Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 106 of 106
  1. #101

    Default

    A mere matter of minutes. They come with the letter/order and expect to leave with all guns/ammo/mags even if others in the home are licensed and even if others own the guns confiscated. They let you battle it out afterwards but failure to immediately turn everything over is a felony under C.269 S. 10 and is prosecuted.
    It depends. I know of cases where the revocation/surrender letter arrived via US Snail. I also know of a case where the owner (well known to the PD, and in a good sort of way) said "I'll be glad to cooperate but I see you only brought one car".
    Check out the USPSA Northeast Section at www.uspsa-ne.org, and the USPSA nationals site at www.uspsa.org

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Boudrie View Post
    It depends. I know of cases where the revocation/surrender letter arrived via US Snail. I also know of a case where the owner (well known to the PD, and in a good sort of way) said "I'll be glad to cooperate but I see you only brought one car".
    And I know of a case where the gun owner was in custody at the station, they hand delivered the revocation for suitability, his lawyer told them where in the house the gun was stored, they took the gun and charged him with possession. All in one day. Before releasing the owner the next day.

  3. #103
    NES Member Garys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stoughton
    Posts
    16,613

    Default

    I read it. Well, just today because I've been out of town. I'd say that the AG pulled the wool over the SJC's eyes, but it seems more like the judges of the SJC were willing victims of misdirection.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knuckle Dragger View Post
    Doug, you're the only who's read the post. And I did at least provide this explanation: 'a relevant, but not precedential observation or remark'.
    The Rule of Law, not the rule of Maura

  4. #104
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Southern NH
    Posts
    10,128

    Default

    Judges have an obligation of due diligence. Actually I'm pretty sure it's a requirement in the code of judicial conduct. So that is no excuse.

  5. #105
    NES Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    2,703

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knuckle Dragger View Post
    Doug, you're the only who's read the post.
    Oh, I think plenty of us read it (including yours truly) including reading and viewing both attachments.

    Just didn't have anything to add to your very informative post. Thanks for keeping us informed.

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garys View Post
    I read it. Well, just today because I've been out of town. I'd say that the AG pulled the wool over the SJC's eyes, but it seems more like the judges of the SJC were willing victims of misdirection.
    Actually, I think the SJC realized their mistake but has done nothing to correct it while the AG continues to perpetuate this fiction on the courts. We got a lot of 'grown up' help (Comm2A donations hard at work) on this project from someone with significant federal appellate experience and he's surprised that the First Circuit was so willing to push the whole statutory issue aside.
    ďIf liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.Ē - George Orwell

    Comm2A
    Shop Amazon

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •