Jake Paul: FBI Seizes guns.

[Chr0my]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53673371

 

"The FBI have conducted a raid on the Los Angeles-area home of YouTube star Jake Paul." 

 

Not many details have been released because of the nature of the topic, yet.

 

He was charged with criminal trespass and unlawful assembly, but told US media that he was only there to meet protesters.

The official would not say the reason, only that the search was related to an investigation. Officers were seen collecting guns from the property.

"The FBI is executing a federal search warrant at a residence in Calabasas in connection with an ongoing investigation," an FBI representative said in a statement.

There were over 20 vehicles that arrived at the property.

 

FBI was seen collecting long rifles, "long rifles with a scope".

 

[Still writing]

[mockedarche]

Not sure this is tech news. Granted you're still writing but i'd be a curveball  if it was.

[SpyGuyB]

lol

[dizmo]

Ooo. Federal crimes. Those are always fun to watch.

[Slottr]

-Moved to Off Topic- 

... how was that tech news? 

[GDRRiley]

tech news no.

Federal crimes often mean lots of time, yay maybe the pair can go away for years so kids stop being influence by those idiots

[Guest]

Saw this today. I feel sorry for whoever (and if ever) Jake Paul’s PR manager is.

[Guest]

He has little girls in his basement $20. 

Any counter bets? 

[JZStudios]

2 hours ago, fpo said:

He has little girls in his basement $20. 

Any counter bets? 

$20 says it was a publicity stunt orchestrated by him.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

$20 says it was a publicity stunt orchestrated by him.

oof that's a tough one... could prolly be the real reason.

[PlayStation 2]

1 hour ago, JZStudios said:

$20 says it was a publicity stunt orchestrated by him.

Apparently this is in connection with him being an accomplice in the robbery of some stores in a mall in Arizona, one that got raided a couple of months ago because of the """"protests"""". 

Which... when you have the money to buy the fucking mall itself, WHY would you do that?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

Apparently this is in connection with him being an accomplice in the robbery of some stores in a mall in Arizona, one that got raided a couple of months ago because of the """"protests"""". 

Which... when you have the money to buy the fucking mall itself, WHY would you do that?

Absolute mad lad. 

Hes a Maverick. 

[Dylanc1500]

1 hour ago, fpo said:

Hes a Maverick. 

Hmm...

[Snadzies]

I'm not familiar with Jake Paul's history but the article doesn't mention anything about ever being convicted of something that would have made it illegal for him to own a rifle.

It mentions being charged with criminal trespassing and unlawful assembly (nothing about robbery) in a different state than where his home was and I'm not sure how California handles firearm ownership of someone being charged (but not yet convicted) with something in another state.

 

[JZStudios]

4 hours ago, handymanshandle said:

Apparently this is in connection with him being an accomplice in the robbery of some stores in a mall in Arizona, one that got raided a couple of months ago because of the """"protests"""". 

Which... when you have the money to buy the fucking mall itself, WHY would you do that?

It was to get YouTube views. Either way it comes back to being a publicity stunt.

 

2 hours ago, Snadzies said:

I'm not familiar with Jake Paul's history but the article doesn't mention anything about ever being convicted of something that would have made it illegal for him to own a rifle.

It mentions being charged with criminal trespassing and unlawful assembly (nothing about robbery) in a different state than where his home was and I'm not sure how California handles firearm ownership of someone being charged (but not yet convicted) with something in another state.

It's SOP. You do something the government doesn't like and then they raid your house and look for excuses. Given he lives in Cali I'm not 100%, but I think he needs a permit for everything. And if they've been sitting in his house too long they might arbitrarily be illegal because he has a standard magazine and not a 10 round bullet button.

[ARikozuM]

This should be illegal. Even if he's charged and awaiting trial, his guns and property should not be taken.

[Lord Vile]

8 hours ago, JZStudios said:

$20 says it was a publicity stunt orchestrated by him.

It was just a prank brah

[Lord Vile]

2 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

This should be illegal. Even if he's charged and awaiting trial, his guns and property should not be taken.

Depends if he’s licensed to have them, if they’re registered to him and if they’re not illegal in any other way. Plus if they’re counted as evidence to something they can take anything. Dunno about the states but in countries with adequate gun laws they wouldn’t have been able to get to any firearms. 

[dual290x]

States like California and New York along with cities like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc. have extremely strict firearm laws. You could spit on the sidewalk and have your firearms taken (exaggerated, a little, but I am making a point). It could be that someone wanted to make a name for themselves. Most states have laws/guidelines regarding having firearms at a public gathering like a peaceful protest. Unless he did not pay attention to those laws, who knows why they took them.

 

@Lord Vile, you can be in possession of a firearm that is not "registered" in your name and it be legal (borrowing, private sale, etc) as long as you are not committing crimes or the firearm is not tied to a crime. Even though California has stupidly anal firearm laws/regulations, the ATF was not involved from what I could see, so they firearms were probably legal in regards to barrel length, non-pistol grip, etc. This is one of those things that no one has a clue because they are so tight lipped. If I may suggest, don't go throwing sentences around like:

20 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

 but in countries with adequate gun laws they wouldn’t have been able to get to any firearms. 

that can cause some people to get a bit agitated as "adequate" is opinion based. This Logan guy may have been extremely legal to have these firearms, we simply don't have all the facts right now.

 

2 hours ago, JZStudios said:

It was to get YouTube views. Either way it comes back to being a publicity stunt.

 

It's SOP. You do something the government doesn't like and then they raid your house and look for excuses. Given he lives in Cali I'm not 100%, but I think he needs a permit for everything. And if they've been sitting in his house too long they might arbitrarily be illegal because he has a standard magazine and not a 10 round bullet button.

It is possible that this was for publicity. It is unlikely that a permit is required for rifles and shotguns but in California you must have a Firearm Safety Certificate (from what I have read) in order to purchase. It is possible that he did some looting in Arizona and did not iffy things at a protest. We shall see what comes up.

2 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

This should be illegal. Even if he's charged and awaiting trial, his guns and property should not be taken.

May I ask why you feel this way?

[atxcyclist]

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

It was to get YouTube views. Either way it comes back to being a publicity stunt.

 

It's SOP. You do something the government doesn't like and then they raid your house and look for excuses. Given he lives in Cali I'm not 100%, but I think he needs a permit for everything. And if they've been sitting in his house too long they might arbitrarily be illegal because he has a standard magazine and not a 10 round bullet button.

Slowly but surely California will outlaw a distinctive feature of every type of firearm, until they can ban and confiscate all of them.

 

 

[atxcyclist]

19 minutes ago, dual290x said:

May I ask why you feel this way?

 

I will not answer for the other poster, but 'innocent until proven guilty' is the keystone of the legal system here in the United States. It should take a conviction in a court of law to remove rights from someone.

[ARikozuM]

26 minutes ago, dual290x said:

May I ask why you feel this way?

Civil asset forfeiture. His property may very likely be taken and not given back without jumping through holes. I know this is the FBI, but I don't trust any PD since the day CAF was passed without requiring a day in court to do so. 

[Lord Vile]

26 minutes ago, dual290x said:nows why they took them.

 

@Lord Vile, you can be in possession of a firearm that is not "registered" in your name and it be legal (borrowing, private sale, etc) as long as you are not committing crimes or the firearm is not tied to a crime. Even though California has stupidly anal firearm laws/regulations, the ATF was not involved from what I could see, so they firearms were probably legal in regards to barrel length, non-pistol grip, etc. This is one of those things that no one has a clue because they are so tight lipped. If I may suggest, don't go throwing sentences around like:

that can cause some people to get a bit agitated as "adequate" is opinion based. This Logan guy may have been extremely legal to have these firearms, we simply don't have all the facts right now.

• There is no firearm registration requirement in California except for assault weapon owners and personal handgun importers. However, you must submit a Firearm Ownership Report (FOR) Application (BOF 4542A), pdf to the California Department of Justice (the Department) for any firearm you are seeking return where no other record is on file with the Department identifying you as the most recent owner/possessor. Having a FOR application on file with the Department will authorize the return of your firearm in the event it is subsequently lost or stolen. With very few and specific exceptions, all firearm transactions must be conducted through a firearms dealer. If you purchased a handgun from a properly licensed California firearms dealer and underwent a background check via the state’s Dealer’s Record of Sale (DROS) process, a record of your handgun purchase is already on file with the Department. Therefore, it should not be necessary for you to submit a FOR application for handguns previously purchased in California. Unfortunately, this is not the case with regards to rifles or shotguns. Prior to January 1, 2014, the Department was prohibited by law from retaining DROS long gun information.

 

Adequate as in guns must be stored in a safe, locked location when not in use so only the owner has access. If the guns were stored responsibly then the police would not have been able to remove them.  

[dual290x]

8 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Civil asset forfeiture. His property may very likely be taken and not given back without jumping through holes. I know this is the FBI, but I don't trust any PD since the day CAF was passed without requiring a day in court to do so. 

I misread your original post.

4 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

• There is no firearm registration requirement in California except for assault weapon owners and personal handgun importers. However, you must submit a Firearm Ownership Report (FOR) Application (BOF 4542A), pdf to the California Department of Justice (the Department) for any firearm you are seeking return where no other record is on file with the Department identifying you as the most recent owner/possessor. Having a FOR application on file with the Department will authorize the return of your firearm in the event it is subsequently lost or stolen. With very few and specific exceptions, all firearm transactions must be conducted through a firearms dealer. If you purchased a handgun from a properly licensed California firearms dealer and underwent a background check via the state’s Dealer’s Record of Sale (DROS) process, a record of your handgun purchase is already on file with the Department. Therefore, it should not be necessary for you to submit a FOR application for handguns previously purchased in California. Unfortunately, this is not the case with regards to rifles or shotguns. Prior to January 1, 2014, the Department was prohibited by law from retaining DROS long gun information.

 

Adequate as in guns must be stored in a safe, locked location when not in use so only the owner has access. If the guns were stored responsibly then the police would not have been able to remove them.  

Thank for the info, where did you find it (for future reference)?

It's all in how it read my man. I read it as if you were mocking the US for their gun laws as many people like to.

[Lord Vile]

8 hours ago, dual290x said:

I misread your original post.

Thank for the info, where did you find it (for future reference)?

It's all in how it read my man. I read it as if you were mocking the US for their gun laws as many people like to.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#3

 

I’m from the UK and I’d say we have decent gun laws here, you need to have a valid reason for owning one and you need to undergo a test to see if you’re fit to own one plus there’s restrictions to mainly a bolt action or shotgun. Not a fan on the US and its laissez faire approach, makes it easier for people to peddle illegal weapons on the black market due to the sheer volume of trade done and obviously the number of mass shootings that occur.