Confiscated weapons

confiscated weapons usually go to a bonded warehouse... usually Dowd's place in worcester area. unfortunately there are storage charges and fees associated with firearms that the police ship to such a warehouse. it's like a tow company soon the firearms storage and administrative fees are going to far exceed the value of the items and you then either pay the fees or eventually forfeit the right to get them back.
 
this is why if you are ever in a situation that you feel you may be getting a 209a restraining order on you or if you commit a crime and you feel the police may be on their way to confiscate your firearms you need to transfer them asap to a friend or family member to prevent them from "disapearing or being sent to a bonded warehouse...
 
this is why if you are ever in a situation that you feel you may be getting a 209a restraining order on you or if you commit a crime and you feel the police may be on their way to confiscate your firearms you need to transfer them asap to a friend or family member to prevent them from "disapearing or being sent to a bonded warehouse...
Again, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure all you need to do is simply give them to someone--they don't necessarily have to be transfered. The applicable laws prevent POSSESSION and purchase; you could give them to a family member for safekeeping. As long as you don't possess them, I'd think you're good to go.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...revised209a-orderforms-criminalcomplaints.pdf
 
Again, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure all you need to do is simply give them to someone--they don't necessarily have to be transfered.

Not true. An FFL needs them in hand before they can go anywhere wrt a 209A. Period. All other situations a transfer is all you need.


The OP needs to give a lot more info before their question can be accurately answered.
 
Again, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure all you need to do is simply give them to someone--they don't necessarily have to be transfered. The applicable laws prevent POSSESSION and purchase; you could give them to a family member for safekeeping. As long as you don't possess them, I'd think you're good to go.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...revised209a-orderforms-criminalcomplaints.pdf

The applicable Federal law prohibits possession and purchase, but MA law prohibits "control, ownership or possession".

If the seizure is due to a 209A, the individual is required to surrender "...all firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, ammunition, any license to carry firearms and any firearms identification cards in the control, ownership, or possession of said defendant..."

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleIII/Chapter209A/Section3B

If the seizure is due to a revocation, suspension or denial, the individual is required to surrender "...all firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition which he then possesses..."

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section129D
 
it's like a tow company soon the firearms storage and administrative fees are going to far exceed the value of the items and you then either pay the fees or eventually forfeit the right to get them back.

Worse than towing by a longshot.

- Tow companies are regulated as to rate and procedures by the state. Bonded warehouses are not.

- Tow companies cannot tow your BC Eagle Ace Ferrari and your vintage Yugo and say you cannot get the Ferrari back unless you pay storage on the Yugo.

- Tow companies cannot assess a separate storage fee for the can of gas in the trunk of your car, and refuse to give you back your car unless you pay the separate adder for storing the gas can.

- Tow companies cannot be available by phone only, not return you call for many days, and charge storage for the days you could not reach them.

- Once you reach the tow company on the phone, they cannot say "We're busy this week, stop by next week - and by the way, the storage will increase by $X during that week".

- Tow companies don't get to keep all the money if a car is seized for non-payment of storage. If you owe $5000 in storage on that Ferrari, the tow company can keep what covers the fees plus expenses, but doesn't get the windfall profit if it sell the Ferrari for $200K.

- By far, the most common response to a tow is retrieval of the car. I don't have hard figures for the bonded warehouse, but I would bet that the percentage of "seizure of ownership by the warehouse" is much, much higher than seizure of car titles.

Towing is extortion (the "free market" rate for parking in suburban industrial areas in the bad section of town does not even approach $30/day), however, for all practical purposes, bonded warehouse storage is in many cases tantamount to theft.
 
Last edited:
Worse than towing by a longshot.

- Tow companies are regulated as to rate and procedures by the state. Bonded warehouses are not.

- Tow companies cannot tow your BC Eagle Ace Ferrari and your vintage Yugo and say you cannot get the Ferrari back unless you pay storage on the Yugo.

- Tow companies cannot assess a separate storage fee for the can of gas in the trunk of your car, and refuse to give you back your car unless you pay the separate adder for storing the gas can.

- Tow companies cannot be available by phone only, not return you call for many days, and charge storage for the days you could not reach them.

- Once you reach the tow company on the phone, they cannot say "We're busy this week, stop by next week - and by the way, the storage will increase by $X during that week".

- Tow companies don't get to keep all the money if a car is seized for non-payment of storage. If you owe $5000 in storage on that Ferrari, the tow company can keep what covers the fees plus expenses, but doesn't get the windfall profit if it sell the Ferrari for $200K.

- By far, the most common response to a tow is retrieval of the car. I don't have hard figures for the bonded warehouse, but I would bet that the percentage of "seizure of ownership by the warehouse" is much, much higher than seizure of car titles.

Towing is extortion (the "free market" rate for parking in suburban industrial areas in the bad section of town does not even approach $30/day), however, for all practical purposes, bonded warehouse storage is in many cases tantamount to theft.

100% on target! Bullseye! [sad]
 
Gun Confiscation by Police Question

How long can police hold your weapons before they become their property if they do at all?
 
How long can police hold your weapons before they become their property if they do at all?

Once they confiscate your guns, consider them "gone"!!

If they turn them over to a bonded warehouse (which they can do instantly), the law allows the bonded warehouse to confiscate (sell and pocket all proceeds) after 6 months if ALL FEES aren't paid up by the hapless "owner". [And the fees charged by bonded warehouses are intentionally set so high that they will exceed the value of most firearms within that period. There is NO regulations wrt what fees they can charge.]

PDs can legally turn all confiscated guns over the MSP for destruction . . . don't know if there is a minimum time limit on this.

Evidence has to be kept until a case is over and all appeals exhausted and oftentimes won't be returned without a court order to do so.
 
If they turn them over to a bonded warehouse (which they can do instantly)

I know of cases where a gun owner contacted the PD to notify them that an individual legally authorized to accept possession (any LTC holder for a non-209A, an FFL holder for a 209A) was coming to take get the guns an the PD reacted by calling Dowd and asked him to "hurry up and get here". I know of one green town where the PD has a policy of "get them to Dowd ASAP" since it's easiest for the PD (Dowd knows exactly what paperwork is required, and all the PD has to do is give him access to the guns and accept some paperwork).

Round trip (in and out), without storage fees, is $35/gun, which means the fees start in the 4 figure range for many folks on NES. $15/month per gun adds up quickly, so the ONLY practical option if Dowd gets the guns is to have an appropriate recipient ready to take delivery on a day's notice. Since the most common reason is a 209A, this means being VERY nice to your local FFL.

I am also aware of cases where the PD cooperated with effecting a transfer before a bonded warehouse took the guns, and even one where the PD held on to the guns until the restraining order issue was resolved. (In this particular case, it was a bogus issue and the gun owner was known to the police, but not in the usual negative sort of way associated with that expression).
 
Last edited:
I know of cases where a gun owner contacted the PD to notify them that an individual legally authorized to accept possession (any LTC holder for a non-209A, an FFL holder for a 209A) was coming to take get the guns an the PD reacted by calling Dowd and asked him to "hurry up and get here". I know of one green town where the PD has a policy of "get them to Dowd ASAP" since it's easiest for the PD (Dowd knows exactly what paperwork is required, and all the PD has to do is give him access to the guns and accept some paperwork).

Round trip (in and out), without storage fees, is $35/gun, which means the fees start in the 4 figure range for many folks on NES. $15/month per gun adds up quickly, so the ONLY practical option if Dowd gets the guns is to have an appropriate recipient ready to take delivery on a day's notice. Since the most common reason is a 209A, this means being VERY nice to your local FFL.

I am also aware of cases where the PD cooperated with effecting a transfer before a bonded warehouse took the guns, and even one where the PD held on to the guns until the restraining order issue was resolved. (In this particular case, it was a bogus issue and the gun owner was known to the police, but not in the usual negative sort of way associated with that expression).

This all leads me to wonder how many PDs would be honest about what they intend to do with the guns, or if they will stonewall the victim of government sanctioned theft (which is basically what it is, in all but a very few cases) by saying "We don't know yet, talk to your lawyer."

-Mike
 
Again, IANAL, but I'm pretty sure all you need to do is simply give them to someone--they don't necessarily have to be transfered. The applicable laws prevent POSSESSION and purchase; you could give them to a family member for safekeeping. As long as you don't possess them, I'd think you're good to go.

This is generally true but PDs (in MA and otherwise) have been known to go full retard on restraining orders.

It also gets interesting if you preemptively move your guns to someone elses control before an RO is issued.

Let's say hypothetically Joe Random knows his evil bitch soon to be ex-wife is talking to a high brow misandrist type divorce lawyer, and he KNOWS the 209A is coming, it's just a matter of when, not IF. Knowing this, Joe moves his guns out of his property and his immediate control.

Police come about 2 days later to serve the 209A and take Joe Random's guns.

Joe Random explains that he gave his guns to his friend with an LTC for safekeeping.

10 bucks says that the police will want to know who Joe Random's friend is and demand this info, or they will charge Joe Random with "Obstruction" or some other BS charge.

Or am I completely off base here- and what if Joe Random says "I refuse to tell you that, the guns are not in my control, and not on my property, so it's effectively none of your business. "

Or alternate scenario- Joe Random says "I refuse to answer that without my lawyer present."

My guess is, either way, they will come up with some dumb way to hurt Joe Random legally. Perhaps by
keeping his mouth shut the worst that will happen is a search warrant for any property he owns?

Further happy fun ball is- what happens if Joe Random decides to store them out of state? Can the police apply the same pressure?

Note that the movement of the guns out of his control has occurred BEFORE the 209A is actually issued, not sure if this affects the outcome.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Mike,

I recall a case where the person moved them to a storage facility (IIRC) in NH (Manchester?) before a 209A was issued.

PD forced him to tell them where the guns were and the MA PD had the NH PD confiscate them in NH for them.

So, it's been done and will indeed be done!

Lawyering up is the best advice but no bets that the PD won't get a search warrant and rip out the walls in the house (if he owns it) looking for the "missing guns"! And no, they are not responsible for any of the damage they do in executing the search warrant.
 
Mike,

I recall a case where the person moved them to a storage facility (IIRC) in NH (Manchester?) before a 209A was issued.

PD forced him to tell them where the guns were and the MA PD had the NH PD confiscate them in NH for them.

So, it's been done and will indeed be done!

Lawyering up is the best advice but no bets that the PD won't get a search warrant and rip out the walls in the house (if he owns it) looking for the "missing guns"! And no, they are not responsible for any of the damage they do in executing the search warrant.

Ok, well, that clarifies it a little bit.... but I'm still curious as to what the "force" was. EG, were they going to threaten him with possible suitability issues (including a revocation of his LTC regardless of whether or not the RO was vacated later on) or another criminal charge (Obstruction?) etc. Was the force merely them blowing smoke, or was a legal charge actually probable?

Then there is the fun of Joe Random sending the PD to get the guns, and the PD is not "satisfied" that they have all his guns because the stuff they retrieved does not match the CHSB printout of what he supposedly owns. (You and I, and a few LEOs I know, understand how bogus that database is, but I bet there are probably some numbskull LEOs that consider it relatively accurate).

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Mike, see if this answers your question:

MGL C. 269 S. 10

Refusal to surrender revoked or suspended LTC or FID​
[FONT=LKAOEH+TimesNewRoman][FONT=LKAOEH+TimesNewRoman]
(i)​
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=LKAOBC+TimesNewRoman][FONT=LKAOBC+TimesNewRoman]Whoever knowingly fails to deliver or surrender a revoked or suspended license to carry or possess firearms or machine guns issued under the provisions of section one hundred and thirty-one or one hundred and thirty-one F of chapter one hundred and forty, or firearm identification card, or receipt for the fee for such card, or a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, as provided in section one hundred and twenty-nine D of chapter one hundred and forty, unless an appeal is pending shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars. [/FONT][/FONT]​
Classification:​
[FONT=LKAODG+TimesNewRoman][FONT=LKAODG+TimesNewRoman]Misdemeanor [/FONT][/FONT]​
Penalty:​
[FONT=LKAODG+TimesNewRoman][FONT=LKAODG+TimesNewRoman]Up to 2½ years in HOC or by a fine of up to $1000 [/FONT][/FONT]​
Right of Arrest: [FONT=LKAODG+TimesNewRoman][FONT=LKAODG+TimesNewRoman]No for this subsection. However, such a person could be arrested if there was probable cause to believe he was in violation of paragraphs (a) or (h) of this section because he had firearms, rifles or shotguns in his possession without a FID Card or LTC.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
We need someone in the Attorney General's office to investigate this fleecing of consumers.






;-(
 
We need someone in the Attorney General's office to investigate this fleecing of consumers.

You are being naive. When it comes to guns, they can't fleece us enough.

There was a proposed CMR that would have addressed at least some of this, but due to "extreme pressure" applied in the right places (some might call it extortion) the CMR was killed after the hearing. I was at that hearing and testified, where were you?
 
You are being naive. When it comes to guns, they can't fleece us enough.

There was a proposed CMR that would have addressed at least some of this, but due to "extreme pressure" applied in the right places (some might call it extortion) the CMR was killed after the hearing. I was at that hearing and testified, where were you?

Cut the Schumer Len with the "Where were you?" crap already.
 
Cut the Schumer Len with the "Where were you?" crap already.

As soon as you cut the crap! You continually post "what's the status of this" posts, but do you ever read what those of us who were there and told the story before actually post here? You work for gov't, yet you act like you have no clue how things work in the real world.


I've posted about that CMR before it happened and after it happened . . . it was all here for you to read/find if you wanted to.

The fix was in from the get-go on this one. The big guys threatened to quit the business if they were regulated and so the regulators folded their hand. Happens all the time in politics.

And this particular hearing was relatively close to you, it was held at MSP HQ in September 2007 and didn't last more than 1 hour!
 
Last edited:
You are being naive. When it comes to guns, they can't fleece us enough.

There was a proposed CMR that would have addressed at least some of this, but due to "extreme pressure" applied in the right places (some might call it extortion) the CMR was killed after the hearing. I was at that hearing and testified, where were you?

Pressure consisted of "let us continue to screw the gun owners or we will screw you by shutting down" - and the warehouse owners did not have the integrity to offer that as public testimony, but rather did so back channel.
 
Mike, see if this answers your question:

MGL C. 269 S. 10

Well, that at least makes more sense. Of course, the devil is in the details, and one has to wonder what the standard of evidence for successfully prosecuting that is. If I was going to make a WAG though, they would attempt to prosecute Joe Random just for the sake of staining him with an arrest record or burn him out on legal bills. Joe will probably walk, but at great expense. Then there's the obvious implied "LTC/CCW application AIDS" problem of someone having an arrest for that on their record, WRT suitability purposes. [thinking]

-Mike
 
Well, that at least makes more sense. Of course, the devil is in the details, and one has to wonder what the standard of evidence for successfully prosecuting that is. If I was going to make a WAG though, they would attempt to prosecute Joe Random just for the sake of staining him with an arrest record or burn him out on legal bills. Joe will probably walk, but at great expense. Then there's the obvious implied "LTC/CCW application AIDS" problem of someone having an arrest for that on their record, WRT suitability purposes. [thinking]

-Mike

Also note the maximum penalty for the offense and what that means with regards to federal disability.
 
Back
Top Bottom