• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Duxbury Police seize guns from old man

TrashcanDan

NES Member
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
2,905
Likes
4,860
Location
So. Shore mass
Deluxebury.
They've never handled much outside a cat in the tree phonecall or run ins "from those people in plymouth"
Probably had a few firearms in there made before serial #'s were required and had the old one-and-done lic, that was supposed to be good for a lifetime.
 

p.tice

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
167
Likes
305
Location
Massachusetts
Deluxebury.
They've never handled much outside a cat in the tree phonecall or run ins "from those people in plymouth"

Contrary to what most people are saying, the Duxbury Police are very gun friendly. The did what they had to do and I’m sure they didn’t like it more than anyone here. They can’t just turn a blind eye if they walk into a violation, they have to enforce it. The problem is with the state and the laws our politicians have passed, not the police.
 

Grendizer138

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
631
Likes
1,929
Location
southcoast
Contrary to what most people are saying, the Duxbury Police are very gun friendly. The did what they had to do and I’m sure they didn’t like it more than anyone here. They can’t just turn a blind eye if they walk into a violation, they have to enforce it. The problem is with the state and the laws our politicians have passed, not the police.
Nonsense. If they were “gun-friendly” and/or knew the law they would have had the licensed relative take possession of the guns in addition to the ammo.
 

EddieZoom

NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Jul 20, 2014
Messages
1,331
Likes
1,591
Location
SouthShore MA
Nonsense. If they were “gun-friendly” and/or knew the law they would have had the licensed relative take possession of the guns in addition to the ammo.

Yeah, seems if they went through the effort to contact a licensed relative they should have simply told them to get all this stuff outta here. Perhaps, there is a policy they need to follow regarding "checking" the guns first. Ya never know, the snubbie that took out Jimmy Hoffa could have been hiding under this guys lazyboy ;-)
 

LTCRN

NES Member
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,980
Likes
615
Location
Southeastern, MA
Contrary to what most people are saying, the Duxbury Police are very gun friendly. The did what they had to do and I’m sure they didn’t like it more than anyone here. They can’t just turn a blind eye if they walk into a violation, they have to enforce it. The problem is with the state and the laws our politicians have passed, not the police.
More of the story is needed. The typical sensationalized article by the newspaper leaves a lot to the imagination.
The PD can turn a blind eye and do the right thing by the homeowner if they wanted to, it's called officer discretion, and it happens everyday with the problems police face within today's society. Was the old man's current mental status the determining factor in the total seizure of his firearms and not just the storage? If he was found to be confused by the calvary upon arrival, it could be something as simple as a UTI that really does a number on an elderly person's mental status. It can cause a fall too, is temporary, and is easily corrected with a few days of IV antibiotics. Did the relative tell the PD that the old man was suffering from Alzheimers / dementia? What if the old man's intentions were to pass them down to the relative that received the ammunition? The difficulty that is going to ensue to get his firearms back, if he wants to, is monumental and totally unnecessary.
No harm resulted from his improper storage. A little updated firearms education goes a long way. Like I said, more of the story is needed.
 

p.tice

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
167
Likes
305
Location
Massachusetts
Nonsense. If they were “gun-friendly” and/or knew the law they would have had the licensed relative take possession of the guns in addition to the ammo.


There must be a reason they couldn’t give them to the relative because if they could’ve then they wouldn’t have taken them. People saying they called in the bomb squad because of ammo. They didn’t call them because they were scared their press release says they called to have someone inspect the ammo and make sure it was safe to pass on to the close relative and I see nothing wrong with that. The ammunition was probably old and they wanted an educated person to verify it’s still useable. What I’m saying is the duxbury police are a lot friendlier than many other PD’s we’ve all heard stories about. I know many of them and they’re all gun loving. Without knowing the full story it’s easy to jump to conclusions.
 

p.tice

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 2, 2020
Messages
167
Likes
305
Location
Massachusetts
More of the story is needed. The typical sensationalized article by the newspaper leaves a lot to the imagination.

Definitely agree. I didn’t realize officers discretion went that far. I wonder if the responding officer had a body camera and it caught a view of the firearms or something to that effect. I think now more than ever we need to be supporting the good PD’s even in Massachusetts. I hate to see Duxbury PD tarnished by this half story because they go out of their way when it comes to guns. For example, my LTC went through within the 40 days during the shutdown. There’s not too many towns that offered the same curtesy.
 

whatluck

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
11,512
Likes
11,104
Location
Braintree, MA
This is why I hate cops. In a sane world the interaction should have been more like this

'ok sir, I'm happy to see you've recovered fully. please fill out these forms and get them to my office asap, we're going to fast-track an LTC for you to keep you legal'

or maybe even

'nice collection, let's make sure we lock up when we leave'
 

looser38

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
2,695
Likes
2,075
Location
S.E. Mass
Step 2, the "nearby licensed relative" should seek a willing FFL to get the gunz out of the hands of the popo asap, before they end up in bonded storage.
No reason why that shouldn't happen.
Besides the fact that, " no charges filed".
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
5,905
Likes
4,780
Location
Louisiana
Definitely agree. I didn’t realize officers discretion went that far. I wonder if the responding officer had a body camera and it caught a view of the firearms or something to that effect. I think now more than ever we need to be supporting the good PD’s even in Massachusetts. I hate to see Duxbury PD tarnished by this half story because they go out of their way when it comes to guns. For example, my LTC went through within the 40 days during the shutdown. There’s not too many towns that offered the same curtesy.

That's the one drawback of having cameras on everyone. There's proof you showed discretion when someone else might feel it wasn't warranted.
Overall, cameras are a good thing, but like damn near everything else, there is a Catch-22.
 

PappyM3

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Messages
2,636
Likes
2,798
Contrary to what most people are saying, the Duxbury Police are very gun friendly. The did what they had to do and I’m sure they didn’t like it more than anyone here. They can’t just turn a blind eye if they walk into a violation, they have to enforce it. The problem is with the state and the laws our politicians have passed, not the police.

That’s BS. Police are afforded discretion. Heck, they utilize it for each other all the time. I say that as someone who largely supports the police force.

As already mentioned, if they felt the need to do something, they would have had the licensed relative take the guns too. Hopefully they are just waiting for the old man to be cognizant enough to approve transfer of them to the relative. I truly hope that is the case and that they’re not either getting sent to a bonded warehouse or held as evidence for prosecution of the man.
 
Last edited:

commodon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
1,142
Likes
1,169
Location
Massachusetts

DUXBURY — Police responding to a medical call ended up seizing 25 guns from a Congress Street homeowner, who wasn’t licensed to have them.

Police were called to the home on Tuesday at about 3:20 p.m. for a report of an 81-year-old man who had fallen and needed help. Duxbury firefighters helped the homeowner who was taken to an area-hospital, according to a statement.

Want news like this sent straight to your inbox? Head over to PatriotLedger.com to sign up for alerts and make sure you never miss a thing. You pick the news you want, we deliver.
While on scene police discovered a number of unsecured firearms in the home and thousands of rounds of ammunition of various calibers in addition to gun powder. Officers determined the homeowner, not identified by police, had a license to carry at one point, but that it expired several years ago. Due to the large amount of ammunition, Duxbury police requested help from the State Police bomb squad to investigate the safety of the stored ammunition. Police determined that there was no danger to the public, and seized three handguns, three shotguns and 19 rifles.


Officers were able to locate at a nearby relative who was properly licensed to take the ammunition. The guns were taken to the Duxbury Police Station. The incident remains under investigation and no charges have been filed as of Wednesday.

Just 25?

1603383556267.png
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
16,109
Likes
13,402
Location
North Shore
Stuff like this just makes people shy away from seeking attention when they need it.
Call an ambulance and your health issues may be the least of your problems.
Christ, there are several rooms in my house the blinds are always closed now after I read that story about some tax assessor peeking in the windows and dropping a dime on the homeowner for improper storage.
Another old guy who never harmed anyone or caused a problem.
 

SERE

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
6,995
Likes
6,175
Location
North of Boston
Definitely agree. I didn’t realize officers discretion went that far. I wonder if the responding officer had a body camera and it caught a view of the firearms or something to that effect. I think now more than ever we need to be supporting the good PD’s even in Massachusetts. I hate to see Duxbury PD tarnished by this half story because they go out of their way when it comes to guns. For example, my LTC went through within the 40 days during the shutdown. There’s not too many towns that offered the same curtesy.

Nothing about the MA gun licensing is a 'curtesy'. Nothing.
 

Chevy 2 65

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2013
Messages
16,950
Likes
9,241
Location
Somewhere in the sands of time
MA's unconstitutional prohibition of simple possession in the home needs to be rectified in federal court. This is ridiculous. It's probably a C&R collection with some bonded warehouse getting giddy at their windfall.
Correct !!! Someone needs to send this to the police and DA, AD, whoever
On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,301
Likes
2,206
Location
Behind Enemy Lines
Best line in the article:

"Due to the large amount of ammunition, police requested help from the State Police bomb squad to investigate the safety of the stored ammunition."

When I kick the bucket and I'm hauled away to wherever, I hope that line ends up in my obituary! [thumbsup]
 

BlackwaterFence

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
963
Likes
433
My dad's in his 80's now and still has his original FID card (or whatever it was called then). Says valid for life unless revoked. He would renew his license and say, "I already paid for this and don't want to pay again" He said they have no reason to revoke, so I won't renew. I eventually took his .22, and his 12 ga Sears Pump Shotgun, and his dad's .22. They are here whenever he wants to shoot.
 

Glockster30

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
8,616
Likes
3,743
Location
Milky Way
There must be a reason they couldn’t give them to the relative because if they could’ve then they wouldn’t have taken them.

Not always true based on my experience. A friend of mine got in a fight with another guy who were both licensed. The CLEO decided to suspend their licenses for 6 months to cool them both down, and brought both collections to the police station where the guns were "cataloged" with a receipt given to both gun owners.

I don't know what the other guy did, but my friend after about a week was allowed to have his licensed brother that lived in another town pick up his firearms and hold/lock them up for the 6 month duration of the suspension. When the 6 months suspension ended, my friend picked up his guns up at his brother's house and brought them home. At the time, he had 40-50 guns in his collection.

So, the gist of the above story is that once the police cataloged the guns, they might have allowed the relative to pick up the old man's guns.
 
Top Bottom