Gramps was right .
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Just a Little Tease: Comm2A's New Project
- Thread starter Comm2A
- Start date
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
I'd assumed a destroyed SN would stay in an evidence locker as evidence and not be transferred for sale, but rather be destroyed when finished.
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
MachineHead
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,502
- Likes
- 33,495
Reminds me of the guy with the custom plate "NOPLATE" and another with a plate "NONE". Each got a shitload of parking ticket notices for cars missing a plate.
seanc
NES Member
I would have assumed that as this was essentially an evidence/ police trail that it would be recorded as someth8ng like “pre-1900 no serial number”.
How would a person possibly get back a gun with that kind of record keeping?
seanc
NES Member
I agree. And I think that is a huge issue. If by the nature of the record keeping, it was nearly impossible to accurately track and trace. It would imply (to me) there is a high likelihood that there was no intention to ultimately get the property back to the owners.
If the game is to charge people to hold on to their guns. And then claim to be unable to return custody of those items due to lack of sn to verify ownership. Or claim, destruction or whatever at some undetermined time due to lack of verification of serial number etc..
Could go to evidence of a crimsoned enterprise?
Last edited:
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
They have operated with impunity for so long that this is likely just the tip of the iceberg as they say.
I’m surprised that none of the media outlets have picked this up yet. Well not really. Not a peep from the news stations out here.
Bob
I’m surprised that none of the media outlets have picked this up yet. Well not really. Not a peep from the news stations out here.
Bob
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,502
- Likes
- 33,495
The later in the process the news media finds this, the more dirt there will be. Patience, patience please.
Right now, it would just be viewed as gun people going after a model citizen who is doing his part to disarm the little people. Think there is any chance the media would discuss the usurious nature of his fees, or games like "redemption not available this month, try next month, your storage fees will continue to accrue".
Right now, it would just be viewed as gun people going after a model citizen who is doing his part to disarm the little people. Think there is any chance the media would discuss the usurious nature of his fees, or games like "redemption not available this month, try next month, your storage fees will continue to accrue".
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,502
- Likes
- 33,495
You are forgetting about the per-gun (actually per gun or container of accessories/ammo) intake fee; the outtake fee; and the extra fee for having a properly licensed individual take the guns at your direction. Note that the honorarium on the receipt appears to have been issued at intake - before storage fees accrued, and I doubt he would allow "net revenue to VV if redeemed" to ever go negative.
Last edited:
bfm
NES Member
Just my thoughts on what the receipt represents.
It is an accounting of money credited to the officer for using his influence/direction to have firearms that were in the PD's possession, possibly for a number of reasons, transferred to VV. Since the receipt is not for an actual transfer, there is probably other paperwork between the department and VV for this, there is no reason for it to list serial numbers. In fact, since they must be aware of the sketchy nature of the credit, the less info on it the better for them, but it still needs something on it for VV to keep some kind of accounting of the money going out. It's possible the credit is only issued after VV takes ownership of a firearm, protecting VV from crediting more than they would bring in on the firearms.
It is an accounting of money credited to the officer for using his influence/direction to have firearms that were in the PD's possession, possibly for a number of reasons, transferred to VV. Since the receipt is not for an actual transfer, there is probably other paperwork between the department and VV for this, there is no reason for it to list serial numbers. In fact, since they must be aware of the sketchy nature of the credit, the less info on it the better for them, but it still needs something on it for VV to keep some kind of accounting of the money going out. It's possible the credit is only issued after VV takes ownership of a firearm, protecting VV from crediting more than they would bring in on the firearms.
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,378
- Likes
- 17,544
Serial numbers were not required before 1968.
Prior to that, military stuff, and "nicer" guns had them, for internal-to-the-manufacturer/owning organization, was about the only ones that had SNs.
Your Sears / hardware-store grade stuff, not so much.
Prior to that, military stuff, and "nicer" guns had them, for internal-to-the-manufacturer/owning organization, was about the only ones that had SNs.
Your Sears / hardware-store grade stuff, not so much.
AHM
NES Member
(Bonus points for the sarlacc pit of colorful balls).
FrugalFannie
NES Member
I realize that COMM2A's lawsuit is a civil suit. what I don't understand is how the obvious illegal acts are NOT being prosecuted by the DA against these cops and VV.
Kicker96FS
NES Member
Because they are ALL corrupt?
Kind of /sarc. The state/ago needs a victim. It won't be the gun owner they don't care about the gun owning public just their money. So, let the lawsuit playout, let the plaintiffs do the discovery, then piggy back on it and claim how they were against the actions of VV and police rogues the whole time.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,502
- Likes
- 33,495
Same reason it took the feds to go after three sitting house speakers and MSP troopers ghosting overtime while the MA AG granted de-facto immunity.
The DAs probably didn’t know about it (and might not have done anything about it if they had). The AG didn’t know about it until Comm2a told them. I don’t know why the AG decided to defer to Comm2a. We may get more of the story after all is said and done.
AHM
NES Member
Whistleblower suits are uncharted territory for us - obviously. And the Mass statutue closely resembles the federal one. My understanding is that it is quite normal for the government to allow private parties, like Comm2A, to proceed on the government's behalf (and on the private party's nickel). It's outsourcing.
BTW, the financial support we've received following this case is greatly appreciated and I'm always surprised by the $10-$15 per month member who say they'd like to give more. Comm2A's bread and butter is the folk who give us $10 or $15 dollars a month, month after month. It's huge and it's what's paid for two years of really good legal groundwork (so far). We don't have a partner for this project, it's entirely on us. Because of the long term commitment made by so many, we can actually do something that requires this much ground work and preparation. There was an entire other earlier case that we financed that made this one possible.
So, 'thank you' to everyone that helps to make this possible.
They will after it's public enough that ignoring it would look bad.
It's been part of the overall scheme to screw gun owners so why would they jump on it.
Similar threads
