This last Saturday while Ron and I were soaking in the Womb, a regular to DCHS who resides in the local Mtn communities told us both a story about someone who he was familiar with getting a good scare during a confrontation with Mike Castro on open route 4, adjacent to the Bowen Ranch property. Apparently Mike Castro erroneously felt that this particular individual was taking glass to DCHS, so when this person was coming home from a trip to DCHS, and passed by the Ranch building on open route 4, Mike Castro came out suddenly with his gun in hand, as the story goes, gave this DCHS visitor alot of grief. This person that told the story of this confrontaion was so troubled by the incident that they said they would not travel back down that route because of the possibility of threats from Mike Castro. This visitor stated to Mike Castro that he was mistaken in thinking that he was taking glass to DCHS. This story represent the latest, of many that I've heard about Mike Castro and his usage of his gun as an intimidation tool. The person that told us this story in the Womb said that they knew the person Mike Castro confronted, and that this person was not the type to take glass to DCHS. Glass or no glass, Mike Castro has no right, as far as I understand the law to be, to go out onto public lands and intimidate people with his gun, and its no secret that he has done similiar things before. In my opinion, a person that treats the ownership of a gun, as Mike does, should not be able to own one. As Paul P suggested here recently on the forum, I too agree that even if Mike Castro closes his property as an access to the springs, if he still resides in the area, his anger against people he perceives as causing him problems may still continue to show itself in various troubling ways. The actions of Mike Castro, in my opinion, have shown that he is all too eager to use his gun, as a tool for intimidation. Hopefully we do not one day find ourselves talking about him using it for worse things. ate people with his gun, and its no secret that he has done similiar things before. In my opinion, a person that treats the ownership of a gun, as Mike does, should not be able to own one. As Paul P suggested here recently on the forum, I too agree that even if Mike Castro closes his property as an access to the springs, if he still resides in the area, his anger against people he perceives as causing him problems may still continue to show itself in various troubling ways. The actions of Mike Castro, in my opinion, have shown that he is all too eager to use his gun, as a tool for intimidation. Hopefully we do not one day find ourselves talking about him using it for worse things.
