Local News

Man accused of using assault rifle in robbery

Posted August 24, 2008
Updated August 27, 2008

— A Raleigh man is facing charges of robbing and attacking three men with a  military-style, high-powered assault rifle.

Antonyo Bryant, 21, is accused of assaulting the men with the 7.62 mm firearm during a robbery.

The attack happened Saturday, according to a warrant for Bryant's arrest.

Bryant, who is a convicted felon, was being held Sunday afternoon on a $500,000 bond.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • saltnsanddefenderofdamiddleclass Aug 25, 2008

    What! We need to pass a law to prevent this! Oh, there is one. Well, somebody should tell these criminals that they are breaking the law. Maybe give'em a hug and some conflict resolution classes. Maybe we need a program to help...oh there is one, I forgot. Why blame organizations like the NRA? The second amendment is there to prevent or combat mass murder-by our government. The founders thought we might need the ability to defend ourselves, not only against criminals, but against invaders such as a totalitarian government. Of course today when confronted by aggressors, instead of owning a weapon, I would just want to talk it out. Maybe have organic juice and cookies and enjoy some sitar music.

  • Tripwire Aug 25, 2008

    Full autos built before 86 are still fully transferable for sale with the proper paperwork and about a six month investiagtion by ATF. Because there are a limited supply of these legally transferable weapons, they can cost anywhere from 8,000.00 to 50,000.00 each depending on the make and condition. Or with a metal lathe and milling machine I could make a simple submachine gun in my garage in a couple of days for 50.00. The technology is not rocket science. The point being that those legal citizen who invest the money, time and effort to obtain a legal one is not likely to use it in a crime unlike the criminals who obtain them illegally. Basicaly the criminal world will always have access to these weapons in one form or another if they want them.

  • DeaconBlues Aug 25, 2008

    I wish the media would get the correct terminology right, it says AK-47 "attack" rifle. Thats not correct it's an assualt rifle, however I don't like using that term myself, I just prefer to call AK's and other military arms what they are, and thats just a simple semi-auto rifle. I really wish folks would quit freaking out when news gets out that one of these was used in a crime. First of all the 7.62x39 is'nt that powerful round the media makes it out to be. A 30-30 has more engery and fps that the 7.62x39 does. Second this just goes to show everyone who wants to scream "Ban all guns!" that criminals will still get them. The law abiding folks in this county don't do mess like this.

  • WhoMe44a Aug 25, 2008

    "Law abiding citizens can own a fully automatic version with a $200 tax stamp for transfer. However, you do not want to get pulled over if you own such a tax stamp. And if you live near others, you do not want an AK for home defense."

    What peace pipe did you just take a hit from? If you are luck enough to have been grandfathered into the class III system before the brady law, then yes you can have one transfered after you pay the fees to the ATF. But a person wanting one now would have to purchase it illegally and face a minimum 10 years in jail if caught. Now thats the facts, 10 years if caught. :-(

  • Thinkb4uspeak Aug 25, 2008

    Many home and business owners feel the need to own AK47's. Ak's are increasingly being used in violent crimes. I see absolutely nothing wrong with one responsibly owning an AK for the protection of their home or business.
    All you need to do is watch Most Daring, Most Shocking or First 48 to see how often innocent civilians find themselves up against this type of firepower. It is unreasonable to limit the law abiding public to pistols when criminals are engaging the public with assault rifles. I have friends that own convenience stores, check cashing outfits, bail bond businesses etc. They deal with many hard working citizens but also with a variety of unscrupulous characters, the bondsmen especially. Anybody in any one of these professions can fathom an attack by a robber or angry client. In '08, this attack may easily come in the form of an AK or similar weapon. These folks deserve a fighting chance when the police haven't arrived yet, and a .45 won't cut it.

  • blackdog Aug 25, 2008

    First, the AK47 is a very reliable weapon which can be had cheap. It is harder to convert than an AR 15 into M 16. There are many variations of quality to be had. The round is more powerful with greater penetrating power than a shotgun. In a crowded habitat, it can be a disadvantage to innocent others nearby. In the country, it can not only take out a group in home invaders, it can also kill the vehicle they came in. Criminals should NOT have such a weapon. The charge should be doubled.

    The movie quote came from "Heartbreak Ridge".

    Law abiding citizens can own a fully automatic version with a $200 tax stamp for transfer. However, you do not want to get pulled over if you own such a tax stamp. And if you live near others, you do not want an AK for home defense.

  • Wags Aug 25, 2008

    Thank goodness I still have a right to own a AK-47. Thanks to the current laws, this man had one. Last week a 11 year old shot his young friend with one but it was his Fathers right to have one. What in the world do people use them for? Squirril hunting? These gun zellots are just nutzo.

  • fletchermse Aug 25, 2008

    "But why does anyone need an automatic assault weapon?"

    Odds are this was not an automatic, those have been highly regulated and restricted since 1934. This was probably an AK-47 clone in semi-automatic, or an SKS that was erroneously called an AK-47 (has happened several times on the news, once last week).

    Convicted felon with a firearm? Already illegal. Criminals don't care about the law.

  • buco Aug 25, 2008

    Heartbreak ridge, I also love the opening song "river of heartbreat"

  • WhoMe44a Aug 25, 2008

    Anyone that believes that banning/removing our rights to bare arms will keep you any safer is a fool. The truth of the matter is that bad people do bad things... Gangs will always have guns no matter if you can buy them in a store or not.

    Personally I feel safer in my own home with my personal protection devices, be it pistols, rifles and shotguns around. Why should good people have to pay the price of bad ones. How is it that I make someone else unsafe to have weapons in my own home?

    Finally, you can complain all you want about banning weapons. Even if it did happen, there is NO POSSIBLE way to do it. Too many people have several in their homes for the same reason "personal protection". Also if its of interest to you I am a concealed carry citizen, and do so proudly...