GOAL Files Breaking and Entering of a Firearm Retailer Bill

[Chris]

I dunno...

I kinda like this law:

You Loot - We Shoot!

Seems like the problem would quickly take care of itself.

Damn liberals like to drag things out. "Well, this time he just broke in and took the Big Screen TVs, we'll just give him a suspended sentence and tell him not to do it again." And Mungo is back on the street ready to pick up where he left off. Where is the deterrence?

While I like the idea of thowing the book at a dangerous criminal, I see this kind of legislation as a "throw away" used only to drop with the agreement of some sweet plea bargain. Sort of like the Bartly-Fox law that nobody can find an example of a dangerous criminal actually serving time for - just people without the right papers.

 

[cekim]

GOAL, I am going to have to call this for what it is - Lobby Fluff... Please stop wasting your time and donated money...

It's low hanging fruit in the legislative world that won't have any beneficial effect whatsoever, but should be easy to push through as legislators are always happy to write redundant, pointless "tough on crime" laws that do not increase, improve, or clarify the rights of gun owners or cost them anything up front...

Of all places, the last thing MASS needs is more laws that say the same thing yet do nothing...

I understand why you are doing this - so you can put a notch in your belt with an easy vital shot and profes "progress" when it comes time to hit up people for donations.

However, it is a waste of manpower and ultimately just adds to the stack of useless laws that will not stop, lower or diminish crime in any way shape or form...

A right (to gun ownership in this case) which is easily removed with any nit-picking violation of a stack of obtuse and vague laws is no right at all...

It should be abundantly clear that the crime problem WRT to guns is not coming from law abiding citizens filling out paper work following the letter of the tortured law and waiting months to get a gun all the while paying $100's to the state for the pleasure of enduring this process...

That is what Gun Lobby entities should focus their energy on, not adding redundant laws to increase lawyer job security... Please don't tell me you are doing "that too" - every word, every step has an opportunity cost - so the breath wasted on this garbage could have been better spent...

 

[wolf223]

wow - this is informative to say the least.

 

[KMaurer]

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.

That would explain why they included (A), but once that's there why tack on (B)? Anybody who would think that any Massachusetts court would convict someone on two separate charges that are essentially identical hasn't been around much. For example, when was the last time you saw somebody arrested for illegal possession of ammunition also charged with illegal possession of ammunition components? We all know that they're much more eager to throw the book at someone for this sort of technical offense than they are at real criminals.

Ken

 

[cekim]

We all know that they're much more eager to throw the book at someone for this sort of technical offense than they are at real criminals.
....
Anybody who would think that any Massachusetts court would convict someone on two separate charges that are essentially identical hasn't been around much.

I happen to be very close to people who have worked as ADAs, with AUSAs and clerked for Federal Judges...

The ADAs and AUSAs of the world are there to win cases... They get a folder and they try to find the slam dunks amongst the myriad of charges the arresting/charging entity heaped on the defendant (many of which may very well be redundant as the law+evidence may favor one nuanced version of a crime vs the other...)

Day-to-day they are not thinking about the bigger picture and most of the time they aren't really thinking about "justice" per se. They are doing a job and success in that job means winning cases and not wasting resources on lost causes...

This is why they love drugs and gun crime - they are a relatively simple binary conviction - either you had them or you didn't. Either they tested positive for a controlled substances or they didn't... Either you had the gun or you didn't... It was either either loaded or not...

All the nuances of other charges like robbery, assault, attempted murder anything that has a threshold for intent and forethought - that stuff is complicated and juries are shall we say "not good with complicated"...

So, the arresting officer takes a guess that someone's done something bad and arrests you. His report then turns into a list of charges and a stack of evidence...

From there up the chain to the DA/AG its all about stats - getting convictions. So, they love "binary" proof things. Technicalities that have low thresholds like obstruction of justice, possession...

This is why Martha went down for obstruction, not insider trading...

So, no, you won't see convictions on 2 counts for the most part, but if you were a fly on the wall watching the process from arraignment to plea/conviction, you'd see that you start with a laundry list of offenses and whittle down to what they can most easily prove. The more variations they have to start with, the better in most cases as far as the prosecution is concerned...

 

[Half Cocked]

That would explain why they included (A), but once that's there why tack on (B)? Anybody who would think that any Massachusetts court would convict someone on two separate charges that are essentially identical hasn't been around much. For example, when was the last time you saw somebody arrested for illegal possession of ammunition also charged with illegal possession of ammunition components? We all know that they're much more eager to throw the book at someone for this sort of technical offense than they are at real criminals.

Ken

Ken,

They are not "tack on" charges. They are two seperate laws.

Paragraph (A) would essentially cover one who breaks into a "firearm retailer" period. This would cover a kid who breaks into Dick's Sporting goods to steal hockey equipment and has no interest in stealing firearms. But because the store is considered a "firearm retailer" it would fall under the new law.

Paragraph (B) would be the subsection you would charge someone who broke into Dick's with the sole intent of stealing firearms. This would also apply to one who broke into a "Specialized gun shop" that sells primarily firearms.

You would charge with one or the other...not both.

I hope this clears things up and this is only my professional opinion based upon the way it is worded.

You would have to ask GOAL what their intent was.

 

[KMaurer]

Ken,

They are not "tack on" charges. They are two seperate laws.

Paragraph (A) would essentially cover one who breaks into a "firearm retailer" period. This would cover a kid who breaks into Dick's Sporting goods to steal hockey equipment and has no interest in stealing firearms. But because the store is considered a "firearm retailer" it would fall under the new law.

Paragraph (B) would be the subsection you would charge someone who broke into Dick's with the sole intent of stealing firearms. This would also apply to one who broke into a "Specialized gun shop" that sells primarily firearms.

You would charge with one or the other...not both.

I hope this clears things up and this is only my professional opinion based upon the way it is worded.

You would have to ask GOAL what their intent was.

Thanks for making my point. Since they'd charge one or the other, no sane prosecutor would ever charge (B) rather than (A), since it has exactly the same penalties as (A), requires him to prove every element he would have had to prove to convict under (A), but additionally requires that he prove intent. Same upside if he wins the case, but a significantly bigger chance of losing.

Ken

 

[Half Cocked]

Thanks for making my point. Since they'd charge one or the other, no sane prosecutor would ever charge (B) rather than (A), since it has exactly the same penalties as (A), requires him to prove every element he would have had to prove to convict under (A), but additionally requires that he prove intent. Same upside if he wins the case, but a significantly bigger chance of losing.

Ken

+1 to you Ken as I had not noticed that the penalties were the same. I had noticed the enhanced penalties for (C) and drew a false conclusion that the penalties were graduated.

Kudos to you....

This law is VERY poorly written and frankly is unnecessary when you look at the current state of Ma gun laws. There are far bigger fish to fry.

 

[FalArAk]

Isn't the theft of a firearm from an FFL already breaking a federal law ?

Personally,I am wondering why ANY laws regarding firearms are being brought forth.Let the MA politicians deal with that shit.Fighting existing laws rather than coming up with new ones is a better thing to do IMO.

 

[terraformer]

Personally,I am wondering why ANY laws regarding firearms are being brought forth.Let the MA politicians deal with that shit.Fighting existing laws rather than coming up with new ones is a better thing to do IMO.

It allows you to control what the law says, otherwise people can slide crap into it and have the law reach much further than the supposed intent.

 

[FalArAk]

It allows you to control what the law says, otherwise people can slide crap into it and have the law reach much further than the supposed intent.

Ok,so when this bill reaches some lawmakers desk,what's not to say the lawmaker would start adding crap to the bill ?

Before you know it,the bill will stray so far from it's original intent (which I am still trying to figure out,I guess it's illegal to commit robbery now) the law now says that ALL guns in MA must be secured in a 4 ton safe and a trooper on detail outside your house 24/7 with a 1 million dollar insurance rider on each gun owned.

I know laws are needed for a functioning society,but damn..

I say don't give these crooked politicians any ideas on ANY laws regarding guns.

 

[cekim]

I know laws are needed for a functioning society,but damn..

My specific complaint is that this law doesn't seem to address any particular "need" of gun owners. I guess perhaps its a bone tossed to shop owners? Do they really care? A B&E is a B&E to them - I think they understand like I do that a few new paragraphs isn't going to change the crime rate much if at all...

It isn't a major source of illicit guns is it? There isn't a loophole in the law that allows people to walk if they B&E right?

So, in the context of gun legislation, it is just a "bone" thrown to someone to say they got something done...

If it were coupled with something more useful to the gun community like say reflecting the recent SCOTUS ruling, then ok - I understand you need "lubricate" legislation to get it through the colon of the legislative body...

This one just seems to be all lubricant and no object...

 

[Biggsy]

For anyone who thinks the bill isn't necessary due to B+E already being illegal. I read a lot of criminal history reports as part of my crappy job. Its not uncommon to see someone with multiple counts of B+E being sentenced to 2-3 years. I'm told this is because its a "victimless crime". If you have a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence, that is 2 more years the criminal is incarcerated and not committing crimes. While I agree we have way too many laws already, I think GOAL is pretty good about drafting laws that make sense.

 

[terraformer]

Ok,so when this bill reaches some lawmakers desk,what's not to say the lawmaker would start adding crap to the bill?

At the federal level at least, there are restrictions to editing bills. The edits are separate and subject to removal by committee. Or something like that. I don't remember the specifics and the specifics are complex.

 

[cekim]

Its not uncommon to see someone with multiple counts of B+E being sentenced to 2-3 years.
....
I think GOAL is pretty good about drafting laws that make sense

Well, there you go - the problem is bigger than guns - why make it specific to guns?

Sentencing in general, from my peripheral view into the DAs office was problematic... Lots of slash and burn deal making to get through large stacks of cases on their desk...

I agree - in general, they seem to be pretty reasonable - my complaint was pretty specific to this one...

 

[FalArAk]

At the federal level at least, there are restrictions to editing bills. The edits are separate and subject to removal by committee. Or something like that. I don't remember the specifics and the specifics are complex.

You're probably right.

All my knowledge of laws come from School House Rock.

"I hope and pray that I will,but today I am still...just a bill".

 

[terraformer]

You're probably right.

All my knowledge of laws come from School House Rock.

"I hope and pray that I will,but today I am still...just a bill".

http://www.videosift.com/video/Simpsons-Version-of-School-House-Rocks-Im-Just-a-Bill

 

[mikem317]

Thanks for these recent submissions Jim.

I plan on drafting a email to Senator Scott Brown and Representative Richard Ross soon.

Maybe I ought to CC Martha Coakley!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Great move of GOALs part. We can spend out time reacting to their proposals, or they can spend their time reacting to ours. Sun Tsu would probably have approved.

 

[Coyote33]

This does make the poster they don't print (which is supposedly required by law) bigger.

PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

CHAPTER 269. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE

Chapter 269: Section 11. Printing statutes for posters; display


Section 11. The state secretary shall, annually, cause to be printed, in English and in such other languages as he may deem necessary, and in large letters so as to be easily read, for use as a poster, section one hundred and thirty-one of chapter one hundred and forty and sections ten, twelve B, and fourteen of this chapter. Sufficient copies of the said posters shall be sent to the clerks and to the superintendents of schools in all cities and towns for their use as herein provided. The city or town clerks shall cause posters received by them to be displayed in such places as they may select, and in such numbers, according to the population of the city or town, as its clerk may deem expedient. The superintendents of schools shall cause the posters received by them to be distributed among the schools within their jurisdiction, and in such numbers as they may deem necessary. The cost of preparing and printing the posters and of distributing them to the various cities and towns shall be paid by the commonwealth, and the cost of placing or affixing them in each city or town shall be paid by that city or town.

 

[M1911]

For anyone who thinks the bill isn't necessary due to B+E already being illegal. I read a lot of criminal history reports as part of my crappy job. Its not uncommon to see someone with multiple counts of B+E being sentenced to 2-3 years. I'm told this is because its a "victimless crime". If you have a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence, that is 2 more years the criminal is incarcerated and not committing crimes. While I agree we have way too many laws already, I think GOAL is pretty good about drafting laws that make sense.

The solution to laws not being enforced, sentences being too short, etc., is not to define one more crime that will not be properly prosecuted, and for which sentences will be too short, etc.

 

[Half Cocked]

For anyone who thinks the bill isn't necessary due to B+E already being illegal. I read a lot of criminal history reports as part of my crappy job. Its not uncommon to see someone with multiple counts of B+E being sentenced to 2-3 years. I'm told this is because its a "victimless crime".

It is not that it is a "victimless crime". It is absolutely a victim crime. The problem is that the victims never show up at court and lose interest in the cases. Therefore DA's offices are forced to plea out cases to get the best deal that they can get.

If you have a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence, that is 2 more years the criminal is incarcerated and not committing crimes. While I agree we have way too many laws already, I think GOAL is pretty good about drafting laws that make sense.

Minimum madatories can be worked around by pleading to lesser included offenses. The fact there are mandatories mean nothing.

 

[cekim]

Minimum madatories can be worked around by pleading to lesser included offenses. The fact there are mandatories mean nothing.

Agreed... Until you've got a body, gun or drugs or a CORI so thick you need a push cart to carry it - you are likely to get plead out if you have even half decent representation...

As I understand it, there have been some changes made, but a few years ago, even 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc... DUI offenses would get plead down because of obtuse requirements to certify the prior offenses...

So, you'd have someone who clearly had been convicted 4 times for DUI (based on the CORI) pleading out to a DUI 3rd for the sake of expediency and "getting a win"...

More paragraphs aren't going to fix this... We either have to staff up the courts or unclog them on the front end... (or both?)

We've got a MASSIVE problem brewing in our justice system in the form of an entire sub-class of people churned through this system with slaps on the wrist through their teen years (criminalizing behavior that used to be handled by parents at a younger age before people got hurt) and then longer and longer sentences as they get older...

I don't know how to fix it - but we've at least got to stop making it worse... Sorry, that gets a little OT - but its all tied together to say the same thing...

This B&E measure is won't even warm the room for a few minutes with its hot air - move along, nothing to see here...

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Considering the federal penalties for NFA violations, I think the proposed penalties for B&E of a gun shop are much too light.

I think there should be a minimum fifteen year sentence without the possibility of early release and a maximum of twentyfive along with a $250,000.00 fine.

Night time should be automatic life, with minimum of forty years served before parole eligibility.

The reason crime is so high is there is no deterrent factor in any penalty.