cops seize firearms from brookline home

[TZCHRIS]

They don't really destroy them do they? Why don't they burn drug money when they find that?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Ross, you are right, somewhere in MGL is buried guns confiscated in a crime are to be sent to MSP for "disposal" (destruction) in all cases AFTER the case is adjudicated. Brookline may just "rush the job" and send them for destruction early (an "honest mistake" ) so the defendant has no proof, but I hope not.

Destruction is ordered strictly "because they are evil" and "no guns should be on the street"! Other items can be used by PD or otherwise disposed of, but not guns.

 

[ARV]

A weapon that is illegal like the ones that had the suppressors on them yes - those need to be disposed of. But if it happened to be an original Mauser all matching you still think that should be 'melted down'? Or how about an original Russian SKS? these firearms are perfectly legal for an LTC Unrestricted Class A to own/purchase in MA. Whats wrong with that?


Wait, Murder children? okay buddy...

when one of my collectors pieces grows legs, unlocks my safe from the inside, takes off its' trigger lock, finds my locked up ammo in a separate loction, loads itself, and hunts down a child you win. Then I will personally destroy my wonderful historic artifacts and turn myself in and give you a pat on the back.

Methinks your sarcasm meter is broken...

 

[Pete85]

.... only ten posts deep and already made a fool of myself [sad2]

Don't feel too bad. I got "Scrived" on my very first post here. You haven't been here long enough to know what that means, but anyone who has been here a few years or more will tell you, it's bad!

 

[dcmdon]

Rob,

How could you tell the suppressor were fake? I own a few and am familiar with them, but couldn't see anything that would give them away. I'm speaking particularly about the ones that weren't attached To firearms.

 

[LoginName]

#1: The items in this arrest are almost certainly NOT suppressors.

#2: Fake suppressors are often (and appear to be in this case) permanently attached barrel extensions to meet barrel length to not be an SBR (Short Barreled Rifle), so removing one is a lengthy process involving federal paperwork and $200 at initial registration and upon each transfer.

That's only required if the firearms has a shoulder stock.

The Mac in the video didn't appear to have one... just a ridiculously long tube at the end.

Rob,

How could you tell the suppressor were fake? I own a few and am familiar with them, but couldn't see anything that would give them away. I'm speaking particularly about the ones that weren't attached To firearms.

In this video, you can see 3 alleged silencers that are not attached to any firearms...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/police-seize-several-high-powered-weapons-from-brookline-home/

And a close-up of one of them...

Near as I can tell, those are nothing more than barrel extensions (most likely for a Tec-9).

Assuming the silencer charges are legit... it's quite possible Becker did something stupid like drilling a few holes where there shouldn't be any, and stuffing the tube with steel wool. It wouldn't matter if the noise was reduction was half a decibel, the ATF still defines it as a suppressor.

 

[glide]

That's only required if the firearms has a shoulder stock.

The Mac in the video didn't appear to have one... just a ridiculously long tube at the end.



In this video, you can see 3 alleged silencers that are not attached to any firearms...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/police-seize-several-high-powered-weapons-from-brookline-home/

And a close-up of one of them...

Near as I can tell, those are nothing more than barrel extensions (most likely for a Tec-9).

Assuming the silencer charges are legit... it's quite possible Becker did something stupid like drilling a few holes where there shouldn't be any, and stuffing the tube with steel wool. It wouldn't matter if the noise was reduction was half a decibel, the ATF still defines it as a suppressor.

That does not look like a silencer. The width of the tube appears to be consistent and based on the attachment point, seems to be the size of the bullet. There can't be any baffles in there. It's a shroud.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob,

How could you tell the suppressor were fake? I own a few and am familiar with them, but couldn't see anything that would give them away. I'm speaking particularly about the ones that weren't attached To firearms.

I didn't see the photos of the ones not attached. The only photos I saw were of wide tubes with large (.5 - .75" or so) holes in the side - basically ventillated extensions. Also, real cans tend to have a certain "precision" about their construction and are engraved with all the necessary markings as NFA weapons. I am not silencer expert, but I am not aware of any that have a large ventiallated shroud - all the ones I have seen have a solid exterior tube.

Also, the totality of the circumstances is more suggestive to "cosmetic" rather than actual cans. Note the "grenade launcher" which bears the logo of a company that is well known for manufacture of a 37mm "look alike" flare launcher. Just as the presence of that flare launcher does not preclude the presence of an NFA 40mm grenade launcher not depicted, the photo of cans that are clearly fake is not proof that there were no real suppressors in the mix. It does seem rather unlikely that someone would buy fake "look alike" tacticool mall ninja stuff and then mix in just a bit of the real items.

Note, I said "appear to be" rather than "absolutely certain".

 

[dcmdon]

That's only required if the firearms has a shoulder stock.

The Mac in the video didn't appear to have one... just a ridiculously long tube at the end.



In this video, you can see 3 alleged silencers that are not attached to any firearms...

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/06/12/police-seize-several-high-powered-weapons-from-brookline-home/

And a close-up of one of them...

Near as I can tell, those are nothing more than barrel extensions (most likely for a Tec-9).

Assuming the silencer charges are legit... it's quite possible Becker did something stupid like drilling a few holes where there shouldn't be any, and stuffing the tube with steel wool. It wouldn't matter if the noise was reduction was half a decibel, the ATF still defines it as a suppressor.

This is making me even angrier. To me, it was immediately obvious that the ones attached to the guns were fake.

Now I see this, and its obvious to anyone who has handled a real suppressor that this is simply a bbl extension a/k/a/ fake suppressor.

I'd take a picture of one of mine for comparison, but they're back in CT locked in the safe of one of the trustees on my trust.

So this is even more bogus than I could have imagined. At this point, all I can come up with other than failing to keep his FID current is the possibility that some of the pre-ban style ARs are actually post ban. I doubt this. The A2 type AR went out of style a while ago. But its a possibility.

Re stuffing with steel wool, it doesn't really matter if he tried to make a silencer, what matters if it actually IS a silencer. I doubt that stuffing some steel wool into a fake can would do anything. That is up to the BATFE Technology Branch and his defense experts to weigh in on.

Don

p.s. Here's a photo of a real silencer made right here in Florence, MA

 

[dcmdon]

One other thing for those not familiar with NFA terminology.

A silencer and a suppressor are the same thing. The term suppressor is just the in-vogue term now because many feel it more accurately reflects what it actually does. It suppresses the noise. It does not make the gun silent by any stretch of your or Holywood's imaginiation.

However, the term "silencer" is used in all federal and state legislation regulating these items. So when speaking from a legal perspective, the term "silencer" is correct, since we want to use words that match the laws/statutes.

When speaking of them in any other way, the terms are interchangeable.

One other thing is that the National Firearms Act (NFA) made a silencer into a firearm. Legally speaking. So any state and local laws that relate to firearms in general also relate to silencers.

Don

 

[namedpipes]

I didn't see the photos of the ones not attached. The only photos I saw were of wide tubes with large (.5 - .75" or so) holes in the side - basically ventillated extensions. Also, real cans tend to have a certain "precision" about their construction and are engraved with all the necessary markings as NFA weapons. I am not silencer expert, but I am not aware of any that have a large ventiallated shroud - all the ones I have seen have a solid exterior tube.

Also, the totality of the circumstances is more suggestive to "cosmetic" rather than actual cans. Note the "grenade launcher" which bears the logo of a company that is well known for manufacture of a 37mm "look alike" flare launcher. Just as the presence of that flare launcher does not preclude the presence of an NFA 40mm grenade launcher not depicted, the photo of cans that are clearly fake is not proof that there were no real suppressors in the mix. It does seem rather unlikely that someone would buy fake "look alike" tacticool mall ninja stuff and then mix in just a bit of the real items.

Note, I said "appear to be" rather than "absolutely certain".

The descriptions and pictures I've seen are all the kind of "crap" somebody with a sudden interest might have bought, 20 years ago and then more or less forgot about stashed in the back room. Like thousands of others, he never kept up his FID (why would he - it was good for life) and never sold the stuff either. He just came to the State's attention.

 

[dcmdon]

Exactly. Just crazy stuff.

In the wake of the Gabby Gifford shootings last year the Ds tried to pass a mag limit in CT. The timing was right, but they made a mistake. They got greedy.

Rather than just trying to ban all future new sales like MA, NY, etc. They tried to ban possession. A number of us were able to sway even anti-gun legislators with scenarios just like the one the man in Brookline is dealing with now. Picture this, one of your constituents buys a Glock. Nothing special, just a lock like your local PD uses. He's not into guns so he doesn't keep up with things. The gun is kept in a safe and shot a couple of times per year. One night his home is broken into and he uses it to shoot an intruder. The victim now has to worry about being a felon. He did nothing illegal, but the law constricted around him to make a possession he already owned illegal after the fact.

This worked very well and the bill never made it out of committee. If they had simply tried to ban future sales, I suspect we'd have a 10 round mag limit in CT.

Don

 

[Mattyweb]

Clearly this is a shoulder thing that goes up.

I recently posted in a another thread about starting a reply, then thinking better of it and deleting. So here is what I heard a friend of a friend would say in response to this debacle:
"It seems like we are sitting around watching us being picked off one by one. This guy's life is ruined or in serious shite because of what would be legal in most other states. Granted, he could have done more to stay in compliance with the laws, but let's be honest; they are BS laws to begin with. So, enough of this crap. When are we going to do something about this. Someone tell me where the rally point is already and I'll be there."
At least I think this is what I overheard my friend's friend say.

It has been mentioned previously that ignorance of the law is no excuse. I would love to see this applied to the Brookline PD in relation to their ignorance about firearms. Basically they have ruined a guy because they are (playing) stupid and using the media and their feigned ignorance to push their agenda.

Thanks Rob for trying to point out the terrible reporting. Drives me nuts.

 

[LoginName]

It's a shroud.

This is making me even angrier. To me, it was immediately obvious that the ones attached to the guns were fake.

Now I see this, and its obvious to anyone who has handled a real suppressor that this is simply a bbl extension a/k/a/ fake suppressor.

I'd take a picture of one of mine for comparison, but they're back in CT locked in the safe of one of the trustees on my trust.

So this is even more bogus than I could have imagined. At this point, all I can come up with other than failing to keep his FID current is the possibility that some of the pre-ban style ARs are actually post ban. I doubt this. The A2 type AR went out of style a while ago. But its a possibility.

In the video, there are 3 barrel shrouds/barrel extensions and at least one firearm (a Mac), with a "tube" (permanently attached or not).

They're only charging him with 2 counts of illegal possession of a silencer.

At some point, someone more knowledgeable realized that the 3 shrouds/extensions were not silencers.

The 2 counts hes being charged with are a mystery.

Either there's something valid with the charges, or once again poor communication with the police and/or irresponsible reporting.

Re stuffing with steel wool, it doesn't really matter if he tried to make a silencer, what matters if it actually IS a silencer.
I doubt that stuffing some steel wool into a fake can would do anything.

I just threw that out there as one possibility.

Does it actually work? Who knows, but as I posted earlier, all it would take is a minuscule reduction in the noise level to meet the legal definition of a silencer (at least by the ATF). The same concept applies to flash suppressors as well... just a tad of reduction is enough to get a person jammed up.

Another possibility... there used to be a time when silencer parts (tubes, baffles), could be ordered through Shotgun News, bought at gun shows, etc.
It was legal... as long as you weren't in possession of all the parts.

That is up to the BATFE Technology Branch and his defense experts to weigh in on.

If that's the case... the guy might be fooked because as we all know, the BATFE can be pretty footloose and fancy free when it comes down to definitions/determinations.

Example... according to them, this is a silencer...

He just came to the State's attention.

To me... that's the most disturbing part of the story; that the police were able to obtain a warrant based on one phone call and a minor incident that was never a crime to begin with (closing the door on the cops).

It also should serve as an example to people who think they can get away with something under the false impression "who's going to know"?
"There's no way they can find out" when they have post-ban mags in their possession or installed that folding/collapsible stock on their post-ban AR.

 

[dcmdon]

I agree with everything you said, except for the part about flash suppressors. This is one area where the ATF is pretty transparent. They will test a FS and issue a written finding for a manufacturer. This helps the manufacturers to have some proof when they sell them in ban states.

This is an example of a brake with some flash suppression that has not been classified as a Flash suppressor by the BATFE.

http://primaryweapons.com/store/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=9&idcategory=6

Don

 

[Eye5600]

Becker was unemployed, and no one had seen him for over a month. Police performed a well being check on Friday and obtained search warrants for the weapons.

Probable cause?

 

[glide]

Probable cause?

Ex-wife? Angry girlfriend?

 

[rcicone]

depends on where you live... in brookline you can. I raised my daughter in Brookline as soon as she left, I took my tax dollars elsewhere. That town major sux

I question the judgement of anyone telling a stranger anything about themselves. There's a reason people bother to make friends. As ya grow up you learn to trust your gut, learn to make distinctions and those skills can save your ass (not to mention your gun collection)

rach

 

[nstassel]

Update to this story...last week Norfolk County Superior Court dismissed all the charges on the basis of the safe harbor defense. Yesterday Brookline police returned all the guns and ammo to the defendant's lawyer for disposition or storage until the licensing issues are resolved. Not my case but my good friend's.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Update to this story...last week Norfolk County Superior Court dismissed all the charges on the basis of the safe harbor defense. Yesterday Brookline police returned all the guns and ammo to the defendant's lawyer for disposition or storage until the licensing issues are resolved. Not my case but my good friend's.

Well, that's an unexpected and delightful outcome - especially considering how determined the Brookline PD (and the press) was vilify this guy.

Can you enlighten us on the 'safe harbor' defense here? Was this lapsed license?

It's also scary that something like this can drag on for nearly four years without resolution.

 

[nstassel]

Correct about safe harbor. Becker had an ltc that expired 15 years before the arrest. He'd applied for renewal and brookline never acted in the application. The law is clear that possession of a firearm with an expired ltc is a civil fine at worst. The Commonwealth argued unsuccessfully that too much time lapsed but obviously the judge disagreed.

Some nice guns in the collection too...HK93, Uzi, 2 ARs, Python, Colt Government, several Berettas, Mini 14...

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I find it interesting (gut not surprising) that the Commonwealth argued that there was (or should be) some limit to a clearly stated safe harbor provision. A cynic might conclude that the 'but it GUNS' doctrine would have been more persuasive than safe harbor.

Sadly the disposition of this case will not receive any public attention. If they can recall the incident at all, the good people of Brookline are left with the impression that a dangerous individual and his guns have been removed from the streets.

ETA: I'll be interested to hear if there are any issues with this guy being re-licensed. Is Brrokline PD cheeky enough to pull the suitability card?

 

[LoginName]

ETA: I'll be interested to hear if there are any issues with this guy being re-licensed. Is Brrokline PD cheeky enough to pull the suitability card?

The guy had outstanding warrants for failure to appear for jury duty at the time of the arrest.

I don't know what the final outcome of that was, but it would be a pretty ballsy move on BPD's part if they used that as their suitability card.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

He'd applied for renewal and brookline never acted in the application. The law is clear that possession of a firearm with an expired ltc is a civil fine at worst.

A couple of important details you obviously know, but some reader might miss:

The defense does not apply if:

1. The applicant has become ineligible to be licensed

2. The applicant has applied for, and been denied, a renewal. This is why PDs are trained to keep copies of denials on file 4ever.

3. The LTC was revoked for any reason other than failure to file a change of address

One other thing is that the National Firearms Act (NFA) made a silencer into a firearm. Legally speaking. So any state and local laws that relate to firearms in general also relate to silencers.

This is incorrect in MA.

MA has its own definition of firearm that does not follow the federal definition. Silencers do not meet the definition of firearms under MA state law, however, there is a separate MA law that bans silencers.

As an example, note that a stripped frame/lower is not a firearm, rifle or shotgun under MA law but is under federal law.

 

[terraformer]

Update to this story...last week Norfolk County Superior Court dismissed all the charges on the basis of the safe harbor defense. Yesterday Brookline police returned all the guns and ammo to the defendant's lawyer for disposition or storage until the licensing issues are resolved. Not my case but my good friend's.

Nailed it. Like I said above, I would have loved to see the look on their faces... The problem is they have the mechanism of the LTC to screw with him via licensing.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

From whence does the term "safe harbor defense" come? I'm familiar with the expired LTC provision, however, the term "safe harnbnor" is a new one to me.

It is not surprising that the state used the "too long" argument. It is not unheard of for courts to read things into laws that are simply not there, particularly when it comes to enforcing what the court would like to see as "desirable public policy". For example, federal law is quite clear that you cannot carry in a post orifice except "incidental to a lawful purpose". Guess what? The federal court ruled that carrying for protection with a valid LTC or CCW is not a "lawful purpose" for the purposes of the law.

 

[Coyote33]

Did you ever find out the answer to this question? I'm curious.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Did you ever find out the answer to this question? I'm curious.

Never did, though I have seen the term"safe harbor" in other legal contexts.

For example the IRS imposes a penalty for under-withholding your income tax unless you fall into one of several exceptions (withheld more than you paid last year is one). Accountants refer to these as "safe harbor" provisions.

 

[dcmdon]

Did he ever get his guns back?

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Everytime I read one of these stories my head hurts. In 95% of America this guy has nothing to worry about ! ****ing SAD !

- - - Updated - - -

From whence does the term "safe harbor defense" come? I'm familiar with the expired LTC provision, however, the term "safe harnbnor" is a new one to me.

It is not surprising that the state used the "too long" argument. It is not unheard of for courts to read things into laws that are simply not there, particularly when it comes to enforcing what the court would like to see as "desirable public policy". For example, federal law is quite clear that you cannot carry in a post orifice except "incidental to a lawful purpose". Guess what? The federal court ruled that carrying for protection with a valid LTC or CCW is not a "lawful purpose" for the purposes of the law.

Again, ****ed up and wrong ! It's absolutely insane.