Framingham Man Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison for Illegally Possessing Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking

Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
33,391
Likes
12,268
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
How does the potential sentence for the fed charge of "possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime" compare to a fed charge for defacing a serial number, or the state charge of possession (1 year). And why not charge him with all three? The seem to be holding back.
 
Here is your problem.

He pleaded guilty to these charges in October 2023 and was sentenced to 30 days in prison to run concurrent with the federal sentence imposed today.

The gun - which is a bullspit charge and they know it. 7 years.

"Trafficking" cocaine (they never said how much) - 30 days.

Clearly they are more concerned with scaring you and me than with actually stopping whatever crime is going on.
 
Here is your problem.



The gun - which is a bullspit charge and they know it. 7 years.

"Trafficking" cocaine (they never said how much) - 30 days.

Clearly they are more concerned with scaring you and me than with actually stopping whatever crime is going on.
Why is the gun charge bullspit?

Given the gun and drugs I'm betting he was already PP. And the gun's serial was defaced, so a high likelihood it was stolen. Would you still think it's bullspit if it was a gun stolen from you? Personally I would be ok with them adding a possession and defaced serial charge and give him some more time, but 7 years is good.
 
Unfamiliar. Started with fallout 1 and 2 Fallout 3 started losing me, fallout NV was amazing, and fallout 4 is trash and 76 was a self sealing coffin
Traveler was a role-playing game that was space-based, and you could have weapons from slings and arrows, to man-portable fusion weapons (15 d6 of damage). Gauss pistols and rifles were a thing.

 
The gun - which is a bullspit charge and they know it. 7 years.

"Trafficking" cocaine (they never said how much) - 30 days.

Clearly they are more concerned with scaring you and me than with actually stopping whatever crime is going on.
The gun may be a bullspit charge, but the statute, 18 USC 924(c), carries a minimum sentence of 5 years.

The result was also undoubtedly the result of plea deal. According to the original indictment, Alago had "multiple previous felony convictions for drug distribution and possession and assault with a dangerous weapon." Had he been convicted as a Federal Armed Career Criminal under 18 USC 924(e), he would have been looking at a minimum of 15 years. Sorry, but I really don't have a problem with locking this guy up.

BTW, Bullspit Brewing in Lancaster makes some pretty good beers.
 
Why is the gun charge bullspit?

Given the gun and drugs I'm betting he was already PP. And the gun's serial was defaced, so a high likelihood it was stolen. Would you still think it's bullspit if it was a gun stolen from you? Personally I would be ok with them adding a possession and defaced serial charge and give him some more time, but 7 years is good.
I am not saying this changes the law but they may not want to bother with it or add more to the case law

CNN —
A federal judge in West Virginia has invalidated part of a federal law that prohibits the possession of a firearm with an “altered obliterated, or removed” serial number, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision that demands a historical review of gun laws to determine their constitutionality.

“Firearms with no serial number are just as ‘bearable’ as the same firearm with a serial number,” Judge Joseph Goodwin said in his opinion Wednesday, though he acknowledged that guns missing serial numbers “are likely to be used in violent crime.”

The court’s decision is the latest to reflect how far reaching the Supreme Court has opened up new legal challenges to federal, state and local gun control laws nationwide.


He had a gun (who cares, if he is free, no matter what he should be able to have a gun), nothing in the constitution saying you cant have a firearm without a serial and he had drugs (again who cares)
Try him for being PARKED in a running car for OUI (or w/e its called when high) and if they can prove its stolen they should charge him for that
 
Last edited:
I am not saying this changes the law but they may not want to bother with it or add more to the case law
CNN —
A federal judge in West Virginia has invalidated part of a federal law that prohibits the possession of a firearm with an “altered obliterated, or removed” serial number, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision that demands a historical review of gun laws to determine their constitutionality.

“Firearms with no serial number are just as ‘bearable’ as the same firearm with a serial number,” Judge Joseph Goodwin said in his opinion Wednesday, though he acknowledged that guns missing serial numbers “are likely to be used in violent crime.”

The court’s decision is the latest to reflect how far reaching the Supreme Court has opened up new legal challenges to federal, state and local gun control laws nationwide.

He had a gun (who cares, if he is free, no matter what he should be able to have a gun), nothing in the constitution saying you cant have a firearm without a serial and he had drugs (again who cares)
Try him for being PARKED in a running car for OUI (or w/e its called when high) and if they can prove its stolen they should charge him for that
Judge Joseph Goodwin is Fed District court, not SCOTUS, so only binding in that district.
 
Why is the gun charge bullspit?

Given the gun and drugs I'm betting he was already PP. And the gun's serial was defaced, so a high likelihood it was stolen. Would you still think it's bullspit if it was a gun stolen from you? Personally I would be ok with them adding a possession and defaced serial charge and give him some more time, but 7 years is good.

Let's start with - does he have a right to an attorney? Free speech? Protection from search and seizure? Hell, can Maura house the State Police in his house? Possession is a bullspit charge. 2A doesn't stop because people think "it's dangerous." You are either a free man entitled to have a firearm or you're a prisoner in a prison. Rights don't stop because we don't feel "safe."

Heck, 1A is a pretty scary right as well. Maybe we should restrict it on felons. So is 4A. I mean, if we can stop the bad guys, the bad guys win, right? So let's give up some rights.

They have a known drug dealer and they plead out on the drugs. All so they can point and say, "see, it's the guns that are bad. We need to ban them." But keep playing into their stories. I'd prefer some scumbags to go free and retain my rights. That's all.
 
Let's start with - does he have a right to an attorney? Free speech? Protection from search and seizure? Hell, can Maura house the State Police in his house? Possession is a bullspit charge. 2A doesn't stop because people think "it's dangerous." You are either a free man entitled to have a firearm or you're a prisoner in a prison. Rights don't stop because we don't feel "safe."
All the bolded stuff isn't relevant to the conversation, just the usual fanatical BS of throw lots of irrelevant BS out there when the argument lacks substance.

History of multiple felonies, drugs in dealer quantities, this wasn't some schoolboy walking down the street, he worked hard and made his own choices, to lose his 2a rights. If you don't like the law, work to change it. To be clear, there are gun laws that are too much, and there are times when the DA seems a bit too eager to prosecute. But because there are bad people in the world we need to draw the line someplace. multiple past felonies, seems he's well past the line, based on actual actions on his part.
Heck, 1A is a pretty scary right as well. Maybe we should restrict it on felons. So is 4A. I mean, if we can stop the bad guys, the bad guys win, right? So let's give up some rights.
more irrelevant BS
They have a known drug dealer and they plead out on the drugs. All so they can point and say, "see, it's the guns that are bad. We need to ban them." But keep playing into their stories. I'd prefer some scumbags to go free and retain my rights. That's all.
Neither the article or the charges say anything like this, no "guns are bad" BS. Sure someone will probably say it, but that does not mean you stop prosecuting gun crime.
 
All the bolded stuff isn't relevant to the conversation, just the usual fanatical BS of throw lots of irrelevant BS out there when the argument lacks substance.

History of multiple felonies, drugs in dealer quantities, this wasn't some schoolboy walking down the street, he worked hard and made his own choices, to lose his 2a rights. If you don't like the law, work to change it. To be clear, there are gun laws that are too much, and there are times when the DA seems a bit too eager to prosecute. But because there are bad people in the world we need to draw the line someplace. multiple past felonies, seems he's well past the line, based on actual actions on his part.

more irrelevant BS

Neither the article or the charges say anything like this, no "guns are bad" BS. Sure someone will probably say it, but that does not mean you stop prosecuting gun crime.
If he is safe enough to be on the street then he should enjoy all of his rights.
Drug charges are BS also - adults should be able to indulge in whatever they want to put into their bodies and only suffer consequences if they put others at risk with their subsequent actions.

You don't see people bootlegging alcohol because it's easier and safer to buy from a legal dealer. Lots of people pay the premium to buy weed from licensed shops for the safe and easy part.
Expand that to recreational drugs while reducing to zero any entitlements offered to people using drugs (or get rid of entitlements all together)

Drugs are an issue because society allows them to be an issue
 
If he is safe enough to be on the street then he should enjoy all of his rights.
Drug charges are BS also - adults should be able to indulge in whatever they want to put into their bodies and only suffer consequences if they put others at risk with their subsequent actions.

You don't see people bootlegging alcohol because it's easier and safer to buy from a legal dealer. Lots of people pay the premium to buy weed from licensed shops for the safe and easy part.
Expand that to recreational drugs while reducing to zero any entitlements offered to people using drugs (or get rid of entitlements all together)

Drugs are an issue because society allows them to be an issue
I'm all for changing the rules of the game, but we all know the rules and we all make our own choices, and we all deal with the consequents. Don't like the consequesces, either change the rules or don't brake them.

Under the current laws the charges are totally justified, so not BS. That doesn't mean the laws are right.
 
What is sad is that you're OK with him being detained on what the vast majority of this community feels is a crappy bust (2A grounds) yet are AOK because he was "a bad dude" and "deserved to be punished. . . . again." I'm not sure I want to live in that world. What do I always say about fascism around here? LOL

My points were on-point. His 2A rights were violated. Period. My hope is the SC issues some additional ruling before his 7 years are up and he gets kicked. Not because he's an upstanding citizen. But because he has rights. And the goober-mint should have prosecuted him for being a dirtbag drug dealer instead of using the gun laws. (30 days time served??? C'mon man!)


Besides, all of these self-back-slapping justice department pr moves smack of the same crap Hoover did 60+ years ago. It's all to please the masses while angling to get what you want. Justice doesn't ever play into it.
 
I'm all for changing the rules of the game, but we all know the rules and we all make our own choices, and we all deal with the consequents. Don't like the consequesces, either change the rules or don't brake them.

Under the current laws the charges are totally justified, so not BS. That doesn't mean the laws are right.
Tyranny cannot be justified simply because it is the status quo.
 
Neither the article or the charges say anything like this, no "guns are bad" BS. Sure someone will probably say it, but that does not mean you stop prosecuting gun crime.

The very existence of "unlawful possession" gun laws are defacto "guns are bad" BS. [rofl] EG "gunz r bad and are like nukular wepins having a gun is bad unless u are a saint"

The idea of some person merely posessing a gun and it offends the sensibilities of the state is f***ing stupid. Even if the guy is otherwise a scumbag. That's not "gun crime" its made up statist bullshit. [rofl]
 
Tyranny cannot be justified simply because it is the status quo.

Especially given that, if courts actually took a true, remotely originalist view of 2A, the idea of things like "unlawful possession" or "prohibited person" would be easily ruled as unconstitional, especially absent some other factor. The state might be able to get away with maintaining a law like "armed robbery" because you're focused on the commission of an actual crime and not just the firearm. But a law saying "you cant simply have a firearm, idle on your person" is a bright line 2A violation.
 
Especially given that, if courts actually took a true, remotely originalist view of 2A, the idea of things like "unlawful possession" or "prohibited person" would be easily ruled as unconstitional, especially absent some other factor. The state might be able to get away with maintaining a law like "armed robbery" because you're focused on the commission of an actual crime and not just the firearm. But a law saying "you cant simply have a firearm, idle on your person" is a bright line 2A violation.
I'm also okay with a reduction in sentence that includes prohibition for the remainder of the sentence
If you get 15 years for a violent offense and are released after 10 then no guns or voting for the next 5 years. Then you get your rights back fully.
 
I'm also okay with a reduction in sentence that includes prohibition for the remainder of the sentence
If you get 15 years for a violent offense and are released after 10 then no guns or voting for the next 5 years. Then you get your rights back fully.
I draw the line at probation anybody who's a prohibited person should be under supervised probation if they're not worthy of being under supervised probation then they shouldn't be prohibited or restricted in any way the other problem is that the prohibition is not part of any sentence and it's an automatic trigger Court judges and juries are crippled by the existence of these laws because they're not allowed to determine or select a punishment that's more appropriate. The idea of somebody being subject to a Prohibition that's not specifically handed down by a court is horrible.
 
Back
Top Bottom