Comm2A Sues over Property Forfeiture

Jarvis v. Village Vault transferred to the Est Div of MA FDC and assigned Judge Tauro. Onward and upward. New docket number as well. -> 1:12-cv-40032
 
Zappa said:
Why was that, someones legal shenanigans to have the case tried in a court less sympathetic to gun owners ???
Click to expand...

It was done by the court, not on a motion from the defendants. The relevant rule is Local Rule 40.1D:
Civil cases shall be assigned to the respective divisions if:
(a) All of the parties reside in that division.
(b) All of the parties reside in the District of Massachusetts and the majority of
the plaintiff(s) reside(s) in that division.
(c) The only parties residing in the District of Massachusetts reside in that
division; or
(d) Any of the parties are the United States, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
or any governmental agency of either the United States or the Commonwealth of 53
Massachusetts and a majority of all other parties resident in the District of
Massachusetts reside in that division.
(2) Except as otherwise ordered by the Court, cases not governed by section (D)(1)
may be filed, subject to reassignment and transfer, in the division chosen by the
plaintiff.
Click to expand...

The complaint states:
there
is no Division in which a majority of the Plaintiffs reside; there is no Division in which a
majority of the parties reside; Defendant Village Vault, Inc. resides in the Division; and, the
Central Division is central to the other parties.
Click to expand...

Two plaintiffs are in Berkshire (western div), two in middlesex (eastern div), Village Vault is in Worcester County (central div), and the EOPS secretary is in Suffolk(eastern). So, it's 2/6 western, 1/6 central, and 3/6 eastern. So, it's not a majority in Eastern, but it is 50%. In the case of none of the rules applying, it's subject to reassignment by the court. So, either the court interprets 50% as a majority for this purpose, or they just want to reassign it anyway.
 
The news outlets may not want to get involved now but when the state looses its case and they pay I am sure that there will be an article about how tax payers dollars are constantly being wasted because of the fcuk ups of the .gov...
 
So is there any additional impetus here to require the police departments to comply with the portion of the law that allows for the owner to transfer the seized firearms? Or would that be accomplished by the hearing process prior to transfer to the bonded warehouse?

If this challenge prevails, I would hope that, if my firearms were seized, I would have the opportunity to have my family retrieve my firearms, even if they have to swear that they would not be accessible to me. Or I should have the opportunity to sell those firearms and transfer them to the buyer.

Anecdotal accounts (not a scientific survey by any standard) have indicated that the police departments are VERY reluctant to allow anyone to pick up seized firearms, even those not held as evidence in the commission of a crime.

Thanks for your work on this issue! I'm glad to help you guys out!
 
Mr Weebles said:
...But when I read these lawsuits I get the sinking feeling they're going nowhere in a MA court. I wouldn't be surprised if your answer from the judge was "the fees aren't onerous, and it's the law."
Click to expand...
That won't happen here, we're NOT in Massachusetts court. This is a 1983 civil rights action, it is in federal district court for Massachusetts. They have a very different view of these issues.
Zappa said:
Why was that, someones legal shenanigans to have the case tried in a court less sympathetic to gun owners ???
Click to expand...
Not at all, it's just an administrative thing. We thought the Central Division made sense based upon the parties, but the court felt differently. The Central Division might only have one judge too, so work load may have played into the transfer decisions. It doesn't really matter, this is pretty much a straight-up property forfeiture case with very well established case law. The fact that guns are the property in question is almost a footnote except to the extent they implicate a fundamental right.

RichM said:
So is there any additional impetus here to require the police departments to comply with the portion of the law that allows for the owner to transfer the seized firearms? Or would that be accomplished by the hearing process prior to transfer to the bonded warehouse?

If this challenge prevails, I would hope that, if my firearms were seized, I would have the opportunity to have my family retrieve my firearms, even if they have to swear that they would not be accessible to me. Or I should have the opportunity to sell those firearms and transfer them to the buyer.

Anecdotal accounts (not a scientific survey by any standard) have indicated that the police departments are VERY reluctant to allow anyone to pick up seized firearms, even those not held as evidence in the commission of a crime.

Thanks for your work on this issue! I'm glad to help you guys out!
Click to expand...
This action isn't necessarily the only opportunity out there to address property rights issues. I think just the fact that we've brought this case will shed a little more light on the obligations PDs have under 129D. One of the things we want to get around to finishing is a DIY 129D letter. With the filing of this suit PDs are a little more likely to comply with the law when pressed. I have a little experience being successful recovering someone's gun with the right kind of pressure.

You observations are correct, PDs frequently fail to follow the section 129D and that's all I'm going to say.

It's not possible to overstate the magnitude of this problem. These are just three of the many, many people that have come to us in the last couple of years with gun seizure and forfeiture issues. While our plaintiffs represent good examples of how this systems works, they are not necessarily the most outrages cases we've seen.

Unlike Mr. terraformer, I don't normally get worked up of these injustices, but there was one notable exception. There was someone with a similar fact pattern as that of Mr. Crampton - WWII vet, in his 80s. had a 'good until revoked' FID who was never served notice that it was revoked. Unfortunately, I'm not a liberty to share his entire story. But the police just took his guns because he wasn't licensed. They're gone and we don't even know if they went to a bonded warehouse, were melted down or were taken home by an officer. There was not accountability. Sadly, he (like most people) didn't want to come forward. I was very angry and can remember thinking to myself: "this is why we do this....".
 
kiver said:
WOW..NRA, doing something MA..



GET THAT!!!


NRA, Comm2A, Goal, SAF....all on the right course. NICE
Click to expand...
NRA - Civil Rights Defense Fund (CRDF). Remember, the NRA is a very large & complex organization. CRDF doesn't participate in and drive cases the way SAF or NRA-ILA does. Working with them is more like applying for a grant. We have to apply, lay out our plan and hopefully get a commitment.

Comm2A is still on the hook for this legal bill. David Jensen is a very good attorney and we're lucky to get him. And while he and attorney Groulx are very generous with their payment terms, Comm2A will still have a significant nut to cover before this is over.
 
Last edited:
I'm working on a project now that im hoping will net me a little bit of supplimental income from advertising... if it takes off, a percentage of the revenue from it will be going to Comm2a
 
ARV said:
What about when the cops tow a car involved in an accident (or tow-able offence) to the storage yard of their choice, which then charges you towing fees, storage fees etc, even if the car is on the lot for no more than 5 minutes?
Click to expand...

Those fees are strictly regulated by the state, bonded warehouse fees have no limits.
 
ARV said:
What about when the cops tow a car involved in an accident (or tow-able offence) to the storage yard of their choice, which then charges you towing fees, storage fees etc, even if the car is on the lot for no more than 5 minutes?
Click to expand...

Towing and storage rates are regulated (MGL 159B-6B and 220 CMR 272.00).

Bonded warehouses are not.
 
ARV said:
What about when the cops tow a car involved in an accident (or tow-able offence) to the storage yard of their choice, which then charges you towing fees, storage fees etc, even if the car is on the lot for no more than 5 minutes?
Click to expand...

jar said:
Those fees are strictly regulated by the state, bonded warehouse fees have no limits.
Click to expand...

Kevlar said:
Towing and storage rates are regulated (MGL 159B-6B and 220 CMR 272.00).

Bonded warehouses are not.
Click to expand...

Correct, and when the tow yard tows a car, they typically don't charge you 50% or more of the value of the car for that 5 min. The cops also allow you to get your own tower to tow to a shop of your choosing so long as you are conscious, etc.
 
jar said:
Those fees are strictly regulated by the state, bonded warehouse fees have no limits.
Click to expand...

Kevlar said:
Towing and storage rates are regulated (MGL 159B-6B and 220 CMR 272.00).

Bonded warehouses are not.
Click to expand...

Ok so its both the fact that the property owner has no choice, AND the fact that the warehouse can charge what ever they please for each gun....$1000 a week if they choose to.. I get it.
 
yanici said:
That would be a nice expose. Donuts for guns... I can see it now.
Click to expand...

Certainly already happening, take a look at the memberships:

associate member of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the Central Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association.

In my business associate member means you pay for the event for the opportunity to network and garner business from the full members.

Very common in all businesses.

Chris
 

Similar threads

True Velocity sues Sig Sauer, alleging stolen trade secrets
Replies
24
Views
539
drgrant
drgrant
muzzle device on a barrel over 16
Replies
3
Views
238
Pentium9mm
P
City of Chicago sues Glock Inc. over 'facilitating' illegal gun conversions: The firearms can be turned into machine guns for as little as $20
Replies
25
Views
521
jkelly1229
J
Chicago DA Says Illegal Guns, Drugs and Stolen Property Discovered during Routine Traffic Stops Will Not Be Treated as Offences
Replies
28
Views
678
Thunder Dump
Thunder Dump
Colorado gun group sues state over 'ghost gun' ban
Replies
1
Views
330
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
Back
Top Bottom