CT police confiscated firearms from disabled Navy veteran

Rate this post

On Feb. 20, 2013, Michael Connelly, J.D., a constitutional law attorney and executive director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF), sounded the alarm that the Obama regime has a new scheme to disarm veterans.
According to Connelly, U.S. military veterans have received a letter from the VA informing them that they were found to be “mentally incompetent” and are thus forbidden “from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition.” (See my post of Feb. 22, 2013, “Obama regime prohibits disabled veterans from owning firearms and ammunition.”)
A caller to George Hemminger on SurviveAndThrive TV claims to have had his firearms forcibly removed by the local police in Naugatuck, Connecticut.
The police there seem to be working with the V.A. hospital to do “wellness checks” on disabled veterans.
The caller says his name is Dave Schmecker, a 50-year-old disabled veteran who had been honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy. Six months ago (September 2012?), Dave requested a followup appointment for his spinal injury. Dave has no psychiatric problems or even a history of one, nor does he have a criminal record.
The hospital called back and informed Dave that they’ve scheduled him for a three-hour appointment with a physical therapist, a pain-management specialist, a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Dave declined the appointment, stating he refuses to see a psychiatrist and psychologist for a spine injury.
On February 5, 2013, the Naugatuck police told Dave that his primary care physician had asked them to perform a “wellness check” on him. Not wanting the stigma of a police visit to his house, Dave first went down to the Naugatuck police station (211 Spring St, Naugatuck, CT 06770; tel: 203-729-5222) where he waited in vain.
Next, Dave arranged to meet with the police on the street outside his home. Half an hour later, two police officers arrived and immediately commandeered Dave’s truck, went into his house without a search warrant, confiscated his weapons and ordered him to undertake a psychiatric evaluation. Knowing that if he resisted he would be in even more trouble, Dave submitted under duress.
Dave has had a firearms (pistol) permit for six years.
Here’s the audio of Dave recounting his experience:

UPDATE (March 30):

I just spoke to David Schmecker and can confirm he and his story are real. Mr. Schmecker is seeking legal counsel and representation. I have his e-address and phone number. If you can help him, please contact FOTM at fellowshipminds@gmail.com.

UPDATE (May 1, 2013):

David Schmecker has a website for donations to fund his legal defense. Click here or go to https://www.gofundme.com/2r38kc. He will be interviewed by Alex Jones tomorrow, May 2, 2013.


Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “CT police confiscated firearms from disabled Navy veteran

  1. Reblogged this on DeborahBidwell's Blog and commented:
    wont put on here I like this story but if this is actually happening there are more than a few people that need to pay attention cause the Vets have already laid their lives on the line for our Country and Constitution, they are targeted due to 1 thing, their oath, as Oath keepers many if not most of them take this Oath to the grave, as long as they have a weapon they will defend us against forces foreign and domestic.

  2. Vets are being targeted especially because they’ve been trained to defend themselves. Tptb don’t want a trained militia rising up against whatever lies in store for us. Same thing happening in the UK. Returning soldiers are vilified and shunned by local people and also put in jail if they come back with “trophy” weapons. It’s ok that they get killed for their country, but heaven help them if they come back – lack of support to adjust to civilian life, non-existent health care and lack of government support. It’s very demoralising for those men who have risked everything, but if you can see the bigger picture then it all makes sense.

  3. Given everything else we have seen, it is clearly obvious that the federal government is planning a war against the American people.
    -And I think it has been in the works long before Obama popped onto the scene.

  4. This shameful!!!

  5. Efforts to contact Hemminger to confirm this story are unsuccessful. See my Update at the end of this post.

  6. From what I understand this is happening all over the country. It is the purge of firearms in the hands of people trained in how to use them. The one thing I’d worry about in this article is the United States Justice Foundation. It is run by a man named Gary Kreep, a secretive Council for National Policy member. The Council also has members who are Council on Foreign Relations members. As well, Gary Kreep has a penchant for mixing good information with bad. Here is an example:
    Another extremely troubling article on WND and Human Events was written back about 6 months ago by Gary Kreep of United States Justice Foundation. It was about the danger of a constitutional convention and the whole article until the end sounded good. In fact it sounded as though it was taken directly from Joan Collins and Ken Hill’s book, CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS which was written in the 80s when we fought the first constitutional convention call. See my article in NWVs entitled WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING?
    However, having said that, at the end of the article Kreep says we’re only TWO STATES AWAY from seeing a con-con convened! That’s an outright lie…he proceeds to accurately list the 32 states that passed “calls” by the mid-80’s, and then says, “Some states, like Georgia, Virginia, and others have since voted to “rescind” their calls for a “con-con – BUT NO ONE is sure whether those “rescission” votes are actually Constitutional…so the danger is real.”
    Conspicuously absent from his statement is a complete list of states whose legislatures did withdraw their “calls,” starting with Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, etc.– easy enough to access and obtain…WHY doesn’t he know who withdrew? Why didn’t he “do his homework” and list all the states?! And WHY does he suggest that we’re still on the precipice of a Con-Con even after several states withdrew their calls and prevailing legal opinion is/was that the withdrawals are constitutional? He goes on to add, “Right now, our staff is conducting legal and historical research, and preparing legal opinions, to submit to every state legislature, if necessary, and we’ll be offering to represent any state, or state legislator in fighting the Con-Con based on those documents.” And finally, the coup de gras…” In addition, we’ll be calling on the Attorney General of the United States, and the Attorney General of each and every state that has passed a “Con-Con” resolution to issue an official Opinion on the legality of rescission.” What’s wrong with this picture??
    Just what sort of “opinion” does Mr. Kreep imagine he will get out of Eric Holder on the subject? He certainly knows that Obama MUST HAVE a Con-Con to impose a new Constitution on the nation, so is there any doubt what Holder will “conclude” on recall legality?
    There is a legal opinion from the former Attorney General of Maryland, Stephen Sachs, on the validity of “recalls.” Kreep could have obtained that document, which was widely distributed. In addition to other such opinions, there’s also the 1981 opinion of a Legislative Attorney with the American Law Division and an Analyst from the Government Division of the Library of Congress which affirms the legality of recalls (Report #81-135 GOV/A). There was/is no need to question the legality of withdrawals, UNLESS KREEP SEEKS TO “MUDDY THE WATERS.” He managed to obtain quotes of Warren Burger and Gerald Gunther (these are provided in the Con-Con material in CONSTITUTION IN CRISIS) on the dangers of an open Constitutional Convention, but he conveniently ignores Sachs’ and the Library of Congress’ definitive stance on recalls, which allow NO BASIS FOR DISPUTE, and states he’ll ask A/G Holder for his opinion?! Just what is it about existing legal opinions of validity that Kreep doesn’t like or understand? Why does he “pull the punch” by stating all the factual reasons to NOT convene a Convention and, then remove the obstacle to a Con-Con by saying state withdrawals could/may be invalid?
    This type of writing to an uneducated electorate and especially to younger patriots who do not know about the past fights against a constitutional convention and the destruction it would wrought disturbs me more than the “feel good” efforts that do nothing to Save the Republic. This is in actuality an effort to DESTROY the Republic fully. I have never heard Farah express these opinions and I was horrified that his fellow CNP member, Gary Kreep did so on Farah’s website.
    Again, a false friend is more dangerous than an open enemy.
    So, is the USJF trustworthy? I hope Dave Schlecker is represented well!

  7. The reason the feds are coming up with this bullshi%……oh , never mind . Just caught Kelleigh’s 1st para. The FEDS DO NOT WANT COMPETITION , simple as that .

  8. And, there’s also this (given high visibility by the editors at Yahoo! News from Bloomberg Businessweek)…
    “California’s Gun Repo Men Have a Nerve-Racking Job,” by Michael B. Marois and James Nash, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 25 Mar 2013
    No warrant, no need for you in particular (just a relative in your household) for them to be “concerned” about… bingo, no guns! (Supreme Court already ruled it’s unconstitutional to take guns away from everyone in a household if one person can’t have ’em, but does that stop ’em? Or that not being able to own a gun or vote has to be adjudicated– you know, a competency hearing– and it can be restored by another one… just being under observation isn’t sufficient. But there’s no judicial review of a WARRANT involved, so it’s the so-sue-me,-if-you-can approach.)
    Also, the New Jersey kid posing with his new rifle on Facebook that got the cops called to his house? They wanted to come in and take all his parents’ guns… strictly on their cooperation (not counting the threats to have their kids taken way, of course) and without as warrant. Not having a warrant they couldn’t do anything (that pesky judicial review and due process of law again) and had to leave without any guns.
    What’s the common thread lately with the two above stories alleged confiscation of the Navy vet’s guns? Someone got “concerned” and engaged in warrantless gun-grabbing that relied upon the person’s acquiescence (not due process of law and actually having a judge agree it passed the smell test) in abuse of how things are supposed to work, just because they felt like it. Possession being 9/10 of the law, good luck getting ’em back– so-sue-us,-haha!

  9. UPDATE (March 30):
    I just spoke to the Navy veteran, David Schmecker, and can confirm he and his story are real. Mr. Schmecker is seeking legal counsel and representation. I have his e-address and phone number. If you can help him, please contact FOTM at fellowshipminds@gmail.com.

  10. UPDATE (May 1):
    David Schmecker has a website for donations to fund his legal defense: https://www.gofundme.com/2r38kc. He will be interviewed by Alex Jones tomorrow, May 2, 2013.

  11. Pingback: Stealing from the Disabled:Care of the Dept Of Justice | The Voice Of Australians

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.