Most charges dropped in Manchester gun case

DukeNukem

Banned
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
1,920
Likes
389
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
MANCHESTER — Prosecutors have dropped a majority of the charges against a Manchester-by-the-Sea man accused by his estranged wife and police of preparing for martial law with an arsenal of weapons in their Bridge Street condo last month.

Gregory Girard's Feb. 9 arrest was heavily publicized, after police pulled a collection of 11 rifles and two handguns, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition, from his home, as well as other weapons and military-style gear.

Girard held a class A firearms license and all of the guns were legally registered. Girard was charged, however, with illegally possessing so-called "infernal machines," five items originally described as "grenades."

Those devices turned out to be legal smoke and tear gas grenades and are not covered under the legal definition of infernal machines.

Additionally, four counts of carrying a dangerous weapon — police batons and double-edged knives found in the condo and on Girard's boat — were dropped because at the time the charges were filed, Girard was not actually carrying the weapons, which are not illegal to own and keep in a home.

The remaining charges are discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling and two counts of illegal possession of silencers.

Girard's attorney, Rebecca Whitehill, argued yesterday that the law allows a homeowner to fire a weapon inside of his own home, and that the devices seized by police on Girard's boat are not silencers but flash suppressors that Girard wanted to use on his boat so he did not violate the law against sending up a flare that could be mistaken for a distress signal.

A state police lab is in the process of testing the suspected silencers.

Prosecutors also intend to keep the case in Salem District Court, which precludes any potential for state prison time on the remaining counts.

Whitehill tried yesterday to convince Judge Richard Mori to reconsider his decision to hold Girard without bail in light of the reduction in charges.

Prosecutor Michelle DeCourcey opposed the request, saying that the facts of the case have not changed, only the charges.

Mori agreed, denying Whitehill's request.

"I still consider Mr. Girard to be a danger to the community," Mori said.

Girard is due back in court on April 1.
 
Girard held a class A firearms license and all of the guns were legally registered. Girard was charged, however, with illegally possessing so-called "infernal machines," five items originally described as "grenades."

Those devices turned out to be legal smoke and tear gas grenades and are not covered under the legal definition of infernal machines.

Additionally, four counts of carrying a dangerous weapon — police batons and double-edged knives found in the condo and on Girard's boat — were dropped because at the time the charges were filed, Girard was not actually carrying the weapons, which are not illegal to own and keep in a home.

Girard's attorney, Rebecca Whitehill, argued yesterday that the law allows a homeowner to fire a weapon inside of his own home, and that the devices seized by police on Girard's boat are not silencers but flash suppressors that Girard wanted to use on his boat so he did not violate the law against sending up a flare that could be mistaken for a distress signal.




However, the judge hearing the case refused to allow Gregory Girard, 45, to be freed on bail in light of the reduced charges.

"I still consider Mr. Girard to be a danger to the community," Judge Richard Mori said.

link http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punews/local_story_075230147.html
 
"...the facts of the case have not changed, only the charges."

Boy, that's rich!

How about the FACTS that most of what was confiscated wasn't illegal for him to own or posess and the infernal machine law was misapplied?

Nothing's changed except for EVERYTHING!

Cripes almighty!
 
I hate these "Dupe" threads....with all the coverage this will now get on the local news, this thread is superfluous....[laugh]

If your referring to ME the op.....I was going to attach it to the other but a mod states at the end of that thread a new one should be created.
 
there but for the grace of dog...

Duke: no offense, irony was intended....I'm sure that since the rain has stopped, this will be the lead stoy at noon, 6 and 11.....[rolleyes]

None taken.....ill be sleeping since I just got home, never watch the news.....then Drop Kick Murphys tonight at The House Of Blues...so this wont be on my mind at all.
 
None taken.....ill be sleeping since I just got home, never watch the news.....then Drop Kick Murphys tonight at The House Of Blues...so this wont be on my mind at all.

The unfortunate thing is that it's unlikely to be on anyone's mind, as it will not be brought to anyone's attention. Note that despite this tory getting very wide coverage at the beginning, it's referred to as, "local news."

As far as 95% of the folks that heard of this in the begnning know, a looney with illegal bombs and guns is off the street, and everyone is safe.....[rolleyes]
 
Every a**h*** associated with the "justice" system in this case should be tarred and feathered, then keel hauled for good measure.

Despicable sub human shit stains.
 
"...the facts of the case have not changed, only the charges."
...
How about the FACTS that most of what was confiscated wasn't illegal for him to own or posess and the infernal machine law was misapplied?
...

Personally I'm buying the story the "silencers" are flare gun flash supressors. If these gadgets fit onto his flare gun then he "should" be fine on that. (I bet they LOOK like silencers though) This would make NOTHING taken from him illegal to own.

As for the "shooting range" there was another LTC holder (his wife) living in the house. There is no evidence it was ever actually USED. (stick a steel plate in your attic and throw some spent .22 casings on the floor - bam! "never used" shooting range) Even if it WAS used by HIM it isn't (or shouldn't) be illegal, just ill advised. If it is illegal in the slightest it is because of the condo status. Unless a condo rule prohibits attic shooting ranges, which seems unlikely...

So as a condo owner does he need to seek the permission of ALL other co-owners to fire the weapon withing 500' (inside) the building or just one (himself)? That is what his conviction will hinge on. (IANAL)

I'm positive that if I wanted to shoot in my neighbor's backyard all I need is written permission from one of the owners even if the husband and wife are on on the deed.

In a just world he walks away from this with a ruined marriage and a great lawsuit against Manchester-By-The-Sea, ATF and his ex-wife.

In THIS world he'll be lucky ever to see the light of day.

I hope wifey realizes her games will cost her the money she WOULD have been able to sponge from him if she had just left him.
 
So let me see if I can get my arms around this... He is charged with POSSIBLY discharging a firearm in his own dwelling. Presumably, this was not a case of him shooting at anything but a paper target (again still open question). This may or may not be against the law.
And he is being held without bail?
Am I understanding this correctly?
 
So let me see if I can get my arms around this... He is charged with POSSIBLY discharging a firearm in his own dwelling. Presumably, this was not a case of him shooting at anything but a paper target (again still open question). This may or may not be against the law.
And he is being held without bail?
Am I understanding this correctly?

You are correct.
 
I've never mastered the art of refining my points down to the "EddieCoyle/Derek" one liner.

As my work is for intents and purposes: A Professional Pessimist (planning for all the things that MIGHT go wrong) my mindset just keeps finding the negatives and then as I analyze that, other possibilities come up that of course need to be addressed.

I think my favorite was a brief thread where someone posed a situation and some outlandish plan of action that undoubtedly landed him and jail, and EddieCoyle's response was: "Sure. What could go wrong?" As a matter of fact, if I can find that post again it is going in my sig line.

Oh fudge. There I go again.
 
Are you effing kidding me? They run him up on a ton of bogus charges, dump all of them except 2, one of which seems to be bogus based on the MGL and the other is non-violent even if true, and continue to hold him without bail? WTF?

Holy Gestapo, Batman.
 
I believe the "Shooting Range" charge is bogus as a matter of law. It's really the "Silencer" charges we don't know about. What's a flare gun flash suppressor?
 
the facts of the case have not changed, only the charges.

That's entirely true. According to everything that has been released to the media, the facts still state that Mr. Girard did nothing wrong. That has not changed. The only thing that has changed is now the prosecutors have started realizing that they're going after an innocent man so they've started to drop charges slowly, but they still want to save face so they're saying the man is too dangerous to be let out.
 
I believe the "Shooting Range" charge is bogus as a matter of law. It's really the "Silencer" charges we don't know about. What's a flare gun flash suppressor?

Where did you see flare gun flash suppressor? Unless there is something printed elsewhere, I took it to mean they were flash suppressors for a firearm, so that it wouldn't be mistaken for a flare.
 
Where did you see flare gun flash suppressor? Unless there is something printed elsewhere, I took it to mean they were flash suppressors for a firearm, so that it wouldn't be mistaken for a flare.

The article said the "flash supressors" were intended to allow him to fire his flare gun without alarming other boaters. Why he'd want to do this I leave as an exercise to the student. I can't think of any reason. On the other hand, I can't think how it is illegal either.
 
Last edited:
The article said the "flash supressors" were intended to allow him to fire his flare gun without alarming other boaters. Why he'd want to do this I leave as an exercise to the student. I can't think of any reason. On the other hand, I can't think how it is illegal either.

I only see this:

and that the devices seized by police on Girard's boat are not silencers but flash suppressors that Girard wanted to use on his boat so he did not violate the law against sending up a flare that could be mistaken for a distress signal.
 
The article said the "flash supressors" were intended to allow him to fire his flare gun without alarming other boaters. Why he'd want to do this I leave as an exercise to the student. I can't think of any reason. On the other hand, I can't think how it is illegal either.

They are not outright illegal. They may only be installed on certain guns so as not to trigger the AWB.

This guys is so getting f'd over... now, he may be nut in some other way not described, but from what is shown... this could be almost any one of us.

"...the facts of the case have not changed, only the charges."
Is that an admission that he was knowingly charged with crimes not supported by the evidence?
 
I only see this:
and that the devices seized by police on Girard's boat are not silencers but flash suppressors that Girard wanted to use on his boat so he did not violate the law against sending up a flare that could be mistaken for a distress signal.

Ah. I see it can read a couple of ways. Was he flash hiding a flare gun or was he flash hiding a gun (target shooting at sea)? I saw "flare" and "boat" and construed it to mean his flare gun, which would be common on boats.

Shooting a flareless flare gun at sea seems pointless and shooting a flashless regular gun at sea might not be the smartest thing but neither would seem to be inherently illegal...

So it boils down to whether the "silencer" is a flash hider or not.
 
The issue is the system is in CYA mode rather then trying to do the right thing. Something that happens WAY too much in this state.
 
Huh, first it was an "arsenal" and now it's a "collection." Good reporting, as usual.
 
Do you suppose that the State Police Lab has the expertise to make a determination on the "silencers". Jack.

yeah.. I suspect that anything that might possibly attach to the end of any firearm to be a "silencer"
An empty TP roll, fishing line and separate duct tape roll could probably be judged to be a l single use suppressor. And don't even get me started about an empty 2l mountain dew bottle.

Yet ANOTHER reason that suppressors need to be removed from the NFA.
 
Back
Top Bottom