Back in September there was a rather brazen robbery outside of Profire Arms and Supply in a suburb of Indianapolis, Indiana. A large trailer had been loaded up by the owners for a gun show the next day and the contents included automatic weapons, suppressors (commonly referred to as “silencers” in the movies) and ammunition. One thief and his drug toting accomplice were apprehended shortly thereafter.

Two people are in police custody in connection with the theft of a trailer containing an arsenal of valuable weapons and ammunition.

Clifford Helm, 42, faces preliminary charges of possession of a machine gun, theft, carrying a handgun without a license and possession of paraphernalia. Linda Panken, 54, was arrested for possession of cocaine.

Last weekend, employees at Profire Arms and Supply on Rockville Road loaded a box trailer with $250,000 in weapons and ammo to take to an event the next day. Among the inventory were an UZI sub-machine gun, AK-47s, dozens of handguns and 20,000 rounds of ammo.

So… happy ending, right? Well, the story doesn’t stop there. It’s been more than six months since that took place and the owner is still waiting to get his stolen property back from the ATF. Having failed to sway them thus far, Andrew Hall is taking them to court.

Profire Arms and Supplies owner Andrew Hall filed his handwritten complaint in a federal district court, alleging that not only will the ATF not return his stolen inventory, but that it isn’t pressing charges against all the culprits who did…

Only one individual was charged — Clifford Helm, 42, for felony possession of a firearm.

That was over six months ago, and Hall still doesn’t have his inventory.

He’s alleging both Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment violations in his complaint. Guns.com reported:

“The Second Amendment allows us to keep and bear arms,” he says in his complaint. “I do not have possession of my property and it is not being returned. This infringes upon my right to keep and bear arms.”

“My firearms have been unreasonably seized by the government and are not being returned,” the complaint continues, citing Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

My first impulse in any case such as this is to be suspicious of the methods and motives of the ATF and lend considerable weight to the store owner, but in this case I’m not sure if there isn’t more to the story. I can absolutely sympathize with Mr. Hall because six months is a long time to go without your inventory for a relatively small business and hardship has been imposed. But at the same time, I’m not finding any sort of confirmation that the courts aren’t moving ahead with the charges. In fact, an indictment was filed and is on record. And while half a year is a long time to wait, a significant case such as this can take time to play out and find a slot in the court’s schedule. While the case is in process, evidence will be held by the authorities, and the store’s merchandise is most certainly evidence.

Mr. Hall has also started a GoFundMe account “in an attempt to obtain sufficient funds to secure the services of a lawyer.” If he doesn’t already have a lawyer, he needs one, but the attorney might tell him that the equipment is unfortunately beyond his reach until the case is resolved. (Again, that’s assuming that the case is indeed being processed.) If the charges against Mr. Helm have been dismissed, then Hall clearly should already have his merchandise back, but that sounds extremely unlikely unless they had the wrong guy and the case has simply fallen apart. But even if the authorities are properly handling the prosecution, they still should have done a much better job in communicating with Mr. Hall and explaining why he didn’t have his goods back already.