Politicians, er sex offenders at least have to commit a crime before they have to register. They get the benefit of due process as well.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
About 40 guns stolen from Lowell home
- Thread starter Bfatz
- Start date
Actually, Reyes was argued after McGowan.
The Hampden County ADA was exceptionally well prepared. McGowan's attorney not so much. It will be interesting to see where the justices draw the line. I was present for arguments in both cases and I did not get the sense that the justices or the ADA thought the law required (or should require) a gun to be securely stored anytime it was not in the physical possession of an 'authorized user'. The issue, I think, is going to come down to where control lies between an authorized vs. unauthorized user.
The standard advanced by the ADA was that you're in violation of 131L if you are not sufficiently in control to prevent an unauthorized user from obtaining control of the firearm. Nightstand - ok, but when a psycho girlfriend takes the gun outside and throw it in the bushes there's pretty good evidence that McGowan wasn't control and I think that's where they'll come down. The results might be very different if an authorized user had not actually gained control. We'll just have to wait for a case like that to come along.
Profit is not my only motive in telling my BFS classes that they should have their whole households licensed.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
STOP FEEDING THE TROLL
I actually stopped reading at this point Please, this thread is about a crime that happens and one moron, or the best troll ever, has completely derailed it. Ignore the moron, help out a victim of the crime if you can.
I have never Gotten to the point that I have except on this thread. Pathetic that one morons view of the world makes him the arbiter of a tragedy in another man's life to the point he blames him for being a victim.
Please move out of a free state and move to Boston where an in place AWB will keep you safe.........
I actually stopped reading at this point Please, this thread is about a crime that happens and one moron, or the best troll ever, has completely derailed it. Ignore the moron, help out a victim of the crime if you can.
I have never Gotten to the point that I have except on this thread. Pathetic that one morons view of the world makes him the arbiter of a tragedy in another man's life to the point he blames him for being a victim.
Please move out of a free state and move to Boston where an in place AWB will keep you safe.........
kingfisher
NES Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,627
- Likes
- 2,459
According to the latest GOAL newsletter, Rep. Kevin Murphy of Lowell has filed legislation that, if passed, would affect all MA gun owners who have more than 5 firearms. It's H.3257, "An Act Providing for the Secure Storage of Large Numbers of Firearms":
The last part was cut off, but if it's like the original home rule petition the bill requires a monitored alarm system for anyone who owns more than 10 firearms. I believe Murphy's original version said it needed to be monitored by the town PD.
Of course, if a safe is required, the police would probably need to inspect it too.
The last part was cut off, but if it's like the original home rule petition the bill requires a monitored alarm system for anyone who owns more than 10 firearms. I believe Murphy's original version said it needed to be monitored by the town PD.
Of course, if a safe is required, the police would probably need to inspect it too.
Last edited:
Not the first time we have seen this happen. Remember the guy in Boston last year? He had 17,i think, firearms stolen from his house. When he called the police he was arrested for suspicion of manufacturing illegal ammo because he had reloading gear.
namedpipes
NES Member
Is there anyone on this site that owns fewer than 11 firearms?
Bill H.3257
General Laws: CHAPTER 140, Section 131L
F
Finalygotabeltfed
Waste of time. Moonbats can't grasp the concept of right and wrong, its too rational. They thrive on happy or sad, not right or wrong. Its an emotion thing ya know?
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Unless the state wants to pony up the $ for 2 more $1800+ safes , they can suckle my sweaty hairy nutsack
F
Finalygotabeltfed
namedpipes
NES Member
I read it as no more than 10 firearms, not no more than 10 in each safe. Will read again when I get to a computer.
Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.
namedpipes
NES Member
I've only had my license 2 weeks and I've got 3 guns at home and 2 stripped lowers on the way
Don't ever slow down.
Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.
Maybe Boris but he's probably got around 100 shovels in his garage waiting to be tuned up.
namedpipes
NES Member
Somebody please +1 Mr w for me. I can't from ttalk and I'm sure to forget by the time I get to my pc.
Sent from my chimney using smoke signals.
Done, and totally worth it.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
It would seem the state is also incompetent at information technology. No surprise there.
The bill as it's listed on the website is incomplete. Someone screwed up when they created the PDF. The bill really says that if you have from 1 to 5 guns, they have to be stored in a locked container. From 5 to 10 guns means they have to be in a "safe" (I'd like to know how they'll define that term exactly) and if you have > 10 guns you have to spring for a monitored alarm service.
This seems to be a reaction to the case this thread is based on. I was under the impression that the victim/defendant had a vault. Is that incorrect? Rep. Murphy described it as a closet.
And if Rep. Murphy or any other legislator is reading this, we have a registration system (FA10 form) in MA that should be perfect for tracing guns used in crimes. How often are those guns traced back to people with a MA LTC or FID? If the answer is somewhere close to zero, why do we need more storage laws and more laws that attempt to prevent straw purchases?
The bill as it's listed on the website is incomplete. Someone screwed up when they created the PDF. The bill really says that if you have from 1 to 5 guns, they have to be stored in a locked container. From 5 to 10 guns means they have to be in a "safe" (I'd like to know how they'll define that term exactly) and if you have > 10 guns you have to spring for a monitored alarm service.
This seems to be a reaction to the case this thread is based on. I was under the impression that the victim/defendant had a vault. Is that incorrect? Rep. Murphy described it as a closet.
And if Rep. Murphy or any other legislator is reading this, we have a registration system (FA10 form) in MA that should be perfect for tracing guns used in crimes. How often are those guns traced back to people with a MA LTC or FID? If the answer is somewhere close to zero, why do we need more storage laws and more laws that attempt to prevent straw purchases?
Last edited:
Drop them off at Boris' house after you're done - so he can convert them back.
Ranger007
NES Member
Ranger007
NES Member
You re correct. He should have had at least 75,ish.
"Why on earth does anyone need 40 guns?"...its 2011 for christs sake![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
Bring it on. They keep throwing us softballs we'll keep suing them. The problem is we're busy already. These guys have no respect for our time.
falcon123
NES Member
You need to charge them more for it.
- - - Updated - - -
I guess you missed the meat of the thread? He's been charged with some rather serious (and bogus) crimes for his reloading materials.
namedpipes
NES Member
No, the problem is this:
OUR interest is in firearms. Whether you hunt, defend, shoot skeet or whatever, the focus is on the firearms. We are involved with the protection of rights incidental to that.
THEIR interest is in banning firearms. It isn't a side issue for them, or an obstacle. It is their whole focus.
This needs to come to head and result in a crystal clear resolution on the part of our leaders that the 2A is just as sacrosanct as 1A.
I thought he orginally introduced this last year and it died?
Apparently, he re-introduced(?) it this January, and now the current status is:
"Status: Referred to Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security"
Apparently, he re-introduced(?) it this January, and now the current status is:
"Status: Referred to Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security"
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,619
You need to charge them more for it.
We did the first time. The state paid the legal fees for Fletches/Hass v. Commonwealth under an 18 USC 1983 claim.
Livefreeormass
NES Member
+1
But fat chance they'll respect data like that. They add laws on top of laws. They have to appear to be working. Professional politicians, too many of them.
Similar threads
