Thanks guys. Still learning about the laws here. But according to you, I am the only one who has to care about them. The gov. and the king's archers (aka cops) apparently don't have to. They seem to just make them as needed.
-
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.
Milford father, son face gun, ammo charges
- Thread starter Rick Roma
- Start date
I'm only 29, so the older guys may feel differently, and I don't know when you started living in this country, but imo it's gotten worse as time has gone on, and the whole us vs. them mentality has gone totally batshit post 9/11. What came along with that mentality (militarization etc.) was the increased trampling of the rights of the average citizen.
EDIT: and I'm not saying that shit never went on before, I'm absolutely positive it did, especially if you happened to be a minority. But overall.
Last edited:
xtry51
NES Member
Most of the militarization can be traced directly to the war on drugs. Certainly there was build ups at other law making landmarks such as Prohibition, GCA '34, etc, but the drug war really took the cake and led the way to terrorism being the next trojan horse.
Police need more than probable cause to enter a home without a warrant. They need exigent circumstances.
As originally (mis)reported by the Milford News, a woman standing outside the house said "Get in there - he's got a gun". That (in my opinion) is not enough to enter and search. Possession of a gun is not illegal. What the original story failed to report is that "the woman" is the wife and mother of the people arrested. So the unanswered question is "What transpired before the police arrived and why was she standing outside the house screaming?".
If the woman lives/lived there, she could certainly give the police permission to enter.
If the woman claimed husband was threatening her oir himself with a gun, that would probably give them the exigent circumstances they need to enter without a warrant or consent.
I still think the original reports intentionally withheld those details in order to get "those gun nuts" up in arms and later report that the man was threatening or otherwise gave the police reason to enter.
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
![[angry2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/019.gif "Angry2 [angry2]")
[bs1] That says it w/o the language I would have used.
s4mt3k
NES Member
Hey folks;
I had a chance to speak with Jason's gf tonight. It's always interesting when you hear the other side of the story.
I'm roughly quoting (and withholding some things due to the fact that the case is still open) here but this is what she told me:
Charles (father) & Jason (son) both are LTC holders. All the guns involved are Jason's but some where stored at the father's residence. The knives that were strategically placed in the photo belonged to the father. The 30rnd mags belong to Jason. They are his "souvenirs" from his recent tour. Jason's GF mentioned that there is some law that nullifies the 10rnd clause for veterans with mags as souvenirs. I am unaware of such clause as I'm not military. Please share any info on this if you can.
On the day of the event; Charles placed a gun to his head. He was at home with 2 children and 1 step daughter & wife. Jason was in the process of moving from gf's to his mom's and had put his rifle (locked) in his car. He also had his gun with him. The wife frantically called the police. The step daughter attempted to disarm him and called Jason at some point. The father than released the mag, and essentially disarmed himself. Upon arrival (AFTER THE COPS WERE ON THE SCENE), Jason locked his gun in the center console, and his long gun was in a locked case in the car. The cops were courteous and polite. Jason surrendered all his guns to the police (which ended up on a FB photo). The father was "committed" while Jason was told he was clear.
Fast forward; Jason finds out he was being charged with storage/illegal mags... His case was dismissed in court. HOWEVER, he received a notification of revocation of his license based on some omitted charges that were missed initially due to a printing problem, ie more charge(s) to follow.
Rumor (AND I HIGHLIGHT RUMOR) is that they are not going to let this go away, they are pushing for charges, smells like they're trying to make an example out of Jason.
All this is relayed and paraphrased so it is not evidence or proof of anything. As I said, this is an active case and I've left certain details out. If you feel I need to remove any specifics send me a PM.
I had a chance to speak with Jason's gf tonight. It's always interesting when you hear the other side of the story.
I'm roughly quoting (and withholding some things due to the fact that the case is still open) here but this is what she told me:
Charles (father) & Jason (son) both are LTC holders. All the guns involved are Jason's but some where stored at the father's residence. The knives that were strategically placed in the photo belonged to the father. The 30rnd mags belong to Jason. They are his "souvenirs" from his recent tour. Jason's GF mentioned that there is some law that nullifies the 10rnd clause for veterans with mags as souvenirs. I am unaware of such clause as I'm not military. Please share any info on this if you can.
On the day of the event; Charles placed a gun to his head. He was at home with 2 children and 1 step daughter & wife. Jason was in the process of moving from gf's to his mom's and had put his rifle (locked) in his car. He also had his gun with him. The wife frantically called the police. The step daughter attempted to disarm him and called Jason at some point. The father than released the mag, and essentially disarmed himself. Upon arrival (AFTER THE COPS WERE ON THE SCENE), Jason locked his gun in the center console, and his long gun was in a locked case in the car. The cops were courteous and polite. Jason surrendered all his guns to the police (which ended up on a FB photo). The father was "committed" while Jason was told he was clear.
Fast forward; Jason finds out he was being charged with storage/illegal mags... His case was dismissed in court. HOWEVER, he received a notification of revocation of his license based on some omitted charges that were missed initially due to a printing problem, ie more charge(s) to follow.
Rumor (AND I HIGHLIGHT RUMOR) is that they are not going to let this go away, they are pushing for charges, smells like they're trying to make an example out of Jason.
All this is relayed and paraphrased so it is not evidence or proof of anything. As I said, this is an active case and I've left certain details out. If you feel I need to remove any specifics send me a PM.
Last edited:
Mass-diver
NES Member
Thanks for the update. Sadly, I'm not surprised they are really looking to screw over a vet with guns 
Power tends to corrupt; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
An observation that a person's sense of morality lessens as his or her power increases. The statement was made by Lord Acton, a British historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
I'm still not sure how they can get him on storage given being locked up and the rifle being cased. Though, the mags is an issue. I have never seen any clause exempting vets from the 10rnd limit. If there was one I'm pretty sure I would have found it and used it. The only exemption is for military on orders and in the course of duty, or something along those lines. Even guard members or active duty at Natick must leave their magazines at the armory or on post if they're not carrying under orders.
it sounds like the officers wanted to let him go, but that the DA is an anti- gun ass and demanded charges.
it sounds like the officers wanted to let him go, but that the DA is an anti- gun ass and demanded charges.
You are exactly correct. NO exemption for "souvenirs" or MIL unless on orders/on duty. I know that lots of MIL take mags home, but it is a felony they are staring at if the wrong people find out (like in this case).
xtry51
NES Member
Another lesson on not calling or talking to the police. Sounds like the situation was resolved internally then the cops came, and of course needed to protect and serve the shit out of them.
Similar threads
