Comm2A Sues over Property Forfeiture

I missed the good luck portion of this episode so I am going to thank you guys for all of the hard work you do on everyone's behalf.
 
I missed the good luck portion of this episode so I am going to thank you guys for all of the hard work you do on everyone's behalf.[/QUOTW]

I thank them monthly with $$ so they can continue to operate. I suggest that others do the same . . . with automatic monthly donations. [rockon] [thumbsup]
 
I thank them monthly with $$ so they can continue to operate. I suggest that others do the same . . . with automatic monthly donations. [rockon] [thumbsup]

This. Even if you do the smallest donation of $10 a month, that adds up. You probably spend more than that in a week on coffee. Signup here - http://www.comm2a.org/donate Also, don't forget to do your Amazon purchases using custom links to give them a maximum%, see my sig for info.

*I am not employed by Comm2a, my only affiliation is in giving donations.
 
I missed the good luck portion of this episode so I am going to thank you guys for all of the hard work you do on everyone's behalf.[/QUOTW]

I thank them monthly with $$ so they can continue to operate. I suggest that others do the same . . . with automatic monthly donations. [rockon] [thumbsup]


Well... sometimes it is nice to HEAR the thanks in addition to my regular donations.
 
Another reason to be optimistic is that this case, at the appellate level hinges on one simple question: "In taking possession of the gun or our plaintiffs, was Village Vault functioning as a state actor?" If the panel decides that Village Vault does function as a state actor, this case goes back to the district court for further proceedings and we get to argue the merits.

Oh, and in case you missed it, we WON another case.
 
I'll take a stab at it. "Opt out" is insufficient to protect the gun owners' property rights. VV is a state actor working jointly with the state. The district court judge's ruling is overturned and you are headed back to the district level to argue the case on its merits.
 
I'll take a stab at it. "Opt out" is insufficient to protect the gun owners' property rights.
What is this "opt out" of which you speak? In many cases, gun owners do not have the chance to "opt out", or arrange for a MA Licensed dealer of their choosing to take possession.
 
I recall the argument being made that the provision in the statute empowering the police to transfer seized weapons to a third party (Village Vault) also allowed the owner of the seized weapons to prevent that transfer by notifying the police department of their intent to have the weapons transferred to an eligible third party.

You seem skeptical that this is not the case at least in practice. Irrespective, my impression was that at least one of the judges was not enamored of the idea that the statute allows these transfers with the implied consent (by failing to instruct the PD otherwise) of the gun owner as opposed to the gun owner giving express consent. This the context in which I used the term "opt-out".

There seemed to be some momentum for the idea that these "passive consent" transfers did in fact make Village Vault a joint state actor.
 
I recall the argument being made that the provision in the statute empowering the police to transfer seized weapons to a third party (Village Vault) also allowed the owner of the seized weapons to prevent that transfer by notifying the police department of their intent to have the weapons transferred to an eligible third party.

There is no protection in the law that assures the gun owner will have the right to send his own dealer. Specifically, there is no "holding period" before the guns may be turned over to a bonded warehouse, and, there is not even a law which says the police must turn the guns over to an owner-designated dealer instead of a bonded warehouse, even when requested to do so by the owner.

Some police departments are very reasonable, and even refer the subject to dealers that offer MUCH better terms than the VV. Others seem to view the bonded warehouse as an additional mechanism to punish the gun owner, and will overtly or tacitly prevent the owner from sending his own dealer to get the guns.
 
There have been several posts in the past year of people who are hassled and given the round around by PD's in trying to get their guns transferred to a dealer or person of their choice. As Rob says, there are good towns who work with people and there are others who want to hammer people.
 
First Circuit Opinion

The First Circuit issued their opinion late yesterday and it did not go our way. We were unable to convince the panel that Village Vault functioned as a state actor - a necessary prerequisite in determining if they were guilty of depriving the plaintiffs of their due process rights.

Opinion

We'll have something good for you on Monday though.
 
Last edited:
So if the courts have decided that VV as a bonded warehouse is definitely a private party and not a state-actor, wouldn't the deprivation of property without compensation and due process therefore be the state/police transferring the property from their own custody into the bonded warehouse without prior notification and a reasonable waiting period for the citizen to arrange their own transfer of the property.

It seems like the courts are taking the view that each individual component of this are perfectly legal on their own without taking into account the big picture that the end result is a citizen deprived of their property.
 
It seems like the courts are taking the view that each individual component of this are perfectly legal on their own without taking into account the big picture that the end result is a citizen deprived of their property.
It's MA and guns. The courts don't care about the constitution or people's rights. VV is complete bullshit and would be shut down by the courts and the owner sued into debtors prison in a semi-sane state. Instead it's in MA, so carry on!
 
So are we permanently screwed with this VV ruling?
Possibly.

If you have the foresight to have a 129D letter if you safe to surrender with any guns, you might have a shot a suing the PD if they turn your guns over to a thefthouse. The ideal 129D letter will state that:


  1. Thar you are instructing them NOT to turn the guns over to a bonded warehouse
  2. That you will arrange for a MA licensed dealers to take possession of the guns within a reasonable time
  3. That the dealer you have made arrangements with is ... and that the PD is both requested and authorized to transfer guns to such dealers
  4. If you suffer any bonded warehouse storage charges due to the police failure to turn the guns over to your dealer as required my MGL Chapter 140 Section 129D.

This requires planning ahead, so you can deliver the letter with the guns if you are ordered to surrender.

Also, remember if a 209A is issued, and the LTC revoked/suspended, you are obligated to turn over your guns to the PD. Once notified, you lose the option of doing a direct transfer to a friend or dealer.

BUT, you are NOT obligated to let the police into you home unless they have a warrant. You can tell them to wait at the door while you bring the guns to them. Do not resist entry if they say you have no choice, but be sure to go on record as stating that you are not giving them permission to enter your home.
 
Possibly.

If you have the foresight to have a 129D letter if you safe to surrender with any guns, you might have a shot a suing the PD if they turn your guns over to a thefthouse.


It sounds like the perfect case is unlikely to come around.

In my mind that case would be: a squeaky clean individual has a restraining order placed against them by a crazy person, the police seize their guns. The person's FFL is on their calls the police department immediately and says they're on their way with a letter authorizing transfer. The police call VV and say "hurry up" and transfer to VV first. VV inventories and charges fees for each item and at least one of them items is worth less than the initial take-in/take-out fee for one day. When the person's FFL shows up at VV the fee for at least one item is greater than the value of that one item (e.g. a box of ammo).

Thinking out loud here: What if Comm2a proactively sent such a notice to each PD stating that, on behalf of its members and other firearm owners, the PD must give notice and a reasonable time to allow arrangements before transferring to a bonded warehouse? I doubt that holds any water - but it might strengthen a future case if it happens again?
 
Thinking out loud here: What if Comm2a proactively sent such a notice to each PD stating that, on behalf of its members and other firearm owners, the PD must give notice and a reasonable time to allow arrangements before transferring to a bonded warehouse?
The prepared gun owner will have such a notice pre-printed, signed and in the safe with the guns to deliver at any time of surrender to a PD.

This is also why it can be beneficial to have a relationship with a good shop rather than chase pennies on each gun you buy. Just make sure the show you frequent as a buyer will get to your PD, move your guns into it's inventory, and treat you fairly. It's not hard to negotiate that are a fraction of the VV rates, with much better terms. (Just try telling VV you have a buyer for one gun, want to let him inspect the gun at the VV facility, and then pay to bail that one gun out of "storage" assuming, of course, VV is not on vacation and unavailable to redeem you guns).

That puff piece in the GOAL newsletter attempting to legitimize the "bonded warehouse" concept made me think I was reading Guns & Ammo - an article favorable to an advertiser right across a full page ad for the advertizer's product. (Ever notice how no current production guns are covered unless the manufacturer is also a buyer of ad space in the mainstream gun rags).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom