Mass. man charged with illegally building rifles

It is obvious to anyone who's not a lawyer and part of the system, that our legal system is broken, it protects hardened criminals and makes law abiding citizens into felons.

This guy's the perfect example - why don't you go sit down with the two raped girls and explain to them why the courts let this guy walk the streets after murdering another girl.

One of the costs of our legal system is that the protections apply to the obviously guilty as well as the possibly innocent.

The same protection that got this person a new trial is the one that will (hopefully) allow your attorney to have any jurors that just believe that "people shouldn't have guns" off your assault trial if you are accused of such when pulling a gun on an attacker. Of course, by your logic, the court could simply explain to that person that (s)he is not to let that factor into his/her decision, but that would hardly provide protection.

I know of one self defense case where the attacker was an off dury LEO (I think it was a sheriff's deputy). The would be victim who displayed his gun was convicted largely because of one person on the jury who made it clear civilians should not carry guns. I have not read the transcript, but the fact that such a person made it to a carry/defense case involving an ltC holder indicates either a failure of the court to protect the defendant's rights or a poor job of voir dire by defense counsel.
 
One of the costs of our legal system is that the protections apply to the obviously guilty as well as the possibly innocent.

The same protection that got this person a new trial is the one that will (hopefully) allow your attorney to have any jurors that just believe that "people shouldn't have guns" off your assault trial if you are accused of such when pulling a gun on an attacker. Of course, by your logic, the court could simply explain to that person that (s)he is not to let that factor into his/her decision, but that would hardly provide protection.

I know of one self defense case where the attacker was an off dury LEO (I think it was a sheriff's deputy). The would be victim who displayed his gun was convicted largely because of one person on the jury who made it clear civilians should not carry guns. I have not read the transcript, but the fact that such a person made it to a carry/defense case involving an ltC holder indicates either a failure of the court to protect the defendant's rights or a poor job of voir dire by defense counsel.

It also sounds like a case of a local cop getting his chuckles by Fing over a Sheriff. Some of them love that stuff
 
I agree. I'm cool with violent felons receiving the lifetime ban. I'd also be ok with a process to have your rights restored after a certain time period.

Just because a guy is no longer in prison does not mean he is no longer dangerous. I also believe in second chances though.


I'm really cool with a serious violent criminal receiving a lifetime ban on breathing. 1 strike and you're dead for truly (not barroom brawl, etc) violent predator
 
In some cases (rare though they may be) the charges do not fit the crime.

I know someone from a southern state who had a conviction for lewd behaviour and sodomy of a child (as is the term for an "unnatural sexual act) He was 18 and black, his girlfriend 17 and white. Her dad found them together whilst she was "making him happy with her mouth" called his hunting buddy the Sheriff, who called his cousin the prosecutor, and the rest is history. This predates "Romeo and Juliet" laws.

He had to plead to the charges or likely go to jail for a very long time.

When sex offender registration became a thing, he had to go through what amounted to a trial to show why he should have his record expunged.

The best witness - His wife of 20 years, the girl he "sodomized" and conducted lewd acts with.

Record is now expunged.

TLDR I caution folks from making sweeping or blanket statements regarding charges like this. Sometimes, the circumstances do not bear out the weight of charges
 
yes you are wrong with that.
Only partially.

Back in 1934, congress recognized the difference between a non-violent and violent felony. The federal ban in 18USC922g does not consider restraint of trade or monopolistic practices to be felons for the purpose of that law. Congress also realized that there were cases where non-violent felons should be able to get their rights back and include a provision for a federal "relief from disabilities".

Unfortunately, the expansion of what is a felony; the MA "misdafelony" (misdemeanor classified as felony under 922g because of the > 2 year max possible sentence); and the de-funding of the relief from disability program has changed a law intended to disarm violent felons into a much wider net. Add to that the perception that"felon=violent criminal" and the reluctance to expand gun rights in general (since doing so does not get more Democratic votes, and goes against hard line Republican attitudes) and you're stuck with things like insider trading rating a lifetime ban on gun ownership or use.
 
Has no one else noticed the obvious?

"MA man arrested for building guns to sell in NH", said the headlines.

What happened to the usual headlines: "MA/NY Murder Guns come from NH/VT without background checks!"

This story wasn't about murder or jailbait or felon rights. It was about making a piece of metal into another shape.

When they outlaw machine shops, only outlaws will have guns; when they outlaw chemistry, only outlaws will have propellants and explosives.

Keep some perspective, y'all.
 
If I really, really think about it, why would any conviction, of ANY kind, prevent someone from exercising a constitutional right after jail time or punishment is over?
 
People may have their opinions as to my intelligence but I wouldn't "try to get out of jury duty" if called. I view it as a civic responsibility like voting and communicating with my elected officials. Never been called in 32 years though, oddly enough. Some people I know keep getting called often enough that they get out of it with "Nope, got called last year."

I'd have a problem with lying to get out of jury duty, so I'd just answer honestly. I've only been called once and it got dismissed before I got called. It is a bit weird who gets notified for jury duty and who doesn't.

- - - Updated - - -

If I really, really think about it, why would any conviction, of ANY kind, prevent someone from exercising a constitutional right after jail time or punishment is over?

I don't know either. If you're too dangerous to own a gun, why are you able to drive a truck, buy knives, but fertilizer etc. You should be in jail if you're that dangerous.
 
I'd have a problem with lying to get out of jury duty, so I'd just answer honestly. I've only been called once and it got dismissed before I got called. It is a bit weird who gets notified for jury duty and who doesn't.
I have no objection to being selected, however, I suspect that answering truthfully would get me bounced from most cases. The court would not want me in a misdeafelony trial for the obvious reason, and I would probably be bounced from an OUI trial after discussion both the misdafelony issue and model jury instructions with the judge.

I've been called 3 times; once I never got to voir dear. I was bounced the other two times (once civil, once criminal) because I had a very indirect connection with either counsel or a witness in the case.

Oh, and if throw in that my wife is a professional expert witness and RN, I will probably be bounced from any malpractice case.
 
we often hear the complaint that they do not prosecute criminals using the existing gun laws. Well....here is an existing gun law....a felon can not have a gun or ammo in their possession. He had two guns. I say throw the book at him. it is simple math

This 110%

1. Convicted Felon
2. Sex Offender
3. Possessing firearms ILLEGALLY

So tell me again what is the problem with this "person" being prosecuted?[rolleyes]
 
This 110%

1. Convicted Felon
2. Sex Offender
3. Possessing firearms ILLEGALLY

So tell me again what is the problem with this "person" being prosecuted?[rolleyes]

This person should be in a cage. However, he's being locked up for the wrong reason.
 
He pleaded guilty.
http://www.gazettenet.com/Easthampt...ion-of-a-firearm-as-a-convicted-felon-4061253

I understand that things like what darkside above happen, but the ol convicted of murder thing is another level.....

Anyways, I'm very much hoping this was simply a "low hanging fruit" case for the Feds. That they were watching this guy for a while and decided it's about time they nab him. Still, all we see is the headlines used against us and "there goes the 80% rules". Here's hoping they just wanted to bag this loser.
 
Some of you guys are lucky. I seem to have this jury duty stamp on my forehead and keep getting called up. I am at the point where honestly I don't want to serve on a jury after the last trial I served on where a guy with convictions for aggravated rapes was given a mistrial because the prosecutor pointed out that defendant was left handed, when any one on the jury could tell he was left handed. I know the defense attorney is doing his job, but honestly career criminals skate through the system their entire lives without facing any serious penalties. It's not like the 'super tough' gun laws are stopping them either.
 
It wasn't about building rifles, he was a felon, "convicted of felonies on at least five prior occasions". This guy is/was a career criminal and I find it hard to believe he wasn't building and selling firearms illegally (to other criminals). The only down side I see is that he'll probably continue his criminal career when he gets out. Don't read this as I'm in favor of locking up non-violent first or second offenders forever, but at some point you have to just acknowledge that they aren't going to change.
 
The feds give up to 15% off for good behavior. It's interesting that these odd number of months often come out to something close to even (4 years, 11.5 months) when multiplied by .85.

I worked at both a Medium and a Low, both with satellite camps. We had the occasional camper who would be sentenced to the maximum of 12 months over misdemeanor charges, and they had to do the entire 12 months, because good conduct time doesn't apply to sentences of less than 1 year. We had a few who could have taken that option, but chose "a year and a day" felony sentences, because they only had to serve 85%.
 
Ok so the caught a felon braking the law....

I for one don't believe in the ban for life for a felony do your time and your full rights should be restored....am,I wrong with that.

He also had a 1988 conviction for rape of a child

Child rapist - he's lucky to be alive. We're unlucky he's alive. There was already a known avenue to prevent this from occurring.
 
He also had a 1988 conviction for rape of a child

Child rapist - he's lucky to be alive. We're unlucky he's alive. There was already a known avenue to prevent this from occurring.

Don't give up hope. There's still time.
 
Back
Top Bottom