize a veteran’s guns without a warrant.

Unfortunately, such an unlawful confiscation without due process measures is typical of the anti-gun climate of New Jersey. The liberal governor recently signed a series of gun control laws which have not only attacked the second amendment, but most specifically veterans.

The attempted gun-grab effort occurred on June 14, in Millstone Township, New Jersey.

Iraqi War Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr., 40, suddenly had his home raided when local authorities learned that Cottrell owned guns, which he was fully legal to do, at least until recent legislation mandated otherwise.

However, mass hysteria erupted upon the veteran’s son discussing school shootings, safety measures, and how he and fellow classmates could escape such horrors were they to occur on their own campus at Millstone Middle School.

At some point in the conversation, Cottrell’s son mentioned that his father had two firearms at home: “a shotgun and a handgun.”

Yet, such an admission was apparently mistranslated upon another student overhearing the conversation and alerting his mother.

The concerned parent then notified the school which subsequently alerted the New Jersey State Police department.

Police troopers conducted an investigation of the home at about 10 p.m., demanding to search the child’s room.

In upholding proper firearm safety practices, the veteran who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, of course, had not been storing his weapons in the 13-year-old’s room and also possessed “all the correct permits to own” the guns.

Even worse, Cottrell later reported that the police “had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or to other students or the school or anything like that.”

Still, the police demanded that Cottrell forfeit his right to bear arms “while the investigation continued.”

However, Cottrell was not about to give up such a freedom without a fight, saying “that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable case, no warrants, no nothing.’”

While still a horrific rights violation, the responding officers did offer Cottrell a compromise hours later: to at least temporarily relocate his weapons.

Doing so only ‘to appease everybody,’ Cottrell obliged and had them moved while the police conducted an investigation over virtually nothing.

However, Cottrell noted that at least this way, his son would not “have access” to firearms, as may have been the school’s concern.

Yet school safety aside, the incident occurred suspiciously only one day following Governor Phil Murphy signing a slew of gun control legislation, including a law which allows citizens’ gun to be seized without the occurrence of due process.

Also included in the series of new laws is one which limits magazine capacities to 10 rounds or less.

Such protections can be grandfathered in, “exempting retired police from the ban,” however fails to acknowledge veterans who may also own guns.

The failure to uphold equal protection under the fourteenth amendment has resulted in the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs filing a suit against the state in veterans’ defense, as the recent legislation automatically essentially turned veterans into firearm violators overnight.

While spokesman on behalf of the New Jersey State Police, Major Brian Polite, declined to “comment on whether the incident was related to the new gun laws,” those defending the second amendment condemned the liberal state’s recently imposed restrictions.

Scott L. Bach on behalf of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and the National Rifle Association noted that “in the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later.”

He continued that while attempts like the one on Cottrell are direct violations of the right to bear arms and be protected under constitutional due process, many with theirs’ infringed upon “often don’t know their rights.”

Cottrell thankfully did in his initial refusal to give up such protections in a refreshing act of second amendment defense. Unfortunately, he ultimately felt pressured to comply due to the state’s liberal culture.

Yet he also added how ridiculous and unnecessary the investigation was, saying that the issue could and should have been resolved between the school and himself as opposed to “the late-night visit to his home.”

While the constitutional violations are aggravating enough, they are even worse considering that veterans who risked their lives in combat, such as Cottrell, do not have their rights protected to the extent that law enforcement officers do.

Bach noted that retired officers were likely given such exceptions to ensure that included individuals would not oppose the state’s new laws.

However, veterans and corresponding groups have taken note in their attempt to fight to retain their guns.

While Cottrell ultimately gave up his right to bear arms for now, the incident has resulted in necessary attention regarding horrendous anti-gun laws.

It also, unfortunately, reminds otherwise legal gun owners to keep quiet about gun ownership in the presence of liberals, as even mentioning such can result in a seizure if one lives in a state such as New Jersey.