Does anyone know what happened to Jad Ali Mokad?

[ebourcier]

Interesting. Thanks for all the help guys! I'm wary of ratting the guy out as I actually like him a lot and wasn't trying to make him sound bad, I think he was just misinformed.

 

[soam]

Interesting. Thanks for all the help guys! I'm wary of ratting the guy out as I actually like him a lot and wasn't trying to make him sound bad, I think he was just misinformed.

Please, PLEASE inform him of his mistake so he doesn't continue propagating the misinformation about preban mags being illegal in postban guns. There's nothing in the law that says you can't put preban mags in postban guns.

 

[the_shootist]

You're right, he's wrong. Forget all the BS he told you, use you your certificate to apply for a LTC, visit this site often, when in doubt refer to MGLs. Ignore any legal advice from a cop or a gun shop employee.

This is the reason people don't open carry in MA....because everyone has been conditioned to think that it's against the law

 

[dingbat]

Just recently nsf posted some story about the kid, his father, and brother being on video outside the store discussing the purchase and them handing the kid money directly before purchasing the rifle. Of course, thats their story and I dont believe it without seeing the video myself

Even if it were true I don't see how that would excuse them for ratting on the guy. I discuss purchases and hand my daughter money outside the store all the time. Granted, it's usually for clothing or art supplies not g-g-guns, but so what?

 

[ebourcier]

Please, PLEASE inform him of his mistake so he doesn't continue propagating the misinformation about preban mags being illegal in postban guns. There's nothing in the law that says you can't put preban mags in postban guns.

I was looking for a good explanation with a law citation I could email him, and was having trouble finding something that wasn't just forum posts haha. He claimed GOAL or mas.gov or someone told it to him I think.

 

[soam]

I was looking for a good explanation with a law citation I could email him, and was having trouble finding something that wasn't just forum posts haha. He claimed GOAL or mas.gov or someone told it to him I think.

The problem is that you will not find a law that specifically says you are allowed to put preban mags in postban guns. Laws are proscriptive, they tell you what you can't do, not what you can do. For instance, there is no law that says you are allowed to breathe, but you can do it anyways!

Ask him to cite the part of the law that says you can't put preban mags in postban guns. Hell, ask him to cite any part of the law that combines the legal status of your mags with the gun you insert it in at all. He will not be able to cite it, because it does not exist.

If you really want to hammer it home, just tell him to read This PDF. Title XI, Subtitle A contains the full text of the Federal AWB which the MA AWB incorporates by reference. Have him read "SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES." and report back on where it bans putting preban mags in postban guns.

 

[Bonesinium]

Or most people here.

You (and me for that matter) included?



I'm joking but my abstract point being, it isn't that you should ignore advice, but rather that you shouldn't just accept advice. Whether you ignore or take the advice is dependent on the advice, and either way needs to be vetted first!

 

[bostonasphalt2]

This is the reason people don't open carry in MA....because everyone has been conditioned to think that it's against the law

Nooooooo, most people don't open carry because it subjects yourself to suitability issues of your COP is a dick. Get it right.

 

[drgrant]

Nooooooo, most people don't open carry because it subjects yourself to suitability issues of your COP is a dick. Get it right.

He's not completely wrong though. Most gun owners in MA don't even know what suitability is, and they just about shit their pants when you tell them the CLEO can pull an LTC if the holder has bad breath.

 

[Alex9661]

Just recently nsf posted some story about the kid, his father, and brother being on video outside the store discussing the purchase ...

in Arabic

 

[MetalgodZ]

in Arabic

 

[Alex9661]

Yeah, that too.. But my point was how the hell did NSF know what these guys were discussing, AK purchase or Shakespeare sonnets. Is any NSF employee able to lip read Arabic? I assume their video surveillance system is compliant with MA wiretap laws and doesn't record audio. Money changing hands between family members in the parking lot? Could've been father telling son here's $600, go buy yourself what you want.

 

[Cero]

So what if anything does this mean for future cases concerning standard cap mags in Ma?

Id. at 602.
As in Hamilton and Snow, §131M lacks words of limitation identifying the person who is required to have lawfully possessed the device prior to September 13, 1994, such as, "not otherwise lawfully possessed by such person." Cf. G.L.c. 265, §43, (defining crime of stalking as "willfully and maliciously engag[ing] in a knowing pattern of conduct . . . directed at a specific person which seriously alarms or annoys that person . . .") (emphasis added). Even if the inclusion of such words would further the legislative purpose of §131M, HN5 "[the court] cannot supply words the Legislature chose not to include." Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 459 Mass. 422, 435, 945 N.E.2d 877 (2011) [7] (citation omitted). Absent any such limiting language, the phrase "can plausibly be found to be ambiguous." Carrion, 431 Mass. at 45.2 The statute reasonably may be read as requiring the lawful possession of a large capacity feeding device by any person prior to September 13, 1994, in order for the possession of such a device to be lawful. HN6 The rule of lenity requires that the statute be interpreted in this way to "give the defendant the benefit of the ambiguity." Id. at 45-46. Because no evidence was presented to the grand jury that no other person lawfully possessed the large capacity feeding devices that Mr. Mokdad possessed, the court allows his motion for reconsideration, vacates its prior decision denying the motion to dismiss, and allows Mr. Mokdad's motion to dismiss indictments 001 and 002.

This can't be the only time that someone has fought it. is this a common result or are large cap charges usually dropped to just accepted because defendants have so many other charges on them? Also legally speaking how close are "ambiguity" and "vagueness".

 

[terraformer]

Realize, the claim was that if he didn't possess them prior to 1994, he couldn't possess them. Ie; no one can transfer pre bans.

 

[M1911]

in Arabic

So?

Who cares what language they were speaking?

 

[Bonesinium]

Lots of people on NES, sadly.

 

[drgrant]

So what if anything does this mean for future cases concerning standard cap mags in Ma?


This can't be the only time that someone has fought it. is this a common result or are large cap charges usually dropped to just accepted because defendants have so many other charges on them? Also legally speaking how close are "ambiguity" and "vagueness".

If I'm reading it right, all it's really saying is that the court is dumping the charge because the prosecution's evidence saying he violated it was crap. Apparently the prosecution must have introduced the "lawfully possessed in 1994" garbage into the discussion and didn't even enter into provenance issues with the LCAFD itself. (my guess is that would have been far more difficult to prove on its own) So the prosecution was trying to push this bogus charge based off a mostly meaningless nuance in the law and they got caught doing it. The court is saying "we have no way of actually knowing whether this device was lawfully possessed on Sep 13 1994, and the prosecution hasn't shown us anything proving this either, so, well, **** it. "

-Mike

 

[calsdad]

It's more interesting than that. That was the only charge left after they were done.

I'm curious on the details of how the high cap mag charges disappeared.

How exactly did they determine that the mags were "pre-ban" - because I'm assuming that the mags in question were AK mags - and I have never seen one yet that has any sort of obvious providence on when they were made - as opposed to say some of the HK 20 round 7.62 mags - which have the actual manufacture date stamped right on them.

 

[Bonesinium]

He posted it. It is in the judges ruling (and granting) of the motion to dismiss. See post #21.

Here is the short of it.

Absent any such limiting language, the phrase "can plausibly be found to be ambiguous." Carrion, 431 Mass. at 45.2 The statute reasonably may be read as requiring the lawful possession of a large capacity feeding device by any person prior to September 13, 1994, in order for the possession of such a device to be lawful. HN6 The rule of lenity requires that the statute be interpreted in this way to "give the defendant the benefit of the ambiguity." Id. at 45-46. Because no evidence was presented to the grand jury that no other person lawfully possessed the large capacity feeding devices that Mr. Mokdad possessed, the court allows his motion for reconsideration, vacates its prior decision denying the motion to dismiss, and allows Mr. Mokdad's motion to dismiss indictments 001 and 002.

 

[soam]

I'm curious on the details of how the high cap mag charges disappeared.

How exactly did they determine that the mags were "pre-ban" - because I'm assuming that the mags in question were AK mags - and I have never seen one yet that has any sort of obvious providence on when they were made - as opposed to say some of the HK 20 round 7.62 mags - which have the actual manufacture date stamped right on them.

I think it's because the state didn't even try to prove that they were post-ban. They were able to prove (either by Mokad's admission or by some other means) that Mokad himself didn't possess the mags prior to Sept 1994, so the status of the mags themselves was, by their logic, irrelevant.

The ruling that terraformer posted makes this clear with this line:

Because no evidence was presented to the grand jury that no other person lawfully possessed the large capacity feeding devices that Mr. Mokdad possessed, the court allows his motion for reconsideration, vacates its prior decision denying the motion to dismiss, and allows Mr. Mokdad's motion to dismiss indictments 001 and 002.

 

[soam]

In other words, they didn't determine that the mags were pre-ban, the state simply did not attempt at all to prove that the mags were post-ban.

 

[cekim]

In other words, they didn't determine that the mags were pre-ban, the state simply did not attempt at all to prove that the mags were post-ban.

and gave what should be actionably bad testimony/instructions to the jury.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It was acknowledged the exact dates that NSF sold him the 2 mags. The state took the stupid ER (EOPS) approach that one must have personally possessed them IN MA on 9/13/1994 to be legal to possess. That was the issue that the judge ruled on. Hope that one stung Elisabeth and I hope it is the tripwire to her losing her job with the new administration!

 

[drgrant]

It was acknowledged the exact dates that NSF sold him the 2 mags. The state took the stupid ER (EOPS) approach that one must have personally possessed them IN MA on 9/13/1994 to be legal to possess. That was the issue that the judge ruled on. Hope that one stung Elisabeth and I hope it is the tripwire to her losing her job with the new administration!

It won't. My guess is the police threw this charge on, not knowing any better, and things got investigated, and then when they discovered it was impossible with any reasonable certainty to prove when the mags were made, they threw their hands up in the air and started making phone calls.... and eventually heard about that creative EOPS interepretation and tried to throw that piece of dog meat at the problem hoping it would stick... but even the judges called it out for rotting dog meat.

-Mike

 

[Quiet]

eventually heard about that creative EOPS interepretation

My guess is that was the intent of the legislation, not that they were trying to create a law that allowed magazines to be ambiguously manufactured or from Bulgaria to be imported into MA.

The legislature probably booted it (thankfully).

 

[Len-2A Training]

It won't. My guess is the police threw this charge on, not knowing any better, and things got investigated, and then when they discovered it was impossible with any reasonable certainty to prove when the mags were made, they threw their hands up in the air and started making phone calls.... and eventually heard about that creative EOPS interepretation and tried to throw that piece of dog meat at the problem hoping it would stick... but even the judges called it out for rotting dog meat.

-Mike

Describes ER to a T!

My guess is that was the intent of the legislation, not that they were trying to create a law that allowed magazines to be ambiguously manufactured or from Bulgaria to be imported into MA.

The legislature probably booted it (thankfully).

Nope. Words lifted verbatim from Clinton Ban. Mags and AWs could have been anywhere in the world AFAIK.

 

[Quiet]

Nope. Words lifted verbatim from Clinton Ban. Mags and AWs could have been anywhere in the world AFAIK.

I didn't say MA Legislature.









Although that's what I meant. LOL

So the US legislature didn't anticipate imports and didn't legislate a means to identify and/or (gulp) register existing mags. The MA legislature didn't consider that moving "pre ban" mags across state lines would be easy (and legal under this verbiage) once the federal AWB expired, whereas an entire continent prohibition on manufacture was some what more effective.

 

[BadSull]

Just the facts Mamm! This guy was getting screwed! Anyone knows what the outcome was? Simple question.

 

[KBCraig]

It is a variation on what I call "playground rules" - maybe someone has a better name for it?

People with no actual claim to power and a tiny little bit of additional information than the average kid (either cursory knowledge of the real rules or the reality that brass balls makes the rules 99% of the time), use others' ignorance, insecurity and gullibility to their own purposes. They make up/embellish the rules to skew the game to their benefit and/or just get attention or appear to be "in the know".

All that might sound pretty nefarious and in the adult world it can be whether intended or not, but I think it is important to understand how fundamental to our nature that it is that this behavior appears in children reliably.

The person who successfully makes up rules gets attention, control and instant positive feedback and the fallout of their BS is either in the distant future or may never be directly observed.

Maybe the word you're looking for is "politics".