GOAL Files Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer Bill

GOAL

NES Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
541
Likes
1,747
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
GOAL Files Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer Bill​

In our continuing effort to punish those who commit crimes with firearms in our Commonwealth, Representative Canavan has filed on GOAL’s behalf “An Act Regarding Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer, Wholesaler or Manufacturer”. Very simply, this proposal would severely punish criminals who break and enter into a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer.

“There is only one reason why someone would break and enter into one of these businesses,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL. “It is our hope that the severity of punishments included in this proposal will send a clear message to the criminal element. That message is simple, these businesses represent an important part of our ability as citizens to exercise our Second Amendment civil rights and we will not tolerate any criminal attempt to unlawfully obtain firearms. Such criminal acts not only endanger the public safety, but inevitably endanger our ability to exercise our civil rights as well.”

This bill is a clear representation of GOAL’s effort to clearly separate the lawful possession issues and the criminal enforcement needs. Because this bill was drafted after the creation of the Civil Rights and Public Safety Act (CRPS Act) found at www.MassGunLawReform.com, GOAL will be asking the legislature to add the Breaking and Entering bill to the CRPS Act.
We urge all of our members to contact the legislators and ask them to sign on to “An Act Regarding Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer, Wholesaler or Manufacturer” as a cosponsor.

An Act Regarding Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer, Wholesaler or Manufacturer​
Chapter 269 of the Massachusetts General Laws shall be amended by inserting the following section:
Section 10F. Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer, Wholesaler or Manufacturer
(A) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters any building in which a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer conducts business shall be subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(B) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters any building in which a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer conducts business with the intent to unlawfully obtain a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition shall be subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(C) Whoever unlawfully obtains a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition by means of breaking and entering, in the nighttime or the daytime, any building in which a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer conducts business and who unlawfully distributes said firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition shall be subject to a fine of not less than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than ten years nor more than twenty years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
 
GOAL Files Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer Bill​

In our continuing effort to punish those who commit crimes with firearms in our Commonwealth, Representative Canavan has filed on GOAL’s behalf “An Act Regarding Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer, Wholesaler or Manufacturer”. Very simply, this proposal would severely punish criminals who break and enter into a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer.

“There is only one reason why someone would break and enter into one of these businesses,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL. “It is our hope that the severity of punishments included in this proposal will send a clear message to the criminal element. That message is simple, these businesses represent an important part of our ability as citizens to exercise our Second Amendment civil rights and we will not tolerate any criminal attempt to unlawfully obtain firearms. Such criminal acts not only endanger the public safety, but inevitably endanger our ability to exercise our civil rights as well.”

This bill is a clear representation of GOAL’s effort to clearly separate the lawful possession issues and the criminal enforcement needs. Because this bill was drafted after the creation of the Civil Rights and Public Safety Act (CRPS Act) found at www.MassGunLawReform.com, GOAL will be asking the legislature to add the Breaking and Entering bill to the CRPS Act.
We urge all of our members to contact the legislators and ask them to sign on to “An Act Regarding Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer, Wholesaler or Manufacturer” as a cosponsor.

An Act Regarding Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer, Wholesaler or Manufacturer​
Chapter 269 of the Massachusetts General Laws shall be amended by inserting the following section:
Section 10F. Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer, Wholesaler or Manufacturer
(A) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters any building in which a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer conducts business shall be subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(B) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters any building in which a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer conducts business with the intent to unlawfully obtain a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition shall be subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(C) Whoever unlawfully obtains a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition by means of breaking and entering, in the nighttime or the daytime, any building in which a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer conducts business and who unlawfully distributes said firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition shall be subject to a fine of not less than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than ten years nor more than twenty years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Jim, I like it.

I do have one big problem with part (b) however. I think that the term "intent" needs to be struck as it implies the ability to determine that thoughts of the criminal. This is very difficult to prove and is difficult to make stick.

An alternative may be:
(B) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters any building in which a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer conducts business and attempts to unlawfully obtain a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition shall be subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
 
I like it. Is there anything on the books about stealing a firearm from a residence?

Id like to know if there are minimum sentences for theft of a firearm in general?

If so, they probably are way outdated.

If the folks that want reasonable gun control, looked at minimum sentences for these type of situations, instead of limiting the access to the law abiding, we would be in a much better place.
 
I'm not a fan of more rules or regulations no matter what form they come in. We'll see what the House/Senate/Governor do with it.
 
I'm not a fan of more rules or regulations no matter what form they come in. We'll see what the House/Senate/Governor do with it.

Unfortunately, all relationships (politics included) are a compromise.

If we can keep the laws clean and aimed at the criminals, instead of broad garbage laws like the ones we have now, it is the right thing to do.

The real trick is getting the criminals to be prosecuted under the laws. It seems to be a trend that the otherwise law abiding citizen that has a .22 round in his pocket in the laundry room, gets prosecuted (read: the book thrown at him) when his house burns down. But the career criminals are continuously released back onto the streets with a mere slap on the wrist for anything.
 
So if someone does a B&E in any building housing several businesses, one of which happens to be a firearms dealer, would this be enforced? I'm thinking of a shop located in, say, a converted mill (like the one next to the Worcester PD station, for example).

So a perp does a B&E of another business in that complex. He has technically broken and entered the building, though perhaps not the space within the building allocated to the firearms retailer.

Are terms like "establishment" or "place of business" or "premises" any better?
 
Last edited:
I like it. Is there anything on the books about stealing a firearm from a residence?

This is in the MassGunLawReform.com

SECTION 31. Chapter 269 of the General Laws shall be amended by inserting after section 9G the following section:-


Section 9H. Theft of a firearm, breaking and entering


(A) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle with the intent to steal a firearm shall be subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years or by both such fine and imprisonment.


(B) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle with the intent to steal a firearm to distribute to a prohibited person shall be subject to a fine of not less than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.


(C) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle with the intent to steal a firearm and in the process causes injury of another shall be subject to a fine of not less than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.


Any motor vehicle lawfully owned or operated by any person convicted under this section shall be forfeit in accordance with the provisions of section 24W of Chapter 90. All proceeds from the auction of said vehicle(s) shall be utilized to fund the Criminal Firearms and Trafficking Division.
 
Does federal statute cover this? I believe it does. Isn't there already a law against B&E in MA? Why is it a gunshop requires special consideration that say, Sears, doesn't enjoy? Is not a chainsaw or ball bat just as deadly as a firearm? or a dryer for that matter? Why is it we need yet another law to cover something probably covered elsewhere? Nothing like laws on top of laws for a judge and prosecutor to ignore. I think my GOAL membership money would be better utilized on more productive ventures. Stop pissing about on "feel good" legislation. You have more important business to attend to.
 
Unfortunately, all relationships (politics included) are a compromise.

If we can keep the laws clean and aimed at the criminals, instead of broad garbage laws like the ones we have now, it is the right thing to do.

The real trick is getting the criminals to be prosecuted under the laws. It seems to be a trend that the otherwise law abiding citizen that has a .22 round in his pocket in the laundry room, gets prosecuted (read: the book thrown at him) when his house burns down. But the career criminals are continuously released back onto the streets with a mere slap on the wrist for anything.

There are a lot of unintended consequences that could come from this. Who enforces it? If you own a gun shop and decide you want/need to work late, when the cops on patrol see the lights on, under this law do they have the right to believe you are B&E before thinking maybe you are just working late?
 
Jim, I like it.

I do have one big problem with part (b) however. I think that the term "intent" needs to be struck as it implies the ability to determine that thoughts of the criminal. This is very difficult to prove and is difficult to make stick.

An alternative may be:
(B) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters any building in which a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer conducts business and attempts to unlawfully obtain a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition shall be subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.

I agree with this. In this crap hole, the legistraitors when faced with defining "intent" basically set some bogus and arbitrary threshold that ends up catching the good guys. Case in point, in NY, trafficking in firearms (a major felony there in NY) is defined clearly like elsewhere. However, they add intent (so as to make the cop's jobs easier, cry me a river) and then say intent is formed (ie; defined as) when anyone without a permit who possess more than x guns is automatically guilty of intent to distribute (a more minor gotcha for NY residents) and (this is the major gotcha) anyone with a permit in NY (ie; lawful owner) possesses more than Y number of guns (it is 20 for long guns, but for handguns I think 6 but I can't find the cite) outside the home (ie; you can own them but don't take them all with you at once).

Strike "intent". If they break in, that is the bar. Adding in intent does nothing and serves no purpose ever in any law. It is BS solely to appease fascists and authoritarians ass kissers.
 
Last edited:
or we could just enforce breaking and entering laws already on the books. I don't see why someone should get in varying degrees of "trouble" as a result of what kind of business they broke into. To me this is based on the same bad logic as "hate" crimes.
 
GOAL did a good job. While it might have been possible to fine-tune it, the horse has left the barn and this bill has been filed. I very much doubt GOAL is going to ask that it be withdrawn and re-filed so that NES suggestions can be incorporated.

This presents an interesting dilemma for the legislatures - "On behalf of" bills are typically given very little respect (since any legislature must file on behalf of any constituent who so requests it - quote different from the rep introducting the bill as his own), but this one would seem to be a no-brainer for both sides of the issue if they vote on the merits of the bill instead of discarding it into the "on behalf of" scrapheap.
 
An Act Regarding Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer, Wholesaler or Manufacturer​
Chapter 269 of the Massachusetts General Laws shall be amended by inserting the following section:
Section 10F. Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer, Wholesaler or Manufacturer
(A) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters any building in which a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer conducts business shall be subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.
(B) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters any building in which a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer conducts business with the intent to unlawfully obtain a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition shall be subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.




Actually the intent is good but the law is very poorly written in my opinion.

The law would not apply to a gun store that does not sell "handguns" as the law applies to breaking into a "firearms" retailer.

A definition of "firearms retailer" should be added.



(C) Whoever unlawfully obtains a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition by means of breaking and entering, in the nighttime or the daytime, any building in which a firearm retailer, wholesaler or manufacturer conducts business and who unlawfully distributes said firearm, rifle, shotgun, machinegun or ammunition shall be subject to a fine of not less than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than ten years nor more than twenty years or by both such fine and imprisonment.


It is attempted to be covered here but it only addresses the actual theft and distribution. Nothing about the actual break itself.

Just my $.02​
 
This is in the MassGunLawReform.com

SECTION 31. Chapter 269 of the General Laws shall be amended by inserting after section 9G the following section:-


Section 9H. Theft of a firearm, breaking and entering


(A) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle with the intent to steal a firearm shall be subject to a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years or by both such fine and imprisonment.


(B) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle with the intent to steal a firearm to distribute to a prohibited person shall be subject to a fine of not less than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.


(C) Whoever in the nighttime or the daytime breaks and enters a building, ship, vessel or vehicle with the intent to steal a firearm and in the process causes injury of another shall be subject to a fine of not less than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than ten years or by both such fine and imprisonment.


Any motor vehicle lawfully owned or operated by any person convicted under this section shall be forfeit in accordance with the provisions of section 24W of Chapter 90. All proceeds from the auction of said vehicle(s) shall be utilized to fund the Criminal Firearms and Trafficking Division.


Again....the bill should have been written to include, rifles and shotguns.
 
With respect, I do not support such laws. We have far too many existing laws that aren't enforced. Adding another specialized law just adds complication with no benefit.

Frankly, I don't see that burglaries of firearms dealers are any different in their impact to society than any other type of burglary. I'm a life member of GOAL and support the fine work that they do. But these types of laws are complete crap and totally unnecessary. It's like the hate crime laws -- the penalties depend, in part, upon who the victim was.

We should amend the state constitution to require that for every law passed, two must be repealed.
 
GOAL did a good job. While it might have been possible to fine-tune it, the horse has left the barn and this bill has been filed. I very much doubt GOAL is going to ask that it be withdrawn and re-filed so that NES suggestions can be incorporated.

This presents an interesting dilemma for the legislatures - "On behalf of" bills are typically given very little respect (since any legislature must file on behalf of any constituent who so requests it - quote different from the rep introducting the bill as his own), but this one would seem to be a no-brainer for both sides of the issue if they vote on the merits of the bill instead of discarding it into the "on behalf of" scrapheap.

This is likely all true, but our feedback can help for future proposals or if and more likely when the bill goes into a committee. It is also good for us to discuss what is out there. Also, I suspect this may be a political move on GOALs part to engender good will on The Hill regardless if it makes it into law or not. This is a win/win from GOALs perspective.
 
In our continuing effort to punish those who commit crimes with firearms in our Commonwealth,

“There is only one reason why someone would break and enter into one of these businesses,”

“It is our hope that the severity of punishments included in this proposal will send a clear message to the criminal element.

we will not tolerate any criminal attempt to unlawfully obtain firearms. Such criminal acts not only endanger the public safety,

Don't look now GOAL but you sound a lot like Sam Sutter. The same person you were bashing a week ago for similar comments.

Just Sayin......
 
The law would not apply to a gun store that does not sell "handguns" as the law applies to breaking into a "firearms" retailer.

Well, not necessarily, since the law would be part of chapter 269, and the definition of 'firearm' you are referring to only applies to sections 122 through 131P of chapter 140. Still, you're right that it might be good to clarify, as is done in C. 269 § 10(a) and (j).

----

What's the point of the wording "in the nighttime or the daytime"?
 
Well, not necessarily, since the law would be part of chapter 269, and the definition of 'firearm' you are referring to only applies to sections 122 through 131P of chapter 140. Still, you're right that it might be good to clarify, as is done in C. 269 § 10(a) and (j).

----

What's the point of the wording "in the nighttime or the daytime"?


There have been many cases dismissed in court for Larceny of Firearm under Chapter 266 because the "firearm" was a shotgun or rifle.

The fact that you and I could have an intelligent debate about it by arguing different points of view means that it is a poorly written law. IMO.

We should be striving to clean up the language.[wink]
 
----

What's the point of the wording "in the nighttime or the daytime"?



Ma law has enhanced penalties for breaking and entering offenses that occur at night. I am willing to bet they were attempting to mirror those.

But I think your point is......just make the penalties the same.
 
I'm completely at a loss as to the intent of (B). It imposes the exact same penalties as (A) for the exact same offense as (A), only with the additional requirement that intent be proved. Removing it entirely from the bill would not change it in any way, except to eliminate the confusion suffered by people seeking some reason for it's existence. If there is some actual reason for the inclusion (B), the actual text of the bill doesn't provides any hint. Perhaps the intent was that when specific intent could be proved either higher penalties could be imposed or the places covered might be broadened. If that was the case, the text fails to reflect it.

Ken
 
I'm completely at a loss as to the intent of (B). It imposes the exact same penalties as (A) for the exact same offense as (A), only with the additional requirement that intent be proved.

I assumed the idea was to be able to charge somebody with both. If intent was proven you'd be able to convict on both charges, potentially doubling the punishment.
 
I'm completely at a loss as to the intent of (B). It imposes the exact same penalties as (A) for the exact same offense as (A), only with the additional requirement that intent be proved. Removing it entirely from the bill would not change it in any way, except to eliminate the confusion suffered by people seeking some reason for it's existence. If there is some actual reason for the inclusion (B), the actual text of the bill doesn't provides any hint. Perhaps the intent was that when specific intent could be proved either higher penalties could be imposed or the places covered might be broadened. If that was the case, the text fails to reflect it.

Ken


My guess is to cover stores such as Dicks, Walmart etc......If one were to break into one of these stores to steal electronics they would not be subject to the enhanced penalties just because they also sold firearms.

Just my opinion.
 
My guess is to cover stores such as Dicks, Walmart etc......If one were to break into one of these stores to steal electronics they would not be subject to the enhanced penalties just because they also sold firearms.

Just my opinion.

I agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom