Missile found in Georgia

AT-4 missile found in bad Dasses house in Savannah

ACE notes a discovery eerily reminiscent of a a similar find in May, an AT-4 anti-tank missile was discovered under the home of two men with a history of weird weapons-related offenses.

Police cleared the neighborhood around the home of Broderick Dass, 48, and his 19-year-old son, Brandon, for at least two hours Monday after police found the AT-4 anti-tank missile, said Savannah police Sgt. Mike Wilson.

Officers had gone to the house on the 400 block of West 62nd Street to respond to a burglary report when the missile was found, Wilson said.

“They said, ‘Whoa,’ in light of the history of the residence,” Wilson said, referring to a search of the home last month that yielded 10 automatic weapons, some with altered serial numbers.

This was the missile and warhead of an AT-4. In May, a launcher (minus missile and warhead) was discovered in a fenced-off railroad area near Atlanta. ACE also noted that incident.


  1. Great. Blogspam. So where does this fit into the whole gun debate? Is a missle an assult weapon? It seems like it, but it may not have the required 13 or more round clip that makes it qualify for the ban. Seriously, though, what do the no gun control people say about things like this?

  2. Well, I don’t think missiles are covered under the AWB WHICH EXPIRES SOON but most pure military weapons were already banned or at least heavily controlled before the Brady Bill anyway. I don’t know many ‘no gun control’ people, though I realize that there are some out there. I think this comes down to common sense. Did the guy have a permit for the missile? If not, and if it’s a controlled weapon (AWB or otherwise) we have the classic example of the law not controlling outlaw. Please note that I’m not advocating anti-tank missile ownership. I’m not even advocating the freedom to bear anti-tank missiles. But to point out these guys as an example of why we need stricter gun control doesn’t really hold water. There will always be some freaks who will be able to get anything they want, and though I don’t mean to say that that fact invalidates ANY gun control, stricter gun control isn’t going to stop them. Just because I think a speed limit of 55 is too strict on I-80 across Nebraska doesn’t mean that I think we should all go tear-assing dangerously across all roads all the time with no regard for safety.

  3. It is an explosive. The second amendment does not cover expolsives. It covers arms- infantry weapons that are not crew served. But in LibLand the answer is- An anti-tank missle should be banned, and so should pump shotguns.

  4. Full autos have been banned since the 30’s. The stuff under AWB were scary looking semis that were picked on cosmetic features. NRA.org is one of many nice sites to readup, if you care to know.

  5. It’s probably too late to reply on this, but it seems that there is an assumption that I am making a case for more gun control. Not so. I am just wondering where the definitions for ‘arms’ come from with regard to the second amendment. It seems that absent some clarifying ruling by courts, this would be pretty wide open. Dictionary.reference.com defines arms thusly: A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms. That’s why I’m wondering what grounds an anti-gun control person would have for supporting a ban on personal ownership of missiles. It would seem to contradict the ‘strict interpretation of the second amendment’ case for allowing unrestricted personal ownership of assault weapons and such..

  6. Such assumption was not made. Sorry if I implied. from http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html ‘Arms In Colonial times ‘arms’ usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for ‘ordinance’ (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not. This off-site essay offers a differing and reasonable view that arms in the late 18th Century did mean the full array of arms and offers how that definition can be applied today ‘honestly (and constitutionally).’ ‘ US v. Miller- (a crappy piece of work IMHO) discussed this difference and had my original distinction.