157 guns, rifles seized in Whitman

Roy

Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
12
Likes
1
Location
Ma
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
157 guns, rifles seized in Whitman

By Allan Stein, Enterprise correspondent
WHITMAN — A Cherry Street man faces a possible firearms charge after police seized 157 firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition at his home last week.

Police Chief Raymond Nelson said Thursday that John Davis, 50, of 30 Cherry St. had licenses to own the firearms that included three fully automatic machine guns.

Thirty firearms are registered to his wife, Elizabeth Davis, 49, who is licensed to own and carry firearms but not automatic weapons, police said.

Nelson said he ordered the firearms licenses for John and Elizabeth Davis revoked for safety reasons stemming from a domestic dispute reported at the couple's home April 25.

In that incident John Davis was placed in protective custody, police said.

"They had permits for (the firearms), but they were revoked for domestic violence," Nelson said.
 
I'm looking at this again and now trying to figure out why the chief revoked BOTH licenses and seized the firearms. No mention of a 209A or an arrest. Revoked on the basis of a "dispute" and a PC?
Too bad they're going to have to spend a ton of money to get back what's rightfully theirs.
 
I'm guessing they were both charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, or maybe just one was charged, Federal law only cover conviction on domestic violence so either the chief was being "proactive" or maybe one or both of them plead guilty without realizing the consequences for their (probably $75-100k) collection.
 
Last edited:
This is very sad. My husband and I know these people, we took our pistol course from him. Those machine guns would have been at the machine gun shoot Memorial Day weekend. I don't know anything more than what's been posted here [sad] They are two very nice people, I wish them the best.
 
All it takes is for the wife to say that she's afraid of him...whether she is or not.

That takes away his guns and his kids if he has any. Great laws we have in Ma.

Of course the newspaper has to make it look like he's a dangerous psycho with the headlines.
 
Pilgrim said:
All it takes is for the wife to say that she's afraid of him...whether she is or not.

That takes away his guns and his kids if he has any. Great laws we have in Ma.

Of course the newspaper has to make it look like he's a dangerous psycho with the headlines.
Thing is they took her guns, too....and she's a shooter! So if it was her complaint (and remember, we know not what happened there) then it backfired on her a bit [hmmm]
 
Remember when the US was the "great American melting pot?"

How that's changed. So many subcultures that won't integrate and the press now thinks the "great American melting pot" should be redifined as the vessel our guns end up in...
 
reinbeau said:
Thing is they took her guns, too....and she's a shooter! So if it was her complaint (and remember, we know not what happened there) then it backfired on her a bit [hmmm]

Ann,

From what I've seen and read, this is typical. When a 209A is filed, they usually take the guns and LTCs of both parties! [I know that we do NOT know if that is the case here, but just throwing it out as related and relevant . . . at least to the <lack of> thought process of the bureacracy.]

Even though with ROs, the male is legally never allowed near the house again (while the RO is in force), the PD still feels a need to leave the woman armed with nothing stronger than a piece of paper!
 
LenS said:
Even though with ROs, the male is legally never allowed near the house again (while the RO is in force), the PD still feels a need to leave the woman armed with nothing stronger than a piece of paper!

What are you talking about? If she has a RO, she doesn't need guns. The police will make sure she's safe.

[thinking]
 
I saw this on the TV news last night, and it was odd that the whole "story" was "guns siezed in Whitman." That was it, and they never said anything else about it. Then they moved onto the next "big" story. MA news media is so, so sad these days, in their efforts to keep their ratings.

I wish these two good luck in their future and their long legal battle to get their LTCs back, and all their guns returned.

I would like to hear what the details are, though. Yes, both a 209A or a revoked LTC will automatically require all guns to be removed. But, of course, the key question is why their LTCs were revoked. Is this an application of "unsuitability" that caused their LTC's to be revoked??

Again, we are all speculating here, so I will wait to hear more.
 
There was an article in the Patriot Ledger last night. Actually two. I can't find them on the Ledger site, but here's a synopsis.

First off it seems John is being charged with improper storage, particularly of gunpowder. They made a big deal about how they delayed the baseball game because they used the field to blow up his 'stash' of improperly stored gunpowder (I guess he kept the cannisters in his garage). Went on and on about how no one would like to live next door to him, etc. I love the press. Not.

John used to be a gun dealer, I have no idea if he kept that license or not. Another member of the HR&G club died a year or so ago, John was helping his widow with the sale of his weapons (this guy had guns all over the house, I guess, a huge collection). He had quite a collection himself.

I wonder if they'll be able to get their licenses and guns back, the paper did mention if all the charges were settled the courts would return their guns. I hope they've got a good lawyer!
 
Ann,

TTBOMK, there is NO MGL on storage of gunpowder at all!

There are CMRs under the jurisdiction of the fire chief on powder and ammo storage. Not an arrestable offense IIRC, not even sure if there is a fine associated with it.

Sounds like a fabricated story used to scoop all the guns, ammo, etc.

LTCs revoked for "suitability" are rarely ever returned even if a judge says otherwise (which is also unlikely). Judges don't like to second-guess chiefs on "suitability", which is allowed by MGLs. [e.g. Judge ordered return of guns and FID to guy in Concord MA, PD refused. Atty Karen MacNutt has told me of some of her cases in Boston with similar results. etc.]
 
reinbeau said:
...

I wonder if they'll be able to get their licenses and guns back, the paper did mention if all the charges were settled the courts would return their guns. I hope they've got a good lawyer!

Based on what's happened lately, these people can kiss their guns and licenses goodbye. Forever. And would have to list the revocation in other states too.

The Little Kings don't care what a judge says.

"Police Chief Gary J. Gemme has revoked the gun permit of a Shrewsbury man who successfully appealed the chief’s earlier suspension of the gun permit in court. "

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060223/NEWS/602230497/1008/NEWS02
 
DV laws are pretty much the same all over. In NJ any DV incident would make it mandatory to remove all weapons if a TRO was filed.
 
Back
Top Bottom