About 40 guns stolen from Lowell home

[GSG]

Just a few thoughts after reading through all this (although the original story was taken down).

Everyone's saying this guy's disarmed since his LTC was revoked. If he has an FID, then he still has access to certain long guns, and can keep his ammo and components. This is why every single gun owner reading this should double up on their licenses. Your LTC is not enough.

ATF is involved, I'm assuming because of his C&R. There's a detail in this story though that makes me wonder. In this recent news story from this thread it was mentioned that some people in Lowell were involved in dealing without an FFL and straw purchases. I'm not saying that this guy was involved in any wrongdoing, but it's definitely possible that ATF & Lowell PD are antsy to see so many guns in one place after dealing with that case recently or that there was something suspicious going on to make them believe that this guy was involved in some kind of unlawful dealing.

Many cities in Mass. have ordinances that bar any firearms sales other than by state licensed dealers, including those between licensed LTC/FID/C&R holders (Worcester is one such city). I checked, Lowell doesn't have one specifically, but City of Lowell Code of Ordinances 185-10(A)(4) bars the sale of firearms at a yard sale. No, seriously. He may have said the wrong thing when he reported the theft and made it sound like he was violating a state, federal or local law with sales, even if he wasn't.

Caselaw isn't clear on what is a "secured in a locked container." Good luck getting the courts to spell that one out. But even without that, it's possible that this guy's home vault was easily broken into. There's caselaw in Mass. where a homemade container wasn't deemed secure enough.

The updated news story that says "very, very secure" doesn't tell us if the LEO was saying that the basement was secure or if the vault itself was secure. Nitpicky but it could weigh into the case.

No offense, but a lot of you guys posting in this thread could be in similar shoes. Learn the laws, please, free legal advice all day on NES.

 

[dwarven1]

Everyone's saying this guy's disarmed since his LTC was revoked. If he has an FID, then he still has access to certain long guns, and can keep his ammo and components. This is why every single gun owner reading this should double up on their licenses. Your LTC is not enough.

It's easy to say that from Florida, GSG. You know how much an FID is? $100. Seems like a waste of money to most folks to bother with that as well as an LTC.

 

[Kamal Jain]

Bring him Atty Keith Langer's contact info when you go, Kamal.

Will try to remember that. First I need to look up the victim's contact number, as was suggested. If anyone has already collected all that, please email it to me at [email protected] to save me the time.

Thanks, my brothers and sisters -- and a belated 'Happy New Year!'

 

[bullseye]

Will try to remember that. First I need to look up the victim's contact number, as was suggested. If anyone has already collected all that, please email it to me at [email protected] to save me the time.

Thanks, my brothers and sisters -- and a belated 'Happy New Year!'

He's probably not taking phone calls, your best bet is to probably just go over and do the old fashioned neighbor thing and knock on the door and introduce yourself, NES style.

 

[KMM696]

...knock on the door and introduce yourself, NES style.

I don't know, given his legal situation I'm not sure an invitation to an NES open carry BBQ is what he's looking for.....



Kidding, of course. Thanks, Kamal.

 

[55_grain]

Added my comments to the story. The homeowner was undoubtedly a menace to society, and probably a radical Muslim terrorist, too. Good thing someone did a community service by taking his guns. For the children and all...

wtf?

 

[Garys]

I love how all these people in the comments are assuming that because the license was pulled it "must have been because not all the guns were registered"! What a bunch of buffoons!

You'd be amazed at how little most people in this state know about firearm laws. In fact, most people in this state known NOTHING about firearm laws because so few have firearms. I was watching this story at work and two co workers told me with total sincerity that federal law requires people to lock up their guns. I straightened them out, but I don't know that they believed me. They were amazed when I told them that most other states have no firearms storage laws at all and that in fact in most other states, including several New England states, you didn't need a license or permit to buy firearms, just to carry concealed handguns. Again, I think they thought I was kidding.

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

Years ago though, these often didn't go anywhere. Maybe things will be different now with Heller, etc. The other problem is I rarely hear of real damages being awarded from these sorts of
cases. Nobody would really start paying attention until some big dump city like Lowell has to pay out millions to someone they wrongly seized a permit or firearm from. Most of the BDCs will sweep the standard legal bills under the rug. A small city or town is probably a better target for a lawsuit. Canton, for example, would be a "fun" target, since those legal expenses will not be easily swept under the rug.

-Mike

Problem is, state law ALLOWS such abuse and the courts routinely side with the CLEO against the person whose LTC was seized and guns confiscated. The CLEO argues in court that it is for the safety of the public and that pretty much is that. All of the sheeple cheer on the CLEO for making them feel "protected". That Captain Richardson in Lowell who revoked the burglary victim's LTC, I believe his brother is the COP in Dracut, where I live. We had a guy in Dracut whose LTC and guns were seized because he yelled at some kids who were cutting though his backyard near the middle school. The mother of one of the juvenile trespassers heard the guy yell at her brat and called the PD. They spoke with the mother and she said that she was afraid of that creepy old guy (a middle-aged man). The PD spoke with him also, but the most they could have charged him with was disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace, charges that would be dismissed immediately in District Court. They must have done a quick check on him, because they found out that he had a Dracut-issued LTC. Next day, he was notified that his LTC was being revoked so he put his guns on consignment at a local dealer. Good luck getting that LTC back. As I stated previously, LTCs are just too easy to revoke without criminal charges or a court proceeding, as opposed to FIDs.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It's easy to say that from Florida, GSG. You know how much an FID is? $100. Seems like a waste of money to most folks to bother with that as well as an LTC.

And useless in a case like this for a few reasons:

- I have been told directly by a few LEOs (chiefs/licensing officers) that when they revoke/suspend a LTC they (per MGL) will come in and take EVERYTHING! They will not listen to "my Wife owns that one" or "this one is OK with my FID that you didn't revoke".
- They will call Peter Dowd/Marc Cohen and the guns will be "gone" to the bonded warehouse within hours of seizure. Now you can't get them back unless you bail out (thousands of $$) ALL of them (bonded warehouse policy) and then you can't do that since the FID would only legally allow him to transfer a small sub-set of the guns to you.
- In a theft case, it is unlikely that they left anything behind, so he has no protection and no reason for the thief to return anyway.
- Pre-1998 my Wife and I both held FIDs and LTCs, but when the GCA of 1998 went into effect, the FID is essentially useless. I would never suggest that someone maintain both of them under the current laws.

You'd be amazed at how little most people in this state know about firearm laws. In fact, most people in this state known NOTHING about firearm laws because so few have firearms.

Sorry to say, I'm not amazed. In fact, MOST MA SP Certified Instructors are clueless about MA gun laws and spew mis-information to their students! Even a well-known lawyer who writes a book on MA gun laws has spewed mis-information (in my presence) to those that were in his audience!

 

[drgrant]

Just a few thoughts after reading through all this (although the original story was taken down).

Everyone's saying this guy's disarmed since his LTC was revoked. If he has an FID, then he still has access to certain long guns, and can keep his ammo and components. This is why every single gun owner reading this should double up on their licenses. Your LTC is not enough.

This assumes that they didn't blackmail him as I described earlier- and in a city like Lowell, that's a very real possibility. Additionally, there have been reports that in some towns you simply cannot get both, they will refuse to process an FID app if you already have an LTC with that town. There's nothing in the law that backs them up on this, but my guess is you would have to then take them to court to force them to issue your FID at that point.

I think maintaining an FID is a good idea if you already have one, and the PD will let you renew it. I haven't bothered with an FID because nothing I own (except the ammo) would be covered by it.... so it's kinda pointless in my case.

-Mike

 

[beaker]

I think Kamal should go and pay this Guy a visit as he suggested. If he is what he appears maybe we can pass the virtual hat and get him started with a good lawyer.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[PaulD]

This almost seems like a better test case than Hightower vs. Boston.

 

[drgrant]

This almost seems like a better test case than Hightower vs. Boston.

Depends on the details of how sanitary it is or not. Cases we want law based off of, go a lot easier if the Plaintiff is "clean" and devoid of issues which can distract the court. Sanitary cases force/compel the courts to be more objective.

-Mike

 

[economist]

Depends on the details of how sanitary it is or not. Cases we want law based off of, go a lot easier if the Plaintiff is "clean" and devoid of issues which can distract the court. Sanitary cases force/compel the courts to be more objective.

-Mike

Absolutely, but so far this sounds pretty clean. We even have the quote from the police confirming that the storage was substantial ("very, very secure"), so we are way past negligence on the part of the victim. With the LTC revoked the guy has been 100% denied all second amendment rights. He can't even buy pepper spray. Clearly, he isn't disqualified by statute or he wouldn't have been licensed in the first place. And with the C&R we've got a federal license which has been effectively nullified, and that might play a nice legal angle.

 

[GSG]

It's easy to say that from Florida, GSG. You know how much an FID is? $100. Seems like a waste of money to most folks to bother with that as well as an LTC.

I know I'm a foreigner, but I'm very familiar with it. When I lived in Mass., I held both an LTC and an FID; when I moved out and sent in the change of address paperwork, it was for a current LTC and a current FID. I also kept the FID in the car with my registration and a spare copy of my DL so that if by some misfortune I left my wallet at home, I'd have some kind of documentation on my side. I know an FID doesn't cover a handgun, but it was something. There was also several trigger/cable locks in the car, the range bag, at home and at work (in addition to locking metal containers of various sizes), so that I'd never be caught without if I had to store a gun for some reason. I like to cover my bases.

Down here it's not an issue, if I lose my CWFL no one's taking my guns, and if I forget my wallet when I'm out, I can throw my loaded gun in the glove compartment to avoid the $25 fine for carrying without the license & ID on me. I know I'm in a different boat than most and I'm not trying to rub it in. If for some unforseen reason I had to move back to Massachusetts, I'd double up again.

when the GCA of 1998 went into effect, the FID is essentially useless. I would never suggest that someone maintain both of them under the current laws.

You have some very good points, but I still stand by the policy of doubling up. If you have an abusive CLEO, there's nothing you can do to prevent them trampling over laws to take all of your stuff. I heard a rumor that when Daniel Cotnoir's LTC was revoked that they took his FID illegally too. Having an FID does two things. If the responding officers coming to take your stuff are following orders but are still reasonable people who obey the laws they uphold, you will still have some of your guns and all of your ammo (which if confiscated is rarely returned, even if the guns are). The second thing it does, if your LTC is revoked for suitability and they do take every last firearms related item from your home, you will still have a license that allows you to buy or borrow more guns or ammo.

MGL 269-10(i) is also clear in it's references to 140-129B and 140-129D; you cannot be convicted for failing to surrender an FID if you are allowed by statute to have one. In the case of a suitability yank alone, you would still be allowed to have an FID. It would give you a limited means of ready self defense. It's an insurance policy than can be relied on by the prepared to protect themselves in court, even if they have to go through a nightmare to get there.

If an abusive CLEO did choose to revoke your FID and take guns/ammo you could possess under it after a suitability pull of an LTC, they'd also be sitting on considerable liability under 42 USC 1983. All of this only matters in court when dealing with the unreasonable, but stacking the odds in your favor as much as possible isn't a bad thing IMO.

 

[vicpinto]

A vault can be relatively easy to build in a basement if the person doing the construction has some basic masonry skills. The most expensive component would be the vault door. This case underscores the reasons why I have no interest in becoming an LTC holder and owning more than a very few firearms in this state. LTCs are much too easy for CLEOs and licensing officers to revoke at will. No thanks, I will stick with my "shall issue" FID for the five years that I have left until my retirement to the free state of Alabama.

Go spend more time inside your transmitter... your brain's not fried enough.

If you have thousands of dollars worth of firearms why would'nt [SIC] you invest in a safe.

I guess you have to ask him and I would hope his answer would be none of your f'ing business.

The "that his home-built secure vault in the cellar area had been compromised" statement would lead me to beleive [SIC] this person may have a storage issue on their hands.

And why is that? Because his storage area was compromised? A good thief can break into ANY gun safe if given the time. This/these guys had the time. Get an education.. The MGLs only state safe storage from unauthorized use, not from theft.

 

[bullseye]

Were going to be reading about this poor guy until the cows come home or its go time, Did I say go time, where's that timekeeper?! But really, this is going to be tied up for years and 10's of thousands of cash. This guy should move out and go to VT. where he can start over, with his collection.

 

[PaulD]

Absolutely, but so far this sounds pretty clean. We even have the quote from the police confirming that the storage was substantial ("very, very secure"), so we are way past negligence on the part of the victim. With the LTC revoked the guy has been 100% denied all second amendment rights. He can't even buy pepper spray. Clearly, he isn't disqualified by statute or he wouldn't have been licensed in the first place. And with the C&R we've got a federal license which has been effectively nullified, and that might play a nice legal angle.

Not that the victim here volunteered for this honor, but if this can change the licensing system in MA, that'd be awesome.

 

[Sully]

UPDATE:
2 arrested in connection with this.
http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_17035559

More fine reporting from the sun...

 

[Palladin]

UPDATE:
2 arrested in connection with this.
http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_17035559

More fine reporting from the sun...

who got the 5 grand?

 

[Masterguns]

neighbor... shocking

Two men, including a neighbor, were arrested in conjunction with the theft of 40 guns from a home at 9 Dublin Street last weekend are being held without bail, pending a dangerousness hearing, following their arraignment in Lowell District Court Friday morning.

George Rodriquez, 31, of 5 Dublin St. and Miguel Rivera-Otero, 20, of 31 W. Sixth St. were arrested at Lowell Police headquarters Thursday night and were held there without bail overnight.

this is a bit confusing...

Rodriquez has been charged with breaking and entering in the night time with intent to commit a felony, larceny of a firearm, unlawful carrying of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition and possession of a large capacity weapon.

Rivera-Otero has been charged with unlawful carrying of a firearm, possession of a large capacity weapon, breaking and entering in the daytime and unlawful possession of ammunition.

sooo they had to make 2 trips? there were 2 separate robberies? or it just took them that long to break into the vault?

the first guy charged with intent but also charge with possession and carrying the firearms... how do you get the firearms without actually committing the felony?

Read more: http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_17035559#ixzz1AOuXbm3m

 

[DickWanner]

neighbor... shocking



this is a bit confusing...


sooo they had to make 2 trips? there were 2 separate robberies? or it just took them that long to break into the vault?

the first guy charged with intent but also charge with possession and carrying the firearms... how do you get the firearms without actually committing the felony?

Read more: http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_17035559#ixzz1AOuXbm3m

He broke into the house with the intentions to commit a felony, the felony charge is separate and that one only needs to intend to commit said felony to be charged with the intent.

Wonder when the victim is going to get his firearms released so he can get them into the possession of a licensed friend of FFL

 

[Masterguns]

Wonder when the victim is going to get his firearms released so he can get them into the possession of a licensed friend of FFL

i just hope he actually gets them back

quote from the article

Four of the stolen handguns as well as large capacity magazines and ammunition were recovered from an address in Lowell and an address in Billerica.

4 out of 40, i'd like to hope they will be recovered from being stashed somewhere else and that they are not all in the wind

 

[mogarbage]

Two men, including a neighbor, were arrested in conjunction with the theft of 40 guns from a home at 9 Dublin Street...

The original article posted has been removed, but in that piece it was reported "about 40 guns".

Now I am not an attorney, nor do I portray one in any facet of my daily life, but when dealing with law, are absolutes NOT required? Did I miss an inventoried list stating it was 40 firearms exactly?

 

[Blitz1]

neighbor... shocking



this is a bit confusing...


sooo they had to make 2 trips? there were 2 separate robberies? or it just took them that long to break into the vault?

the first guy charged with intent but also charge with possession and carrying the firearms... how do you get the firearms without actually committing the felony?

Read more: http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_17035559#ixzz1AOuXbm3m

They'll be out by Monday.

 

[billmelater]

I don't suppose it's possible for the owner to transfer the guns to licensed friends, at this point?

 

[Broc]

i hope he gets them all back.

i wonder what he will do when all this is over. If he gets them all back, everyone in MA knows where this guy lives adn that he has at least 40 guns. Why do the news have to report his address? thats so F-ing stupid.

LOWELL -- Two men, including a neighbor, were arrested in conjunction with the theft of 40 guns from a home at 9 Dublin Street last weekend are being held without bail, pending a dangerousness hearing, following their arraignment in Lowell District Court Friday morning.

 

[Len-2A Training]

There is good news and bad news.

Good news:

- The bonded warehouses won't get the guns any time soon.

Bad news:

- The only reason that the bonded warehouses won't get the guns is that they are evidence in a criminal case.
- The owner wouldn't get them even if they are recovered, not until the case is completely adjudicated including any appeals . . . assuming that the chief would release them to the owner or a designee at any time in the future (uncertain of that due to his actions up to this point).

 

[dwarven1]

"The focus of the investigation at this time is to recover all the firearms stolen from 9 Dublin St.," said Lowell Police Superintendent Kenneth Lavallee. "Federal, state and Lowell police will continue to work tirelessly on this matter to ensure the public's safety."

But not, you'll notice, to return the victim's property.

 

[MA_Shooter]

From another source:

LOWELL (CBS) – Two men were arraigned on Friday for allegedly stealing 40 guns from a Lowell home earlier in the week.

Lowell residents George Rodriquez, 31, and Miguel Rivera-Otero, 20, were charged with breaking and entering, unlawful possession of a firearm, and larceny of a firearm, among other charges.

Police said the men broke into the home on 9 Dublin Street on the morning of Jan. 2 and stole the weapons from a vault. The homeowner was legally licensed to possess the guns, according to authorities.

Following the arrests of the suspects, police recovered five weapons and ammunition that were alleged to have been stolen from the home.

The suspects are due back in court on Jan. 11.

'Due back in court' meaning they are out on bail or still in custody?