Weapons cache stuns agents

[MacBeth]

By Mike Carter

Seattle Times staff reporter

A 65-year-old Spokane man has been ordered held in custody on federal charges of illegally possessing automatic weapons and illegally storing explosives in a Bellevue commercial storage shed while agents investigate how he came to possess a huge military-grade arsenal that included grenade launchers, machine guns and plastic explosives.

Ronald Struve, heavyset and bearded, appeared in Seattle before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler on Tuesday after being extradited from Spokane, where he was arrested Jan. 7 during a raid by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

In four searches in Bellevue and Spokane, agents seized 37 machine guns, 12 silencers, two grenade launchers, more than 60 high-explosive grenades, several pounds of military-grade C-4 plastic explosives and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

Most of this material was stored in commercial sheds near businesses and homes, said Assistant U. S. Attorney Thomas Woods.

At a detention hearing set for Friday, Woods said he will present evidence that Struve possessed "anti-government material."

According to a complaint filed earlier this month, Struve "planned to use the items at some uncertain date in the future."

Two law-enforcement sources familiar with the case, but who spoke on condition of anonymity, used the term "Armageddon" to describe what Struve was apparently awaiting in stockpiling the weapons.

Agents have served four search warrants — three in Spokane and another in Lynnwood.

The Lynnwood shed was empty; however, agents recovered eight machine guns and additional grenade rounds in a search on a storage shed in Spokane.

The search of the Bellevue storage shed did not require a warrant because agents were given permission by a man who purchased the contents at an auction.

ATF Special Agent Heidi Wallace said much of the recovered ordnance was almost certainly stolen from the military because there is no other place to get it.

Woods said the investigation is continuing and that a grand-jury indictment is possible. So far, agents have questioned at least two others — including a man who rented the shed in Bellevue. No other arrests have been made.

Wallace, who was at Struve's court hearing Tuesday, said there was no evidence at this point that Struve was involved in domestic terrorism.

Struve first came to the ATF's attention in November, when the man who had purchased the shed's contents contacted the agency after he found it full of boxes of firearms, shells and other military-style hardware and wanted to know if the weapons were legal to keep.

The bureau sent Wallace to the buyer's garage, where he had stacked the contents from the storage unit. What Wallace found were "many boxes, plastic bins and ammunition containers."

The first box contained what appeared to be several machine guns. Likewise, the second box contained military-type firearms. In the third box, Wallace found "two grenades and other possible explosives."

Other agents were called, and what they found was startling — and worrisome.

"In all my years, I've never seen this sort of firepower in one place," said ATF Special Agent Nick Starcevic, the Seattle office's senior operations officer.

One box contained 54 M406 high-explosive grenade rounds — 40-millimeter shells that can be launched from a shoulder-fired weapon to distances of 300 yards or more, according to military specification.

Its explosion creates a "kill radius" of up to 16 feet from the point of impact and injuries dozens of yards beyond that.

Agents also found several other anti-personnel grenades, including a Korean War-era "Chicom" stick grenade.

In another box, agents found six blocks of C-4 plastic explosives.

Agents counted 32 apparent machine guns, including M-14s, M-16s, and several "Sten guns," a mass-produced submachine gun known for its high rate of fire — upward of 500 rounds per minute.

They also found nine silencers and the parts for several others, as well as thousands of rounds of ammunition and various other military hardware.

"All of the military explosive items seized are considered contraband and cannot be possessed by anyone other than the military," Wallace wrote in a search warrant. "The majority of the items seized appeared to be stolen military explosive materials."




seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2008651920&zsection_id=2003925728&slug=weapons21m0&date=20090121

[wayneinfl]

And he didn't pay his storage bill?

[oskar]

Since he's probably a White Christian he cannot be a terrorist.

[Rob]

Tut tut, Oskar. I'm pretty sure you had to promise not to be hateful to sign up.

[oskar]

Nope. I don't make promises I can't/won't keep.

[rnrbill]

Il bet the squirrels are happy this guy got nabbed

[cooter50]

The largest part of the Cache was illegal TO BUY or TO OWN, so how did he get them? Why did the existing laws not stop him? Why did the ATF not have an idea of what he was doing?

These are the same arguments I have put forth as to MORE useless firearms laws, they did not and evidently could not stop this man's purchases and ownership, how will additional laws stop anything else?

He is Seventy years old, they will probavly put him away for the next five years and he will be out doing this again.

[oskar]

Laws against murder haven't stopped murders. Laws against theft haven't stopped thefts.
You could say the same about every illegality but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that those laws have reduced the levels of those crimes so those laws are NOT useless.

[wayneinfl]

The difference is that weapons laws are supposedly not written to stop weapons. Weapons laws are supposedly written to stop violent acts that involve weapons.

Murder laws have probably reduced murders. Weapon laws don't seem to have reduced murders. The problem with the weapon laws is that those inclined to commit violent crimes ignore lesser laws like those involving weapons.

(What makes this strange is that this guy doesn't seem inclined to do any violence yet is still going to get into trouble with the law. )

[wheelspinner]

I have to wonder whether, if Ronald Struve was of Middle Eastern extraction, this affair would not be treated entirely differently.

Given the probable uses of such a weapons cache, why isn't Struve being charged under terrorism laws?

[oskar]

I have to wonder whether, if Ronald Struve was of Middle Eastern extraction, this affair would not be treated entirely differently.

I don't wonder about it for one second.

[wayneinfl]

"Given the probable uses of such a weapons cache, why isn't Struve being charged under terrorism laws? "

Charged with what? Under what terrorism laws?

[Rob]

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that he'd done anything to harm anyone, or that he was plotting to do anything specific or was in contact with anyone who was (or with anyone at all) — or, for that matter, that he is Christian. He sounds like one of those survivalists who was convinced that Y2K, or some other arbitrary date, was going to be the end of the world as he knew it and he wanted to be ready, but nothing released yet has made me think he intended to help bring it about. He seems to have forgotten he had some of the stuff. So far, it seems like prosecutors are being fairly sensible in not hauling him to Guantanamo.

I'm not convinced that big caches of illegal weapons are a whole lot more dangerous than big caches of legal weapons. Dead is dead.

[MacBeth]

Exactly, Rob.....when there is a need for someone, no matter how, to have that many weapons, we have to stop and think that this might present a real problem for many people.

And legal weapons kill just as fast as illegal weapons. And law-abiding citizens are just that until the do something where they are not that any longer. And by then, it is too late

[wayneinfl]

Weapons don't kill anybody. If weapons did the killing I wouldn't be here. Heck none of us would be here.

[Calluna]

There are people who collect weapons the same way others might collect stamps or trains. I don't think we should be concluding someone is crazy or something is wrong just because they've collected a lot of weapons...it doesn't mean they have any intent in using them or letting anyone else use them. Otherwise, should we raid museums and prevent them from having large collections of weapons for display purposes?

Frankly, if those weapons were out in the market, available for purchase, legally or illegally, wouldn't you rather they be bought up by someone who has no intentions to use them other than to stockpile them in a locked storage unit?

[Georgina]

I think that's rather a fallacious comparison of a cache of weapons to a stamp collection or a train collection. I can't recall last when someone injured anyone else with their philatelic collection.

[wheelspinner]

Jan 24, 2009 19:01:06 GMT -5 wayneinfl said:

"Given the probable uses of such a weapons cache, why isn't Struve being charged under terrorism laws? "

Charged with what? Under what terrorism laws?

The possession of such weapons implies their use for something. It is clearly not a collection assembled for hunting, and the intent behind assembling such an arsenal could easily be construed as a prelude to a terrorist attack.

As a case it is a heck of a lot stronger than the one the USA used to bang up David Hicks for five years without charge, torture him and then find him guilty of a minor charge in a kangaroo court and sentence him to less than what you'd get for a traffic violation.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Hicks is not an American. You only mete that kind of treatment out to non-US citizens.

[Rob]

I'm somewhat skeptical that the best solution would be to mete out more of it, wheelspinner.

[wheelspinner]

It is not meting out injustice to ask the question "What purpose would such an arms cache serve?" and infer a prima facie intent to use them for the purpose they are fit for. The gentleman concerned was clearly not planning a duck hunting trip with his mates.

Many cases have been brought before Australian courts based on similar premises. It is enough for people to show an interest in how to make a bomb, let alone assemble a cache of them, to face conspiracy charges and be found guilty. There is no reason why this person should not also be assumed to be prima facie involved in terrorist activity, the only reasonable use one could infer from the evidence.

[Rob]

Actually, there are at least two good reasons: First, that under U.S. law, as it's supposed to work and may now work again, he is legally presumed innocent until convicted. Second is that there is considerable precedent in the western United States for collecting such an arsenal with no particular plan at all, just a vague belief that such weaponry might be necessary defensively in some undefined future. Most of us here would disagree with both the premise and the conclusion, but that doesn't make him a terrorist. I know people like that; I find them misguided but not particularly frightening. There are thousands of such caches across the West. Rarely do they surface, and even less frequently are they used. By the numbers alone, that means the threat is not particularly severe. There is no reason not to afford him due process.

You seem to be arguing both sides of this. Hicks was treated poorly, but Struve deserves the same treatment?

[Pax]

"Murder laws have probably reduced murders. Weapon laws don't seem to have reduced murders."

Aren't both those statements backed by the same evidence, but used to reach opposite conclusions?

[wayneinfl]

"Many cases have been brought before Australian courts based on similar premises. It is enough for people to show an interest in how to make a bomb..."

Zoiks! Thank God I don't live in Australia. I've shown an interest in how to make a bomb. Hell, I've made a bomb. Not anything big enough to blow up anything more than my hand, but something that would fit the definition of a bomb. If it weren't illegal I would make something bigger, for sure. That doesn't make me a terrorist. I wouldn't hurt a fly. I just like anything that goes "bang." And I like things that go "BANG!!!" even more.

When I saw those RPGs and C-4 the first thought was that if I had bought the contents of this shed at auction, I wouldn't have told anybody. I would be out in the woods blowing up every abandoned car I could find. ;D

It's probably a good thing I didn't buy it.

"'Murder laws have probably reduced murders. Weapon laws don't seem to have reduced murders.'

Aren't both those statements backed by the same evidence, but used to reach opposite conclusions?"

I honestly don't have any hard evidence that murder laws have reduced murders. I don't know of anywhere murder is legal. But I have to think there are people who are only alive because it's illegal to kill them.

On the other hand, we do have evidence involving weapons laws and murder, because weapons vary form state to state, nation to nation, even city to city. So we can make comparisons and draw conclusions. I think we're pretty much 101-101 on which way the evidence points, so I'm thinking it has had little effect either way.

[wheelspinner]

Jan 25, 2009 21:04:39 GMT -5 wayneinfl said:

"Many cases have been brought before Australian courts based on similar premises. It is enough for people to show an interest in how to make a bomb..."

Zoiks! Thank God I don't live in Australia.

Where do you think the inspiration for these laws came from? It certainly wasn't from Australians demanding them. They came from the Howard government's slavish sucking-up to and imitation of the Bush government.

You may not think so, but I assure you similar laws apply in the USA, if not even worse. They just don't seem to get applied unless your name as Azir al-Sawari or some such.

[Pax]

Wayne -- actually, murder is very legal in a number of countries... many of them, explicitly... and even in those where it isn't explicit, it may as well be, by strong tradition. I'm referring to "honor killings." Honor killings don't seem to happen as much in countries that make no exception for them, so I have to believe that murder laws do reduce murder.

As for weapons laws and murder, they do vary as you said, and I'm sincerely not sure what "101-101" means, but I'd venture that strong anti-gun laws do have an effect on number of murders by guns. I base that on the below link, which is murders by gun per capita by country. The graph doesn't show which countries have the strongest gun laws, but I happen to know that countries like Britain, which ranks #32. The United States is #8.

www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Here's an article on the countries with the strongest gun laws... The UK, Japan, Sweden, Singapore, Malaysia, and Germany. Only the UK (#32) and Germany (#21) even show up on the list in the link above. I guess with Germany you could make some kind of point that gun laws haven't helped them much, but otherwise, I think there's strong evidence across nations that gun laws generally do reduce murders by guns per capita.

www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78

[Rob]

Jan 25, 2009 22:32:57 GMT -5 wheelspinner said:

They just don't seem to get applied unless your name as Azir al-Sawari or some such.

Or Randy Weaver. Or David Koresh.

So do you want them applied or not, WS? Seems like an easy enough question.

[Georgina]

Jan 25, 2009 21:04:39 GMT -5 wayneinfl said:

I honestly don't have any hard evidence that murder laws have reduced murders. I don't know of anywhere murder is legal.

Murder is legal in the United States of America. It's just called Capital Punishment.

[wheelspinner]

Jan 25, 2009 23:37:25 GMT -5 Rob said:

Or Randy Weaver. Or David Koresh.

Neither Randy Weaver nor David Koresh was charged with terrorist activities, but using the normal criminal statutes dealing with murder and manslaughter. Also, both cases pre-date 9/11 and the subsequent hysteria-induced fervour for terrorism laws.

So do you want them applied or not, WS? Seems like an easy enough question.

Ideally such laws would not exist, but they do.

If you must have such laws, I want to see them applied equally. My observation is that the deck is very much stacked against Muslims and other aliens when it comes to the application of these laws, and white US citizens are far more likely to be dealt with under domestic criminal law, with far greater legal protections, for similar offences.

[wayneinfl]

"You may not think so, but I assure you similar laws apply in the USA, if not even worse."

There's an easy solution. Find one and post it here. Until then I won't take you seriously in your claims that it exists.

"As for weapons laws and murder, they do vary as you said, and I'm sincerely not sure what "101-101" means, but I'd venture that strong anti-gun laws do have an effect on number of murders by guns. I base that on the below link, which is murders by gun per capita by country. The graph doesn't show which countries have the strongest gun laws, but I happen to know that countries like Britain, which ranks #32. The United States is #8."

I meant that there is a wealth of evidence supporting both sides of that argument. (I could find a hundred and one cases to support either side.) There are too many variables, including cultural differences, to make valid comparisons.

"Neither Randy Weaver nor David Koresh was charged with terrorist activities, but using the normal criminal statutes dealing with murder and manslaughter. "

Actually, no- Randy Weaver was charged with sawing down a shotgun without paying the tax stamp. And it was entrapment. They killed his wife and son over a tax evasion charge that he was acquitted of.

And David Koresh was never charged with anything either. His compound was raided for having illegal weapons, and turns out they didn't exist. Interesting parallel to Iraq, now that I think about it. At least Bush killed people in another country. The Clinton administration killed our own.

Which puts me off on a kind of a tangent. I'm not comfortable with Janet Reno's deputy AG coming to power as AG. Eric Holder wasn't my pick, by any means.

[wheelspinner]

Jan 26, 2009 20:35:15 GMT -5 wayneinfl said:

"You may not think so, but I assure you similar laws apply in the USA, if not even worse."

There's an easy solution. Find one and post it here. Until then I won't take you seriously in your claims that it exists. [\quote]

The Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, just to name a couple. I have no intention of posting legislation of that size on this site. You know where to find them.