About 40 guns stolen from Lowell home

[Titan]

Why not read the whole thing BEFORE you just jump in and call people morons?

There are always going to be threads in which folks post late, while choosing not to read 200 plus previous posts.

I thought I was covered by the qualification, but I need to be more conscious of folks who let little things get under their skin.

 

[el duderino]

I counted 12, what about the rest? Im sure hes got more, what about the ones duct taped to his back die hard style? ankle holster?

Love the part where this is a video for promoting dress codes in schools, like thats really going to help stop gang problems.

 

[cekim]

I counted 12, what about the rest? Im sure hes got more, what about the ones duct taped to his back die hard style? ankle holster?

Love the part where this is a video for promoting dress codes in schools, like thats really going to help stop gang problems.

We should ban jeans and white-people right now from what I saw in that video...

I'd like to see him take 3 steps...

 

[appraiser]

http://www.lowellsun.com/local/ci_17095502

Two Lowell men accused of stealing 40 firearms from a vault in a Dublin Street home last week remain held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing later this month.

George Rodriguez, 31, of 5 Dublin St., and Miguel Rivera-Otero, 20, of 31 West Sixth St., have pleaded innocent to breaking into the home and stealing 40 handguns and rifles, along with a large amount of ammunition in the early hours of Jan. 2.

Police recovered four handguns when the men were arrested.


Police have also arrested Carlos Serrano, of Haverhill, in connection with the weapons theft.

 

[June4th]

I bumped to one of the cops in Lowell PD over the weekend. He told me that the victim of the burglary lives in Boston and the Lowell address was his rental property. One of the tenants knew of the guns and worked with another thief to use tools (torch guns etc.) to open the safe.

I said the chief was an a** for revoking the gent's LTC. The cop said 'you can't do that.' (that means storing guns in rental properties). I said where in the statues stated that you couldn't? I got no argument from the cop after that.

That being said, while I might store a cheap pump action shotgun or a bolt rifle in a rental property, as an alternative gun location for SHTF, there is no way I'd store my prized possessions in a rental property.

 

[DickWanner]

I bumped to one of the cops in Lowell PD over the weekend. He told me that the victim of the burglary lives in Boston and the Lowell address was his rental property. One of the tenants knew of the guns and worked with another thief to use tools (torch guns etc.) to open the safe.

I said the chief was an a** for revoking the gent's LTC. The cop said 'you can't do that.' (that means storing guns in rental properties). I said where in the statues stated that you couldn't? I got no argument from the cop after that.

That being said, while I might store a cheap pump action shotgun or a bolt rifle in a rental property, as an alternative gun location for SHTF, there is no way I'd store my prized possessions in a rental property.

Or have your tenants aware of them. Typical LEO to make up laws as they go and not be able to back them up with MGL/Case Law.

 

[Alex9661]

People have lost their LTC's for much lesser causes than storing 40 firearms in a crappy neighborhood 35 miles away from their residence. The chief hasn't done anything wrong BY MASSACHUSETTS STANDARDS. For all I know, revoking the victim's LTC may've been a direct order from the mayor. Disclaimer: I'm as much in favor of Mass gun law reform as anybody else on this forum.

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

People have lost their LTC's for much lesser causes than storing 40 firearms in a crappy neighborhood 35 miles away from their residence. The chief hasn't done anything wrong BY MASSACHUSETTS STANDARDS. For all I know, revoking the victim's LTC may've been a direct order from the mayor. Disclaimer: I'm as much in favor of Mass gun law reform as anybody else on this forum.

It was simply a knee-jerk reaction to placate the nervous neighbors. Revoking the guy's gun license did absolutely nothing to reduce crime there.

 

[Emoto]

Or have your tenants aware of them. Typical LEO to make up laws as they go and not be able to back them up with MGL/Case Law.

Really. I mean is there ANYTHING in MGL that says your guns must be stored in your residence?

 

[DickWanner]

Really. I mean is there ANYTHING in MGL that says your guns must be stored in your residence?

Not a single word that I am aware of. Only thing is to keep then locked up so to prevent access from unauthorized users.

 

[yanici]

Not logical to have to sleep with your guns. Also, the guy was an FFL since he had a C&R license. Do all FFLs reside at their gun shops? They just pissed on this guy who did nothing wrong, as far as storage, IMO.

 

[bullseye]

Who the hell is to say I want to buy a residence and turn it into a second home and have a safe or as this guy did, build a vault in the basement or other room and fortify it, along with a reloading room or other whatever uses I want it for because it is my private property. This is BS boys and girls, your rights are at the mercy of rogue COP's because they have nothing better to do, and you are viewed as a lesser human than they are.
Hey Mikeyjr, what time is it?

 

[CLMN]

People have lost their LTC's for much lesser causes than storing 40 firearms in a crappy neighborhood 35 miles away from their residence.

So true!

Personally, I wouldn't have left a kitchen knife there for George, Miguel and Carlos to steal. Then again, I wouldn't own a rental unit in Lowell *or* rent to George, Miguel and Carlos in the first place! And I sure as heck wouldn't tell them about what I had locked up in the basement! I can't exactly say that the owner exercised great judgement here.

The Chief was obviously ticked off and embarrassed by this headline-grabbing incident... and he retaliated. It may still have been wrong and unfair for him to do so, but it was an understandable gut reaction under the circumstances.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Many of the guns probably would be illegal to possess in Boston due to their "special laws" banning various guns and mags.

That might explain why he left them in his vault in Lowell.

Chiefs get to make up their own "laws" and can enforce them by revoking permits and confiscating guns with impunity. Thus GOAL's bill needs to get passed to take that abuse away from the chiefs.

 

[dans]

...lives in Boston and the Lowell address was his rental property....

I thought it was the Lowell chief who revoked the LTC. Is there any chance he moved and did file a change of address that that is the reason for revocation? What are the time limits on notifying on COA?

Dan

 

[Alex9661]

I thought it was the Lowell chief who revoked the LTC. Is there any chance he moved and did file a change of address that that is the reason for revocation? What are the time limits on notifying on COA?

Dan

I think the Lowell chief can revoke his LTC because he issued it. Owner's license renewal (if he can get it reinstated) will be handled by the Boston PD and from that moment his license , life, liberty and children will be controlled by the Boston chief.

 

[FrugalFannie]

Man there is so much misinformation regarding this issue. Guys. This is not helping the issue. Just because a LEO said the guy lives in Boston you believe it? Listen. I know the guy. I have held off commenting but the misinformation is getting to me. Can we all stop speculating on this one case?

 

[drgrant]

Man there is so much misinformation regarding this issue. Guys. This is not helping the issue. Just because a LEO said the guy lives in Boston you believe it? Listen. I know the guy. I have held off commenting but the misinformation is getting to me. Can we all stop speculating on this one case?

So what do you want people to do? Sit around and just go "hmmmmm.... nothing to see here, move along." . If anything most people in this thread feel bad for the victim and want to be supportive.

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

Man there is so much misinformation regarding this issue. Guys. This is not helping the issue. Just because a LEO said the guy lives in Boston you believe it? Listen. I know the guy. I have held off commenting but the misinformation is getting to me. Can we all stop speculating on this one case?

I am reminded of warren buffet's statement that the stock market should shut down for months on end because all of the up and down is a waste of energy and resources...

 

[Broc]

Man there is so much misinformation regarding this issue. Guys. This is not helping the issue. Just because a LEO said the guy lives in Boston you believe it? Listen. I know the guy. I have held off commenting but the misinformation is getting to me. Can we all stop speculating on this one case?

so, please tell everyone whats true and what isnt. what are the facts?

 

[June4th]

Just because a LEO said the guy lives in Boston you believe it?

Nah, I usually believe any NES posts lot more than a warm body tells me while looking me in the eyes.

 

[GSG]

the Lowell address was his rental property

Also, the guy was an FFL since he had a C&R license. Do all FFLs reside at their gun shops?

These two posts reminded me of something. This guy had a C&R, right? There's a federal case where an FFL was convicted for dealing without an FFL because he was selling via FTF sales out of his home, and not the storefront/address on his license. I haven't read the case (it was used in a cited reference in another legal discussion) but I'll dig it up and post it; I know a C&R is different but some of the standards may apply to both.

 

[cekim]

These two posts reminded me of something. This guy had a C&R, right? There's a federal case where an FFL was convicted for dealing without an FFL because he was selling via FTF sales out of his home, and not the storefront/address on his license. I haven't read the case (it was used in a cited reference in another legal discussion) but I'll dig it up and post it; I know a C&R is different but some of the standards may apply to both.

Very different set of rules - C&R FFL says all over it that it is not a dealer's license. Of course you can sell your guns, but anything that would appear to be "dealing without a license" without any form of FFL would be the same threshold with C&R. There is no storefront required or relevant to a C&R because it is not a dealer's license.

 

[vellnueve]

There is NO requirement for a C&R license to be at one's residence. Nor is there a requirement in MA for him to store the guns at his residence.

 

[namedpipes]

In fact, if a C&R holder began to LOOK like a gun shop, with a display room, perhaps price tags and a cash register, I expect he'd be in a fair bit of trouble.

Very different set of rules - C&R FFL says all over it that it is not a dealer's license. Of course you can sell your guns, but anything that would appear to be "dealing without a license" without any form of FFL would be the same threshold with C&R. There is no storefront required or relevant to a C&R because it is not a dealer's license.

There is NO requirement for a C&R license to be at one's residence. Nor is there a requirement in MA for him to store the guns at his residence.

 

[GSG]

There is no storefront required or relevant to a C&R because it is not a dealer's license.

There is NO requirement for a C&R license to be at one's residence.

This is what I was addressing (pardon the pun).

27 CFR 478.41(c) says:

(c) Each person seeking the privileges of a collector licensed under this part shall file an application, with the required fee (see §478.42), with ATF in accordance with the instructions on the form (see §478.44), and pursuant to §478.47, receive from the Chief, Federal Firearms Licensing Center, the license covering the collection of curios and relics. A separate license may be obtained for each collection premises, and such license shall, subject to the provisions of the Act and other applicable provisions of law, entitle the licensee to transport, ship, receive, and acquire curios and relics in interstate or foreign commerce, and to make disposition of curios and relics in interstate or foreign commerce, to any other person licensed under the provisions of this part, for the period stated on the license.

And excerpts from the case US v. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381 (11th Cir. 1997):

Part of Agent Hudson's investigation included Bailey's firearms licenses. Federal firearms licenses are valid only for the location specified on the license. 18 U.S.C. § 923(a); 27 C.F.R. §§ 178.50-178.52. The address on the first license was 5243 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, Florida. This address was for a gun shop owned by Duke McCaa, one of the dealers to whom Bailey had attempted to sell the HK 94 assault rifles. Bailey did no business at McCaa's shop, and he had no ownership interest in the store.

The address on Bailey's second license was 361 South Central Avenue, Oviedo, Florida. Instead of a firearms dealership, Agent Hudson found that this address was for an accounting business owned by Martine Priest. At trial, Priest testified that Bailey had offered to pay her if she would accept United Parcel Service ("UPS") packages for him at her store. Bailey did not inform her that he would use her address on his federal firearms license or that he would represent her address as being his business address. When Priest learned that Bailey was using her address on his business cards, she told him to destroy the cards and to stop misrepresenting her address as his own.

Because Bailey was not conducting his business at the licensed locations, Agent Hudson obtained search and inspection warrants for Bailey's home at 368 Seminole Woods Boulevard, Geneva, Florida. Although Bailey was not licensed to do business at his home, ATF agents' search of his home revealed that Bailey was conducting business there. In an office adjoining Bailey's garage, agents found rifles, pistols, machineguns, ammunition, business records, a computer, a telephone, letters, ATF firearms transfer forms, a UPS shipping label for "T.G. Bailey & Associates, Inc., 368 Seminole Woods Blvd., Geneva, FL" and other business documents showing that Bailey's actual business address was his home address. At trial, a defense witness who bought guns from Bailey testified that he had purchased the guns at Bailey's home and that Bailey was doing business from his home. This evidence resulted in Bailey's conviction for operating a firearms business without a valid license as charged in Count XIV of the indictment.

then later

Bailey further contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for dealing in firearms without a license as charged in Count XIV of the indictment. Bailey disputes neither that he was "engage[d] in the business of importing ... or dealing in firearms," 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), nor that it was illegal for him to engage in that business at his home, where he was not licensed, see 18 U.S.C. § 923(a). He argues instead that he was not actually operating his firearms business at his home. Yet, the evidence showed that, on March 14, 1990, ATF agents searched Bailey's house and found in an office adjoining his garage rifles, pistols, machineguns, ammunition, business records, a computer, a telephone, letters, ATF transfer forms, a UPS shipping label for "T.G. Bailey & Associates, Inc." located at "368 Seminole Woods Blvd., Geneva, Florida" and other business documents showing that Bailey's business was located at his home address. See Government Exhibits 14E-G. A defense witness testified that he had bought guns at Bailey's home and that Bailey was doing business out of his home. 1 Supp. R10-259. Because Bailey kept guns, ammunition, and business records at his home, represented his home address as his business address, and sold weapons to customers at his house, the jury was entitled to conclude that Bailey was operating his firearms business at his house despite the fact that his two firearms licenses respectively gave the addresses of Duke McCaa's gun shop and Martine Priest's accounting business. "In determining whether one is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, the finder of fact must examine the intent of the actor and all circumstances surrounding the acts alleged to constitute engaging in business." United States v. Palmieri, 21 F.3d 1265, 1268 (3d Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 513 U.S. 957, 115 S.Ct. 413, 130 L.Ed.2d 329 (1994). We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to determine that Bailey was conducting his firearms business at his home without a license for that location.

27 CFR 478.41(c) says in relation to C&R's "A separate license may be obtained for each collection premises..." and 27 CFR 478.41(b) says in relation to other FFL's "a license must be obtained for each business and each place at which the applicant is to do business..."

Here's a question for the C&R holders present here. By policy, does ATF pay attention to the difference between "may" and "must" in 27 CFR 478.41, or do they limit activity to the address on the C&R license? More importantly, what does the agent investigating this guy think the law says?

 

[Len-2A Training]

GSG,

I can't answer your question directly wrt "may" and "must", but perhaps provide a bit of insight.

NOTE: All transactions assume gun is compliant with level of FFL

C&R FFL:
- May buy anywhere in US.
- May sell anywhere in US (BUT can't operate as if he/she is a business, strictly wrt to improving collection or liquidating collection).
- Can ONLY receive shipment of C&R firearms at address on C&R FFL.

Dealer FFL:
- May buy anywhere in US.
- May sell ONLY at premises address on license (exception for gun shows in SAME STATE as address on license).
- Can ONLY receive shipment of firearms at address on FFL.

So, if a C&R FFL had a Summer/Winter home somewhere else, unless they obtained two C&R FFLs, they couldn't receive guns at the other address while living there. [There is some legal provision for an alternate address on a single C&R FFL, but I'm sure that many dealers/distributors would not ship to such an address in another state as a matter of policy.]

 

[Friday]

Maybe this issue is about where he claimed his home address to the licensing authority? His primary home is in Boston, but he listed Lowell as his place of residence?

 

[bullseye]

Any which way you look at it, this poor bastard has had his life flipped upside down, lost his LTC, will lose his C&R, his guns are in question and will probably never see them in again and he is going to be out a boatload of money. Talk about a bad day gone worse! Oh, and his dog left him.

 

[blindndead]

Any info on what is going with this mess?
How is the vic holding up and are things still pretty grim or is there light at the end of the tunnel?