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.
As @Rob Boudrie points out above, this would create perverse incentives much like we see with civil asset forfeiture. In this case, the PD's are creating a little slush fund for themselves that is outside the budget process of the individual cities or towns. They are incentivized to deliver firearms for Dowd in return for credits used to purchase items that were not approved as part of their budget. Even if legal, do we really want PDs to be thinking: "the town doesn't want me to have X and so we'll just raise the money ourselves through the sale of seized property and buy what we want"?
I was also thinking, "What would a win mean", I had to to back and look at the original filing. As near as I can tell, from my non-lawyer viewpoint, a win would get monetary compensation for the plaintiffs aline with attorney fees. And I suppose so pressure for the defendants to change their practices/policies, but I suspect it would really mean a change in the law. I don't think those doing wrong will care much, since it's not their money, but I guess an end to those "credits" is something.
It will never be over. It's like watching one move on the chess board.
Translation: We're the poe-leese and we can do whatever we want.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Thanks
Unfortunately, swap the above translation with "I'm the Attorney General and I can do whatever I want", and such translation actually worked for the MA AG office with regard to the definition of a loaded chamber indicator.
It's not a "loaded chamber indicator" -Unfortunately, swap the above translation with "I'm the Attorney General and I can do whatever I want", and such translation actually worked for the MA AG office with regard to the definition of a loaded chamber indicator.
This was one of the two worst decisions I have read, not so much because of the outcome as the process. The court basically decided that the AGs position was so obvious that there was no need for a trial or argument of the case and issued summary judgment against us.Unfortunately, swap the above translation with "I'm the Attorney General and I can do whatever I want", and such translation actually worked for the MA AG office with regard to the definition of a loaded chamber indicator.
Let's just say, there are many times Comm2A's cases have judges who are actively working against us instead of doing their jobs. Judge Saylor typically does his job, and this case is no different. We are truly breaking new ground here legally (some rando on the internet won't have a clue what is important here) and if it wasn't guns at the center of this case, the AG's office would have taken the issue seriously and dealt with it. But they would rather defend this horrid system of stealing people's firearms instead of prosecuting the thieves. Their inaction and refusal to join on this case will have far reaching consequences far beyond "guns".
So the AGO is missing out on setting precedent for other cases of bonded warehouses stealing other property besides firearms and potentially similar cases (towing, maybe escrow?) with defacto civil asset forfeiture through onerous third party storage/processing fees?
The stealing from the state part is when the PD gets a kickback from the bonded warehouse for the sale of the firearms by the bonded warehouse and the firearms are not turned over to the State Police for sale as mandated in the law (if I am not mistaken)
