I don't understand this

[hminsky]

This article goes on at length about
how some thug was found with an AK47 under his bed, and how it is only a misdemeanor. But I thought we had a law with up to ten years in prison for failing to store your guns in a safe manner in the home. Or does that only apply to licensed gun owners? What the hell is going on in this state?

‘Strict’ Mass. gun laws misfire
By Michele McPhee/ The Beat
Monday, December 19, 2005 - Updated: 10:17 AM EST

Last week state police busted a trio of alleged drug dealers from Dorchester. Victor M. Alvarado, 21, John Davis, 35, and Reggie Bragg, 35, were allegedly carrying two kilograms of cocaine and $29,000 in green stuffed into a red Christmas gift bag.
Lucky for the cops, and for the community, the men were allegedly carrying enough drugs to send them to jail for a long, long time. Lucky because the AK-47 machine gun Alvarado allegedly stashed under his bed at 44 Allegheny St. in Roxbury would not guarantee him much jail time, despite the two loaded clips tucked neatly beside the machine gun.
Nor would the loaded .22-caliber Beretta cops say was hidden next to the assault rifle.
Because the guns were in Alvarado’s home, rather than on his person, the state’s mandatory one year for gun possession does not apply and the charge is a misdemeanor for not having a firearms identification card.
The state’s dirty secret behind what is touted as the nation’s toughest gun laws falls under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 269: Section 10H. It essentially states that if someone secrets a gun in their home, rather than stuff it in the back of his pants, the penalty is imprisonment for not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than $500.
Not so bad, if the two-year bid were enforced. But more often than not, prosecutors don’t indict gun-toting thugs if weapons are recovered in their home rather than on their person.
Translation: Because of 269:10H, Alvarado could escape unscathed from charges that he secreted a small arsenal under the mattress in his Roxbury home.
Perhaps the gang bangers are catching on to that loophole if you consider that community guns — weapons that are hidden in mailboxes and abandoned buildings — are being used with greater frequency. The loophole has allowed dangerous felons to escape gun charges.
Consider these cases:
Joseph Valentine Vasquez was locked up in August allegedly with a .9 mm Beretta and a silver .357 both fully loaded. The weapons were found under a mattress at his Dorchester home, next to a Latin Kings manual and some vials of crack cocaine, according to police. However, Vasquez, 21, was not charged with illegal gun possession.
Gregory King was busted at his father’s Roxbury home with a .9 mm Jennings handgun, loaded with 12 rounds, along with crack cocaine, a drug scale and some marijuana, say cops. The 23-year-old was out on bail on another gun case when he was busted in February. He would make bail again, only to allegedly sell drugs to an undercover cop.
But perhaps the most egregious example happened in October when an armed alleged drug dealer, Kevin L. Sanchez, 20, brandished a weapon at a Boston cop, according to police. However, the gun charge was a misdemeanor because Sanchez did not cross the threshold of his Dorchester home when he allegedly pointed the .38 caliber at the officer.
Will it take a dead cop for these gun laws to be taken seriously, and for judges to set bails that are appropriate for the crimes in which suspects are charged?The NYPD has buried two of its finest this year. Luckily for Boston, our city has not had that sad duty.
And with the number of firearms arrests BPD officers have made this year — a startling 732 suspects have been charged with gun crimes — cops are certainly at risk.
Think about that the next time you are driving along the Mass Pike and take note of the Stop Handgun Violence billboard that states: “You are more likely to live here.” That fact was not true for the 49 people shot dead in the city this year.

[/quote]

 

[Skald]

Case of the point is lack of prosecution.

<sarcasm>And its not the bad guys who own the guns who cause the high crime, its the people who follow the law who own guns that help attribute to society's crime problem. I mean, if we didn't work, follow the law and pay our taxes, the poor criminals would not have a job and we can't have that. They might start voting republican.</sarcasm>

 

[JonJ]

This clown obviously does not know what he's talking about. He refers to the AK as a "machine gun" and assault rifle. If the AK is a true assault rifle/machine gun and the perp does not have an FID, he assuredly does not have a Machine Gun Permit. The penalty is up to Life imprisonment.

 

[mark056]

I agree with Jon that there are enough errors in the story to question its veracity. I also think that Skald is on to something too:

This is entirely anecdotal, but it seems to me, that oftentimes lawfully armed citizens are targeted and convicted for firearms violations or other crimes because they are easier to prosecute than career criminals. Frequently when a law abiding citizen is arrested, he or she has faith in the criminal justice system and sometimes are obsequious to the point that both the police interrogators and D.A. will see an easy victory in court. The system is adversarial and again, you cannot think of the police as your friends (Jon, please understand the context of how I mean this, and if I am wrong about this, your next brick of .22 LR is on me )

The bottom line: if you are accused of something, keep your mouth shut and request an attorney, if it is firearms related, get a specialist in that area.

Regards,

Mark

 

[RKG]

Two things are at work.

First, the Massachusetts statutes have always distinguished between unlawful carrying and unlawful possession. Bartley-Fox applies only to unlawful carrying. Having a 9mm under your mattress while unlicensed is unlawful possession.

Second, the sentencing structure makes it very hard to tack on a sentence of, say, 1 or 2 years for unlawful possession (or even unlawful carrying) when the dude is already being sentenced to, say, 5-7 for armed robbery or the like. The 1-2 year sentence cannot be served in prison, but the system doesn't allow for releasing a guy from prison to a house of correction.

So either you give a concurrent on the gun charge, in which case it has zero net effect, or you place that charge on file, in which case it also has zero net effect.

It is sort of like a flashlight: it looks bright if it is the only light on in a dark room, but it is hardly visible in a room already brightly lit. The people who pushed Bartley-Fox in the early 1970s didn't recognize that it actually had bite only when applied to persons who had committed no other crime.

 

[Scrivener]

The news story is utter crap. Note the following egregious errors:

1. A mere 2 guns now contitutes a "small arsenal;"

2. The repeated error of the ".9 mm" pistol;

3. The unlikelihood of the gun actually being a full-auto AK-47, as opposed to a semi-only AKM - with its "clips;" and

4. The babble about a "silver .357." Yeah, that's magnum-handling metallurgy for you........

The "reporter" (script author) also ignores Massachusetts' STORAGE laws. While B-F deals with carrying, Chapter 180 imposed criminal penalties for "negligent" storage:

G.L.c. 140, § 131L. Weapons stored or kept by owner; inoperable by any person other than owner or lawfully authorized user; punishment.

(a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

(b) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a firearm, rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon, by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and in the case of a large capacity weapon or machine gun, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(c) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity weapon and such weapon was stored or kept in a place where a person under the age of 18 who does not possess a valid firearm identification card issued under section 129B may have access without committing an unforeseeable trespass, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(d) A violation of this section shall be punished, in the case of a rifle or shotgun that is a large capacity weapon, firearm or machine gun was stored or kept in a place where a person under the age of 18 may have access, without committing an unforeseeable trespass, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than two and one-half years, nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(e) A violation of the provisions of this section shall be evidence of wanton or reckless conduct in any criminal or civil proceeding if a person under the age of 18 who was not a trespassor was a foreseeable trespasser acquired access to a weapon, unless such person possessed a valid firearm identification card issued under section 129B and was permitted by law to possess such weapon, and such access results in the personal injury to or the death of any person.

Whether any under-18s were likely to have access remains to be determined, but certainly the storage of the "AK" and the .22 Beretta qualify for the 1 to 10 term.

Once again, the laws already extant are NOT enforced and the MSM is declaring that we need to "plug the loopholes."

I want a BARF on the smiley menu for '06 !

 

[Skald]

I read this and some of the replies and I can already hear the liberal gun grabbers voices.


"Its not his fault. The guns made him do it. In fact, he had them locked up and the guns just waltzed right of the safe storage. "

 

[Lynne]

Scrivener - use this....

or this...

or this...

Your helpful Mother