The editorial is pretty much completely riddled with hysterics the whole way, with cries about neighborhood safety and “why would you need 600 guns”, etc. Despite the fact that the owner of said guns was licensed and a collector, apparently “600” is too many.
So Tom, my question for you is “how many”? How many guns should a collector be allowed to have? 100? 50? Why should your arbitrary definition be accepted by anyone?
This is why I am opposed to “arsenal” laws. It imposes an arbitrary restriction based on no real information. I have over a dozen guns, and a couple thousand rounds of ammo. That’s not even counting muzzleloading components like loose powder and shot. Tommy Mannard says that 600 guns is too many, and he couches in “for the children/neighborhood/collective”; but I bet he would think that my 15 or so guns is an arsenal as well.