Previous Post
Next Post

Kel-Tec AR Pistol (courtesy

According to his mother, 43-year-old Queens resident Lee Bergman had a thing about cops, ever since he tried and failed to join the force. New York cops now have a thing about Bergman, after they tracked a shipment of “bogus police IDs” to Mr. Bergman’s apartment. “What they found inside was a lot more terrifying,” the New York Post reports breathlessly . . .

Police took Bergman into custody at his job at a light-manufacturing factory in Queens and brought him to the 100th Precinct station house, where he gave cops the code to a small safe, which contained five registered guns. But refused to divulge the combination for a larger safe, sources said.

Members of the NYPD’s Emergency Service Unit were able to force the safe open, revealing most of his stockpile.

In total, police seized an AK-47, eight handguns, five shotguns, two hunting rifles and six flare guns, along with the AR-15 pistol version that was stolen from Pennsylvania, authorities said.

Not to mention 17,000 loads of unspecified ammo. Cops charged Bergman with a farrago of felonies, including criminal impersonation of a police officer, possession of forged instruments, various weapons and narcotics offenses and a bunch of misdemeanors.

Bergman refused to comment on the reason for “amassing” his “arsenal.” There’s no indiction he was planning anything criminal with his guns or ammo. Which makes you wonder . . .

How hard would it be for terrorists to accumulate guns, ammo and fake ID’s in the SAFE Act-protected gun control paradise that is New York? A state that does whatever it can to degrade and destroy its residents’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

[h/t DW]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. So… Impersonating a decorated veteran is “protected 1st amendment speech”, but impersonating a overweight, doughnut munching, jackbooted thug will get your door kicked in by the same said thugs… Oh, the irony.

    • I’m actually not sure who you’re referring to, but a decorated veteran would have no authority over a private citizen, whereas an officer would, irrespective of his or her corpulence and penchant for donuts. It’s not even remotely ironic. The law has nothing to do with respect.

    • Interesting discussion. In the 80’s when I was a USAF SP, impersonating a member of the military was a felony, and we had detained people for just that. Impersonating a member of the military during a declared war, or even remotely resembling a member of the military in a war zone, is often a capital offense, but that is a discussion for another day. I am not sure about impersonating a veteran back then, but it was reprehensible behavior back then just like it is today.

      • It’s changed, it’s protected “free-speech” now, unless it is done to gain or solicit compensation, or reward. Same thing with correctly displaying a military uniform on TV or movies. Many are under the misconception that uniforms are displayed incorrectly on purpose unless it’s authorized by the DoD. That’s not true, it’s not illegal at all. It’s just that film production doesn’t care about getting it right, only that it is conveyed close enough. Google a picture then try to throw whatever they have in costume to look close enough.

      • The pattern of interpretation of First Amendment rights was always to generally side with truth and against lies. No protection was granted to commit perjury, fraud, or use the deceit in the oft-quoted Oliver Wendell Holmes example “FALSELY shouting fire in a theatre”.
        Now the Court condones the counterfeiting of military experience and decorations, ignoring that such counterfeiting undermines the value of those honors as much as counterfeit money destroys the value of a monetary system.

  2. That’s a lot of roads.

    So the “bogus” IDs were grounds for a warrant? Did they suspect him for a reason, or had he tried to use the police ID previously?

    I purchased a “fake” NCIS badge at a convention a few years ago, I’m worried now..

    • The way I understand the law, in Michigan at least, is that it’s only a crime to impersonate a LEO if you are trying to gain benefits of an officer. If you don’t flash your ‘fake’ badge around trying to show authority, you are fine.

      • In CA, at least the last time I worked security, it’s illegal to impersonate a cop. It’s also illegal to allow others to assume you’re a cop. If someone has mistaken you for a cop you must clarify the mistake or risk a misdemeanor.

        • And yet it is not at all illegal for a cop to pretend to not be a cop, or even out-and-out lie about being a cop. Some are more equal.

    • An official (looking) id card would be a forged government instrument, much like a forged driver’s license. It’s a big deal since 9/11.

      • Yeah but where do you draw the line? If I see a guy in a mall with a shirt that says “SECURITY” on his shirt I don’t automatically assume he’s legit. If he comes up to me and acts like it then it’s a different story.

  3. “Not to mention 17,000 roads of unspecified ammo. ”

    That’s a lot of roads!!!! I presume you meant rounds?

  4. Wonder what the PC was to bust open the big safe…. the fake ID’s or the more likely bit that he invoked the 5th and did not provide the combo for it…. then again in NY breathing (or not) passes for PC.

    • its been a few years since i looked at these laws, and i am not a lawyer (but i did stay ast a holiday in express last night) but as i understand it you automatically wave your fifth amendment rights as soon as you answer any questions related to the offense. in this case by providing them access to one safe but not the other he waived his fifth amendment rights. a reasonable cause for suspicion of criminal acts was created by not allowing them access to both safes. now if he had not given them access to the first safe he would have been covered but you dont get to say, effectively, that you can look at this stuff over here but dont look at the man behind the curtain. its either an all access pass or a case of you “dont get nuttin copper”, not a half and half decision. by allowing them even limited access he consented to a full search. this is why you dont make any statements without a lawyer, and also why if the cops ask permission to look at something you say “no”. denying officers the ability to search you and your property, despite what certain courts want to think, does not constitute probable cause. of course you have to pay to fight it in court, and we all pay for the government to fight said cases whether we want to or not, but it really is the principle of the thing at a certain point.

      • This really deals with the Fourth Amendment: protection from unreasonable search and seizure. WHAT did the police believe was in the second safe, and WHY did they believe it was there? The fact that the guy had “registered”, legal guns in one safe isn’t enough. Without more (which there might be) to actually get to “probable cause”, this is a violation of the guy’s Fourth Amendment rights.

        And you absolutely can consent to a police search of one thing and not another. Supreme Court precedent uses the term “containers”; if you haven’t given the police consent to search a particular container, you have not waived your Fourth Amendment right to privacy for that container.

      • Uh, no. There was a very specific and limited case (regarding someone’s non-answer to a question being shown to a jury) that you might be thinking of; it had nothing to do with this and your idea that answering a question somehow nullifies the 5th amendment is simply bonkers.

        It’s quite clear what happened here: they had a warrant. When you have a warrant to search a premises and someone won’t open a safe, you crack it open.

    • The police cannot come in your home and break open a safe without a warrant (unless there’s a bomb in there). You cannot use someone’s refusal to open a safe as probable cause for a search, and even if you could, you cannot search a house based on probable cause without a warrant (car is different).

      But they almost certainly had probable cause for the fake IDs and if you get a warrant for that you can look anywhere there may be evidence of that crime. And there sure could be evidence in a safe.

  5. “How hard would it be for terrorists to accumulate guns, ammo and…”

    You’re kidding right?

  6. Kel-tec for the win! Yeah I saw this. Would this be a story in a non-slave state?

  7. “What they found inside was a lot more terrifying”

    The poor dears may never recover from the horrifying sight of guns and ammo in the hands of a citizen without a badge. I recommend grief counseling.

    • “The poor dears may never recover from the horrifying sight of guns and ammo in the hands of a citizen without a badge. I recommend grief counseling.”
      That’s why he needed the fake badges so as not to cause grief.

  8. The interesting part is it says he had a few registered guns. In NYC its far from easy to go about getting a permit for 1 gun for the house. Which means he went through the obscene process a few times and was cleared by the NYPD. He buys a couple of badges and is all of a sudden a threat? There has to be more to the story or the whole thing is BS.

  9. 200 round limit in NYC, and only for the caliber(s) you have registered with the City, LOL.

  10. The real question about foreign operators in the states: How long before they realize the can hook a chain between two F-150 and race around in a public open space while people follow up with spears and home made incendiaries………

  11. If they call that an arsenal?? I wonder what they would think about what more then half of us here probably own and use weekly??


Comments are closed.