Gould v O'Leary - Comm2A Carry Case v. Boston / Brookline

[AHM]

But yes, if you get hauled up on charges and not just a "Hey, put that away and don't let me catch you carrying it again," yeah, you're probably gonna get f***ed when you try to renew.

It could be a major mistake to assume it'll take that long.

If one thinks a distant police department
is going to dime one out to your town while you're traveling,
the Massprudent approach is to get someone back home to
immediately move all one's Guns'n'Ammo out of state, sigh.

 

[Waher]

View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1255934193793630208

 

[jhagberg88]

View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1255934193793630208

Wow, so I can be killed the first time, NBD

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It could be a major mistake to assume it'll take that long.

If one thinks a distant police department
is going to dime one out to your town while you're traveling,
the Massprudent approach is to get someone back home to
immediately move all one's Guns'n'Ammo out of state, sigh.

Not good enough. You may declare this removes them from MA jurisdiction, but if they are still under your control, the state may argue you have constructive possession and get a conviction for your not obeying a surrender order. Better to get them into the hands of a friendly FFL and possiblle eFA-10 <=4 to a trusted friend.

And to those of you who will declare I am wrong - just remember it is what the marsupial courts say, not what you assert based on your reading of the law, that matters when stuff like this goes down.

 

[Lank]

View: https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1255934193793630208

"It depends"....... Sounds like "progressive" thought-pablum.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

"It depends"....... Sounds like "progressive" thought-pablum.

"May have a right" .... the ultimate content free phrase.

 

[Drix]

Better to get them into the hands of a friendly FFL and possiblle eFA-10 <=4 to a trusted friend.

Even that's not far enough, I had experience with this after purchasing a used firearm. Your EFA10 doesn't mean shit in the eyes of the police.

 

[Boston4567]

Not good enough. You may declare this removes them from MA jurisdiction, but if they are still under your control, the state may argue you have constructive possession and get a conviction for your not obeying a surrender order. Better to get them into the hands of a friendly FFL and possiblle eFA-10 <=4 to a trusted friend.

And to those of you who will declare I am wrong - just remember it is what the marsupial courts say, not what you assert based on your reading of the law, that matters when stuff like this goes down.

My question is, what obligations can a PD place on you after your license is revoked to go up to your vacation house in NH, let's say, and make you transport those guns (illegally, once you're unlicensed) into MA? Is disclosure of the location of the guns in NH sufficient?

 

[StevieP]

"It depends"....... Sounds like "progressive" thought-pablum.

"May have a right" .... the ultimate content free phrase.

“The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” -- R. Reagan

 

[Lank]

“The trouble with our Liberal leftist friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” -- R. Reagan

Reagan meant well. There is not a shred of liberty in the current left wing movement.

 

[Len-2A Training]

My question is, what obligations can a PD place on you after your license is revoked to go up to your vacation house in NH, let's say, and make you transport those guns (illegally, once you're unlicensed) into MA? Is disclosure of the location of the guns in NH sufficient?

That is not how it works. MA PD calls PD in other state and requests them to break into your house and confiscate the guns/ammo/etc. If it is a DV issue, Fed Law mandates that the non-MA PD does this (Lautenberg Act), however for any other reason the non-MA PD is not legally obligated to act.

 

[Boston4567]

That is not how it works. MA PD calls PD in other state and requests them to break into your house and confiscate the guns/ammo/etc. If it is a DV issue, Fed Law mandates that the non-MA PD does this (Lautenberg Act), however for any other reason the non-MA PD is not legally obligated to act.

True - I'm thinking of 'suitability' denials in particular, not DV. I get that DV is different because of federal law.

Personally I'm not worried about breaking a law that would make me a PP, but I could definitely imagine a situation where I was revoked for suitability. And I've often thought about what obligations I'd have, and what action could be taken, if I kept half my guns out of state and got a suitability revocation.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

True - I'm thinking of 'suitability' denials in particular, not DV. I get that DV is different because of federal law.

The difference is that some PDs take the position that ever having an RO against you, even one that expired without any allegation you violated it, is a lifetime disqualifier. The MA courts have agreed.

 

[Len-2A Training]

True - I'm thinking of 'suitability' denials in particular, not DV. I get that DV is different because of federal law.

Personally I'm not worried about breaking a law that would make me a PP, but I could definitely imagine a situation where I was revoked for suitability. And I've often thought about what obligations I'd have, and what action could be taken, if I kept half my guns out of state and got a suitability revocation.

In a suitability situation the person is not a PP and the non-MA PD is likely to tell the MA PD "thanks for letting us know" and do nothing with that info. Failure to tell the MA PD where everything is located is a PP felony in itself (C. 269 S. 10 - one of the subsections here) and has been prosecuted in the past.

 

[Boston4567]

In a suitability situation the person is not a PP and the non-MA PD is likely to tell the MA PD "thanks for letting us know" and do nothing with that info. Failure to tell the MA PD where everything is located is a PP felony in itself (C. 269 S. 10 - one of the subsections here) and has been prosecuted in the past.

So the gist, is, if you have a place in NH, you should keep guns you don't use regularly up there (particularly high-value ones) for safekeeping. If MA revokes based on suitability, tell the MA PD where the rest of your guns are in NH, and your obligation ends there. They won't be able to get them and you have no obligation to deliver them.

Given the state we live in, it's good to have thought these things out in advance.

 

[Glockster30]

In a suitability situation the person is not a PP and the non-MA PD is likely to tell the MA PD "thanks for letting us know" and do nothing with that info. Failure to tell the MA PD where everything is located is a PP felony in itself (C. 269 S. 10 - one of the subsections here) and has been prosecuted in the past.

So the gist, is, if you have a place in NH, you should keep guns you don't use regularly up there (particularly high-value ones) for safekeeping. If MA revokes based on suitability, tell the MA PD where the rest of your guns are in NH, and your obligation ends there. They won't be able to get them and you have no obligation to deliver them.

Given the state we live in, it's good to have thought these things out in advance.

In trying to think this through, if no DV is involved, and a MA resident established dual residency in MA and NH and had all of his/her firearms transferred through an NH FFL, then it would appear that even if found unsuitable in MA, is there still an obligation to tell MA police where the guns are in NH? My first inclination is that the person wouldn't need to tell the MA police where the location of the guns in NH is and can tell the MA police to pound sand...no?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So the gist, is, if you have a place in NH, you should keep guns you don't use regularly up there (particularly high-value ones) for safekeeping. If MA revokes based on suitability, tell the MA PD where the rest of your guns are in NH, and your obligation ends there. They won't be able to get them and you have no obligation to deliver them.

Given the state we live in, it's good to have thought these things out in advance.

Your declaration that your obligation ends there is worth just about as any other "NES Declaration" in a MA courtroom. A MA court would likely hold that the guns were still under your control and you had to surrender them as well. Just ask any competent firearms attorney who knows how the game is played.

 

[Boston4567]

In trying to think this through, if no DV is involved, and a MA resident established dual residency in MA and NH and had all of his/her firearms transferred through an NH FFL, then it would appear that even if found unsuitable in MA, is there still an obligation to tell MA police where the guns are in NH? My first inclination is that the person wouldn't need to tell the MA police where the location of the guns in NH is and can tell the MA police to pound sand...no?

No transfer through an FFL in the scenario I'm describing. They're still your guns and you own them, you're just storing them in NH. MA law requires you to surrender all guns after revocation. The question is whether the reach of MA law extends beyond state lines, and if so, what are the practical implications.

Your declaration that your obligation ends there is worth just about as any other "NES Declaration" in a MA courtroom. A MA court would likely hold that the guns were still under your control and you had to surrender them as well. Just ask any competent firearms attorney who knows how the game is played.

I'm not making a statement, just a suggestion and I'm asking if it's right. The question is, what's the right response in that situation exactly? Post-revocation, if you drive up to NH to retrieve them and bring them back to MA, you're a felon as soon as you cross the state line into MA with a revoked LTC. So what would be the best approach to take in that scenario?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So what would be the best approach to take in that scenario?

Arrange to have both possession and title transferred to a trusted friend or shop prior to revocation. If after revocation, get a shop (209a) or LTC holder (non-209a) to take possession and title immediately. Use someone you trust to transfer title back.

 

[Glockster30]

No transfer through an FFL in the scenario I'm describing. They're still your guns and you own them, you're just storing them in NH. MA law requires you to surrender all guns after revocation. The
question is whether the reach of MA law extends beyond state lines, and if so, what are the practical implications.

Yes, I know your example did not include FFL transfers. However, I added another scenario to the equation and would like to know if a MA resident established dual residency, had firearms transferred through an NH FFL and stored firearms in NH, if his MA LTC was revoked/suspended, is there any legal requirement to let the popo know where they are located in NH?

 

[milktree]

Arrange to have both possession and title transferred to a trusted friend or shop prior to revocation. If after revocation, get a shop (209a) or LTC holder (non-209a) to take possession and title immediately. Use someone you trust to transfer title back.

"title"?

What does that mean?

Since there's no *registration* in Mass, and not even reporting in NH, if you have dual residency you can "transfer" them to anyone you want without paperwork.

 

[Mesatchornug]

"title"?

What does that mean?

Since there's no *registration* in Mass, and not even reporting in NH, if you have dual residency you can "transfer" them to anyone you want without paperwork.

My impression is that he's saying your rear would be better covered if you had a bill of sale or similar to demonstrate that the firearms the Commonwealth believes to belong to you do not. Otherwise. you find yourself in front of the court attempting to explain that you handed such dangerous items over to...someone...but you have no evidence to back your claim.

 

[Boston4567]

Yes, I know your example did not include FFL transfers. However, I added another scenario to the equation and would like to know if a MA resident established dual residency, had firearms transferred through an NH FFL and stored firearms in NH, if his MA LTC was revoked/suspended, is there any legal requirement to let the popo know where they are located in NH?

Ah, I see. In that scenario they couldn't touch those guns, and and you have no legal reporting requirement to the police because they're not your guns anymore.

That said, if the guns were purchased in MA, the police may (will) have a list of your purchases from MIRCS when they show up. If you can't produce them and your response is "I sold them" but you don't have documentation, they might toss your house looking for them, and it's possible they could haul you in anyway when they don't find them, especially if they think there's deception involved. With documentation of the sale to a third party, it's hard to imagine they could do anything.

If you're suggesting transferring title via FFL to a third party but keeping possession of them at your own NH house in that scenario though, you're still technically in possession of them and you would be in violation of G.L. c. 140 Section 129D.

 

[Coyote33]

To be fair, this conversation was the first time I remember seeing the word "title" used in describing firearms ownership or transactions.

 

[teamRR]

If you weren't otherwise prohibited (ie as a felon) why would you not just tell MA where the guns were? NH isn't going to collect the guns under those circumstances.

I don't get the point here.

 

[Boston4567]

If you weren't otherwise prohibited (ie as a felon) why would you not just tell MA where the guns were? NH isn't going to collect the guns under those circumstances.

I don't get the point here.

This is the heart of my question - the law requires you to "without delay deliver or surrender" your guns. So if you have guns in NH and you notify the MA PD of their location, arguably, you've just incriminated yourself by disclosing that you have guns that you're not surrendering.

Yes, NH isn't going to collect the guns, but that doesn't prevent MA from charging you. The law could be read to require you to retrieve them, wherever they are located.

But if you go to retrieve them, the minute you re-enter MA while your LTC is revoked, you're an unlicensed person in possession of firearms.

It's a complete catch-22, and no one has really explained what to do if you end up in this situation without having had the forewarning necessary to transfer your guns to someone else. I don't think there's a good answer to be had.

 

[Mesatchornug]

This is the heart of my question - the law requires you to "without delay deliver or surrender" your guns. So if you have guns in NH and you notify the MA PD of their location, arguably, you've just incriminated yourself by disclosing that you have guns that you're not surrendering.

Yes, NH isn't going to collect the guns, but that doesn't prevent MA from charging you. The law could be read to require you to retrieve them, wherever they are located.

But if you go to retrieve them, the minute you re-enter MA while your LTC is revoked, you're an unlicensed person in possession of firearms.

It's a complete catch-22, and no one has really explained what to do if you end up in this situation without having had the forewarning necessary to transfer your guns to someone else. I don't think there's a good answer to be had.

Maybe I'm crazy, it seems you could just transfer them in NH to a third party then return to MA and inform then that you're no longer in possession

 

[Coyote33]

Let's get back to the case. Where is it at, and what are the next steps? How does this fit in with all the other cases that are happening right now?

 

[Boston4567]

Maybe I'm crazy, it seems you could just transfer them in NH to a third party then return to MA and inform then that you're no longer in possession

That would only work if it was before the revocation. The law is very specific - "Upon revocation [...] the person [...] shall without delay deliver or surrender to the licensing authority where the person resides all firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition which the person then possesses".

 

[terraformer]

That would only work if it was before the revocation. The law is very specific - "Upon revocation [...] the person [...] shall without delay deliver or surrender to the licensing authority where the person resides all firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition which the person then possesses".

Or since there is no federal law providing for MA law to extend beyond the four corners of its borders on the issue of possession by someone not prohibited by s922, the possession of firearms located outside the state can not be criminally charged. How can MA law extend into NH and prevent lawful possession in another state. In other words, they can’t legally extinguish ownership rights at all and possession rights outside the 4 corners of MA borders.