Comment: The possible legal ramifications from Mr. Hammer's alleged actions have not been determined.  The evidence of those actions seems rather strong and acknowledging so is hardly a "personal attack."  The rifles were recoverd from a property owned and/or controlled by Mr. Hammer.  Just to clarify: a) rash verdict.......that's the responsibility of a judge or jury..to my knowledge, none has been reached b) accusations.....those were made first by the tenant, then by the legal authorities based on testimony from the tenant and evidence acquired via a Search Warrent and c) personal attack...I will gladly repeat that if Mr. Hammer is, indeed, guilty of the actions mentioned in this article,  it was really "stupid" for him to have taken the actions. If asked today, I'm guessing he would likely agree with me.