Confiscated weapons

[drgrant]

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

Well, yes, that's an obvious one. That assumes, of course, that the court is able to actually secure a conviction. I'm not quite sure that "We think Joe Random is holding out on us about the guns he has access to" is going to fly in a court of law. I would wager that this law gets used more as a "stick" than it does in terms of actually being prosecuted.

-Mike

 

[jar]

Agree 100%, but it's a big stick.

 

[OfficerObie59]

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.

My point was regarding activity prior to being served with the actual order when you think one may be incoming, but as Kevlar pointed out actual "ownership" is prohibited via MGL.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[terraformer]

but as Kevlar pointed out actual "ownership" is prohibited via MGL.

I not only question the constitutionality of prohibiting ownership interests but thank god daily for arrogant legislators. That ownership stupidity is going to come in handy one day.

 

[OfficerObie59]

I not only question the constitutionality of prohibiting ownership interests but thank god daily for arrogant legislators. That ownership stupidity is going to come in handy one day.

I'd have to agree. Temporary 209A orders are frequently granted ex-parte, often with no violation of the law necessary (the standard simply is that the other party is "in fear"). For the state to forcibly take away your property interests necessary to exercise your right to self-defense could have some major consequences as you say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OfficerObie59]

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

All great questions with no affirmative answers because of a lack of case law on point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[magoo]

It happen to me 11 years ago. They came with paper work. It happen on Fri. My better half knew how many I had. I moved most of them to my little bro's house. But they called him and went to the house and got them. I was told to give them up or jail. They took ammo too. Over 40 gun's. And my bro is a sheriff too. They went thur my reloading room. They need the van to move the stuff. I didn't want my brother to loose his job. Worst day of my life. I got them all back.