Newton Man Charged with Firearm Offenses
Jacob G. Hamrick, 29, faces charges of manufacturing, possessing, and assembling a weapon of mass destruction, and possession of a firearm by a felon, following a search warrant in Catawba County.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 10, 2026, 8:22 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 10, 2026, 8:22 p.m. ETFirst report
Newton Man Charged With Firearm Offenses After Search of Old State Road Residence
A 29-year-old Newton man, Jacob G. Hamrick, has been charged with manufacture, possession and assembly of a weapon of mass destruction and possession of a firearm by a felon, WHKY reported on September 10, 2026.
The Catawba County Sheriff's Office alleges Hamrick committed firearm offenses. According to WHKY, a search warrant was executed at a residence on Old State Road, where deputies recovered a firearm and additional firearm parts.
The Catawba County Sheriff's Office is the investigating agency. The case is at the charging stage; the charges are allegations and Hamrick is presumed innocent. The matter is undecided and has not been resolved.
The event date has not been established from the available reporting.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 111 Sept 2026, 00:23current
First published.
- Version 111 Sept 2026, 00:22current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.