Police officers searching a two-story house opposite an elementary school in Brooklyn on Friday night discovered scores of guns, bullet-making materials and an odd array of weapons more appropriate to a Western or a spy novel, including antique firearms and an umbrella with a dagger hidden in its handle, officials said on Saturday.
In addition to seizing pistols, rifles, shotguns and knives, the officers also confiscated numerous pills, which were still being inventoried, the police said.
The discovery, at 8 p.m., led to the arrests of four people in the house, at 2348 West Street in Gravesend, the police said.
The four were identified by the police as Thomas Siano, 57; his wife, Kathleen Siano, 58; their son Vincent Siano, 29; and Michael Poole, 29. The suspects were each charged with multiple counts of weapons possession, the police said.
A police statement described Mr. Poole as a friend of the family’s, but neighbors said he was a tenant.
On a sunny Saturday afternoon, as people came and went and absorbed the news on the block of pastel brick homes with neat lawns, two starkly conflicting portraits of the suspects emerged: one as a tight, middle-class family in which the men used to go hunting together upstate; another as a household known for having a steady stream of unsavory visitors and visits by the police.
The police said they were investigating why the weapons, which were discovered throughout the house, were there. It was not believed that anyone at the address was selling guns, according to a law enforcement official, and it was not believed that any of the weapons were stolen.
“As of right now, the origin of the weapons is under investigation,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case was continuing.
The official said the four people did not have the proper permits for any of the weapons, which he said were unlicensed. Investigators were also trying to determine if any of the guns had been used in a crime, the official said.
“The guns will be brought to the laboratory,” the official added. “They will get ballistic-tested.”
In addition to the umbrella-knife, a sword, a machete, three daggers and a hunting knife were confiscated. The officers also found a “large quantity of ammunition and materials to make homemade ammunition,” the police said.
It was unclear what triggered the investigation, which originated in the 61st Precinct.
(Read More: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
13 Responses
im freaked out
uhhh I’m a little perplex by reading the article it doesn’t look like any crime was committed, yet the headline is portraying it as such.just the opposite by reading the article it seems to me the defendants are upstanding u.s citizens
#2 You are correct.
The 2nd Ammendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
All this registration and other anti gun nonsense is as unconstitutional as all the antu religion laws that have been upheald by the supreme court which is making up new law, rather then simply clarifying it, as they should be doing.
# 2 weapons possession without a permit is illegal in NYC.
#3, why would they make unconstitutional laws?
Also, don’t forget about the drugs. Why weren’t they charged for that?
#3 – The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Cruikshank that “[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…” and does not apply to state and local (ie, city) governments. This ruling has been challenged two times, both unsuccessfully.
And precisely what “antu religion laws” have been “upheald” or “made up” by the Supreme Court?
#5 They made unconstitutional laws because they want to have Stalinist control over the people and are illegally taking away our rights one after the other.
#7 State Constitutions must reflect the policies of the National Constitution and cannot have any clauses in it that go against the National Constitution.
And the Supreme court has upheld “anti religion laws” like the one wher ethey ordered a lower court to remove the Ten Commandments from their walls for their fake anti constitutional laws like the one they made up about “separation of Church and state” which not only do not exist in the Constitution but the Constitution says they are not allowed to restrict religion, in any way.
#8 –
“State Constitutions must reflect the policies of the National Constitution and cannot have any clauses in it that go against the National Constitution.”
State Constitutions are not “going against” the Constitution by having restrictions on arms sale – the second amendment means only that the Federal Government cannot impose restrictions on arms sales. And if the State Constitutions were bound to follow the exact same rules as the Federal Constitution, what difference would there be between the Federal and State Governments?
“the Supreme court has upheld “anti religion laws” like the one wher ethey ordered a lower court to remove the Ten Commandments from their walls”
The Supreme Court is not limiting religious freedoms by taking the Ten Commandments off its walls, it is just not allowing the Government to force religion on the people by not allowing the Government to use any religious symbols. Imagine how you would feel if when you walked into a government building the first thing you see would be a cross. The Supreme Court was if anything defending our religious rights.
“the Constitution says they are not allowed to restrict religion, in any way.”
So according to you, what right does the government have to stop radical muslims from waging jihad against us? They have absolutely no right to “restrict religion, in any way”!
#9 The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It does not say it shall not be infringed by the Constitution but could be infringed by other things.
That is not what it says.
And yes the state Constitution should be a copy of teh Constitution only for that partricular state.
This is not a contest to see which state can be the most origional, it’s about upholding our inalienable rights.
About religion, It says; Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, nor restrict the free execrise thereof.
To make laws demanding the 10 commandments (from which all our laws come) be taken down they are making laws regarding the establishment of religion.
And the Ten Commandments do not represent one particular religion like a cross does.
And waging war is going against all our rights to “life liberty and persuit of happiness”.
The Ten commandments do not interfere with that, but violent jihadism, does.
If you wnat to interfere with our rights in the name of stopping radical Islam then we should be allowed to close down all their mosques and outlaw them, altogether.
Ok, so thats your interpretation of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court justices, who do this for a living, disagree.
The Constitution was not written for lawyers to turn into whatever they wanted, under the guise of “scholarship way above the intelligence of everyone else”.
It was written plainly and simply for farmers to follow as they served a term in Washington then returned to their farms after service.
It says what it means, plainly and clearly.
Anyone who claims you need to be some “degreed scholar” to know what it says, is hiding their own anti Constitutional, agenda.
Did you know that Constitutionally, a person need not have any degree or be a lawyer at all, to serve as a Supreme Court Justice?