.

Stamford Police Recover Drugs, Assault Rifle in Sting

Stamford police said they allegedly recovered cash, more than 10 ounces of marijuana and an AR-15 rifle from a Stamford resident's home.

Stamford police announced Wednesday evening they allegedly recovered over 10 ounces of marijuana and an AR-15 assault rifle from the home of a Stamford man.

According to Lt. Timothy Shaw, Stamford officers conducted a sting operation at approximately 9:30 a.m. Wednesday morning on the home of a man identified as David White, 20, of Skyline Ave.

Shaw said patrol officers and K-9 units, upon serving a search warrant on the home, found White in his room in the home he shared with his family. Shaw said White was cooperative and allegedly showed police where a quantity of marijuana was being kept.

Shaw also said they discovered the "upper portion" of a Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault rifle in his room and the "lower portion" in a closet just outside his bedroom.

According to Shaw, White was allegedly in possession of approximately 10 ounces of marijuana valued at $3,000, $4,000 in cash and a quantity of pills and hash, as well as ammunition and magazines for the rifle.

Shaw said White was the target of the investigation based on evidence and information they had gathered and no one else, either in the home or otherwise, was currently believed to be connected to the operation.

"We were surprised about the weapon, we didn't know about it," Shaw said. "Any time we can take an assault weapon off the street, it's a good day."

White faces charged of possession of marijuana over 4 ounces, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, possession of narcotics, possession of narcotics with intent to sell, possession of a controlled substance, operation of a drug factory, possession of an assault rifle and possession of a silencer.

White was being held on a $10,000 bond, which police believe he will make, and had a court date scheduled for February 27, 2013.

DJ McAneny February 14, 2013 at 06:51 AM
To address your points, in order: The silencer add-on would be necessary as owning one is illegal. You don't typically face charges for just some of your crimes. The narcotics charges are sub-categories linked to marijuana, but additional drugs allegedly seized during the raid, which is mentioned in the story. You aren't just charged for all your drugs, but for each type of illegal drug classification in which you are in possession. And gun laws aren't to magically take guns away from people. They are enacted as a deterrent to people who shouldn't own them and place stiffer penalties on those who choose to illegally ignore them. Just to help keep you informed, my good sir. Thanks for being a contributing member of the Patch community!
Fairfield Old Timer February 14, 2013 at 04:42 PM
Actually......the proper term is "sound suppresor" and owning one is not illegal if you have the proper federal paperwork and paid the appropriate tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor North America In the United States, taxes and strict regulations affect the manufacture and sale of suppressors under the National Firearms Act. They are legal for individuals to possess and use for lawful purposes in thirty-nine of the fifty states.[26] However, a prospective user must go through an application process administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which requires a Federal tax payment of USD $200 and a thorough criminal background check. The USD 200.00 buys a revenue stamp, which is the legal document allowing possession of a suppressor. The market for used suppressors in the U.S. is consequently very poor, which has driven innovations in the field (buyers want the height of technology, because they are basically "stuck" with the purchase). Suppressors are available in other countries for under USD 40,[27] but they can be of crude construction, using cheap materials and baffle designs[citation needed]. The following jurisdictions have explicitly banned any civilian from possessing a suppressor: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia.
DJ McAneny February 14, 2013 at 07:35 PM
Very good. Allow me to modify my statement. Since "a prospective user must go through an application process administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which requires a Federal tax payment of USD $200 and a thorough criminal background check," then ownership would be illegal had the proper steps not been followed.
Sanchez February 18, 2013 at 01:26 AM
This is a good case to show why full auto firearms were never banned for sale in the US. In 1932, was it, they instituted a licensing scheme because they knew and followed the US Constitution then. The same with suppressors. Notice that not all states allow them. The Feds could not ban the sale or possession, just as full auto, but with the 10th Amendment, the States have the power to do so. It will take the States to ban firearm sales, not the Feds. The States do have the power, only by the consent of the governed, thus statewide elections. Much easier to either change or leave. That's freedom. Enumerated rights comes to mind.
John February 25, 2013 at 08:47 PM
As Sanchez refers to ownership of full-auto weapons: The law is funny. In Connecticut, it is illegal to own a selective-fire weapon that can be switched from semi-auto to full-auto. However, full-auto-only machine guns apparently can be owned.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »