About 40 guns stolen from Lowell home

[terraformer]

I apologize for the bad information stated previously. Am I interpreting the last paragraph of this page incorrectly? http://www.comm2a.org/donate

Yes and no.

We are unable to accept donations intended to support specific issues or cases. Decisions regarding the organization’s activities must be made without regard to donation history. We cannot provide assistance to individuals as a quid pro quo for donations.

The first sentence supports the second. If we allowed people to create their own earmark, they can create earmarks that violate the second sentence which deals with what is proscribed by federal law. Rich guy x can't make an earmarked donation for x's current or future criminal defense needs (creating a tax deducted defense bill). Lawyer y can't earmark a donation to us that it can only be spent by us on something y does a lot of.

 

[Chris.Cal]

Yes and no.



The first sentence supports the second. If we allowed people to create their own earmark, they can create earmarks that violate the second sentence which deals with what is proscribed by federal law. Rich guy x can't make an earmarked donation for x's current or future criminal defense needs (creating a tax deducted defense bill). Lawyer y can't earmark a donation to us that it can only be spent by us on something y does a lot of.

Thank You for clarifying this for for me! I look forward to making another donation to help this guy out!

 

[Palladin]

Any update on this guy???
In January he was awaiting trial for possession of explosives (black power for reloading)..

 

[terraformer]

Any update on this guy???
In January he was awaiting trial for possession of explosives (black power for reloading)..

The ADA hasn't finished providing discovery was the last I heard. It's counter intuitive but it's in the defendant's best interest for cases to move slow. And it wasn't possession of explosives that was the issue. It was failing to adhere to a CMR on ammo storage.

 

[namedpipes]

The ADA hasn't finished providing discovery was the last I heard. It's counter intuitive but it's in the defendant's best interest for cases to move slow. And it wasn't possession of explosives that was the issue. It was failing to adhere to a CMR on ammo storage.

I thought that was a fire code violation?

 

[Bill Katt]

I thought that was a fire code violation?

Same here.

 

[terraformer]

I thought that was a fire code violation?

The fire codes are where? In the CMR... And BTW, failure to adhere to the firecode wrt explosives (which in these CMRs, propellent is considered an explosive) is a crime.

 

[Bill Katt]

Thanks for clarifying that terra.

 

[namedpipes]

The fire codes are where? In the CMR... And BTW, failure to adhere to the firecode wrt explosives (which in these CMRs, propellent is considered an explosive) is a crime.

I'm certainly willing to believe I was mistaken (or at least incomplete), though it looks like I was not alone.

I use a locked "Job Box" to hold powder, parts and ammunition, so I'm in compliance anyway.

 

[Kicker96FS]

If it's stored in a locked room, is that in compliance? If someone breaks into the room, is now not?

Should you wire it so that if someone does break into the room and make it go BOOM, does that destroy the evidence?

The laws in this state are insane.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The fire codes are where? In the CMR... And BTW, failure to adhere to the firecode wrt explosives (which in these CMRs, propellent is considered an explosive) is a crime.

I'll just add that modern ammunition and smokeless power are not explosives although they are classified as such by the state. They do not detonate and are not classifed as explosives by BATFE.

If it's stored in a locked room, is that in compliance? If someone breaks into the room, is now not?

Should you wire it so that if someone does break into the room and make it go BOOM, does that destroy the evidence?

The laws in this state are insane.

That's unclear. This is the first instance that anyone can think of where someone has been criminally charged due to storage of ammunition and components. The CMR only says "locked container".

 

[Kamal Jain]

The original complaint cited violation of CMR on the powder and primers, IIRC, but beyond the fire code aspect there was mention of explosives which I believe has been long since dropped for being baseless.

Last I heard from Stan, it's slowly making its way through the court with the ADA and such, but I think he'll be permanently out a bunch of money, and it's not likely he'll be seeing any recovered firearms, or even be told if they were recovered and how many were.

 

[namedpipes]

So in translation, they may allow him to not go to jail, but they'll stick him for 10's of thousand$ and keep his guns...

 

[cekim]

So in translation, they may allow him to not go to jail, but they'll stick him for 10's of thousand$ and keep his guns...

For a non malicious fire code violation in which no one got hurt or was frankly ever at risk.

 

[jasons]

So in translation, they may allow him to not go to jail, but they'll stick him for 10's of thousand$ and keep his guns...

Isn't the fine for violation of the ammo storage CMRs "only" $1,000?

 

[namedpipes]

Isn't the fine for violation of the ammo storage CMRs "only" $1,000?

He's got to be spending a fortune on lawyers. I thought the fine is $500.

The original list of charges was quite a bit longer than improper powder storage.

 

[jasons]

He's got to be spending a fortune on lawyers. I thought the fine is $500.

The original list of charges was quite a bit longer than improper powder storage.

I'm just wondering if it would be cheaper to just pay the fine and move on (to some other state.) Or would that be a "weapons conviction" that puts him into prohibited person land?

 

[namedpipes]

I'm just wondering if it would be cheaper to just pay the fine and move on (to some other state.) Or would that be a "weapons conviction" that puts him into prohibited person land?

There were claims that he had an arsenal, even including hand grenades (IIRC) and the police chief stated they were investigating to find out just how this person was able to acquire so many guns. They claimed he had improperly stored them in his vault. His LTC is LONG gone. Much of the story is in this thread.

 

[jasons]

The original complaint cited violation of CMR on the powder and primers, IIRC, but beyond the fire code aspect there was mention of explosives which I believe has been long since dropped for being baseless.

So that leaves the storage CMR ("fire code") which has a $1,000 fine. Is that what he's fighting now, and if so does he actually have a chance? Seems like this is case law in the making.

 

[terraformer]

Nothing's been dropped. He was only being charged with one count (at least initially) so if anything was dropped, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And violation of the CMR is a 2.5 year misdemeanor. Other areas of the CMR may have small fines, but not this combination of CMR and statute. And it is a combination of issues which causes this to be an issue.

 

[jasons]

And violation of the CMR is a 2.5 year misdemeanor.

You must be talking about:

§ 35. No person shall have in his possession or under his control any bomb or other high explosive, as defined by the rules and regulations made under M.G.L. c. 148, § 9, contrary to the provisions of M.G.L. c. 148, § 9 or of any rule or regulation made thereunder. Whoever violates M.G.L. c. 148, § 9 shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 21⁄2 years, or both, and any bomb or explosive found in his possession or under his control on such violation shall be forfeited to the Commonwealth. Any officer qualified to serve criminal process may arrest without a warrant any person violating M.G.L. c. 148, § 9.

So is that what he was actually charged with? That sounds like a lot more than not storing his powder correctly.

(Though I don't actually see any definitions in M.G.L. c. 148, § 9....)

The board shall make rules and regulations for the keeping, storage, use, manufacture, sale, handling, transportation or other disposition of gunpowder, dynamite, crude petroleum or any of its products, or explosive or inflammable fluids or compounds, tablets, torpedoes or any explosives of a like nature, or any other explosives, fireworks, firecrackers, or any substance having such properties that it may spontaneously, or acting under the influence of any contiguous substance, or of any chemical or physical agency, ignite, or inflame or generate inflammable or explosive vapors or gases to a dangerous extent, and may prescribe the location, materials and construction of buildings to be used for any of the said purposes. Such rules and regulations shall require persons keeping, storing, using, selling, manufacturing, handling or transporting dynamite or other high explosives to make reports to the department in such particulars and in such detail that the quantity and location thereof will always be a matter of authentic record in the department. Cities and towns may also make and enforce ordinances and by-laws, not inconsistent with said rules and regulations, relative to the subject matter of this section. Each city or town shall submit a copy of each such ordinance or by-law to the board within ten days after the passage thereof. Any ordinance or by-law regulating blasting operations, or the use, handling, transportation or storage of dynamite or gunpowder, shall not take effect until such ordinance or by-law is approved by the board, except that any such ordinance or by-law that has not been approved or disapproved by the board within ninety days after the receipt thereof shall be deemed to have been approved.

 

[terraformer]

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter148/Section12
148-12. It wasn't possession, it was storage. The CMR defines propellant as an explosive. Once you break that stupidity up, things become saner (relatively) with the CMR.

 

[CrackPot]

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter148/Section12
148-12.

How does any reloaders setup not run afoul of this if the ADA chooses to make the stretch?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[terraformer]

How does any reloaders setup not run afoul of this if the ADA chooses to make the stretch?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Bingo.

 

[jasons]

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter148/Section12
148-12. It wasn't possession, it was storage. The CMR defines propellant as an explosive. Once you break that stupidity up, things become saner (relatively) with the CMR.

Ahh, then one would think that he has a pretty good chance since M.G.L. c. 148, § 12, at least as it applies to items covered in the CMR, is clearly in direct conflict with the CMR itself.

No building or structure shall be used for the manufacturing or storage of explosive materials without a permit issued by the marshal.

Exemption: License, Registration, or Permit: In accordance with the provisions of M.G.L. c. 148 § 13, the Board hereby prescribes the following quantities of explosive materials that shall be exempt from License, Registration, and Permit and may be kept, or stored in a building or other structure

If the CMR allows an exemption for common reloading supplies then the MGL that says a license is required for storage must be talking about other types of explosives. No?

Either way, sounds like some case law is going to be made. If he loses we all lose. (Well, those of us who reload anyway.)

 

[drgrant]

For a non malicious fire code violation in which no one got hurt or was frankly ever at risk.

This sounds more and more like another MTBS guy redux. It just goes to show you that if they want to prosecute someone for something, they will simply start inventing things or applying shit charges. Course the system can still punish the gun owner by doing this, even if 100% of the charges are completely bogus.

Maybe it's just me but if this "happened" in any number of non big dump city towns in MA, this wouldn't have turned out this way.

-Mike

 

[glide]

This is the guy whose home was broken into and possessions stolen right? [sad2]

How much time and money is being spent on the prosecution of the thieves? Or have they already been churned back out onto the streets?

 

[MisterHappy]

It's not illegal [STRIKE=undefined]to be illegal[/STRIKE] do illegal things if you're already a criminal.

 

[01SVTvert]

It's not illegal [STRIKE=undefined]to be illegal[/STRIKE] do illegal things if you're already a criminal.

"Criminal"

Sir, you are a bigot and uninformed, the person who "redistributed" the original owners guns is a "alternative law follower" and as such is protected by law unlike the homeowner who is getting raped by the system.

Disgusting, but to be expected in this joke of a state

 

[exo]

Everybody seems a bit on edge these days, I think it's affecting the sarcasm detectors.

Also, perhaps, the sarcasm detector detectors.