Most charges dropped in Manchester gun case

I bet the 'silencers' turn out to be just what he says they are - an attachment for a flare gun. He's followed the letter of the law so far, why would he have something that's not even remotely legal in any sense?

If his lawyer is decent, the only way they'll get him on the discharge-within-500' charge is if he opened his big mouth.
 
EddieCoyle said:
If his lawyer is decent, the only way they'll get him on the discharge-within-500' charge is if he opened his big mouth.
Click to expand...

That's a big IF. I bet once the "suppressor charges" fail they will attempt to get him to plea on the home range charge just so they don't come away guilty of completely stomping out a citizens rights and probably effectively ruining his life.
 
"A state police lab is in the process of trying to rig the tests so they can say he had silencers"

Fixed it for them. The DA is so absurd, so desperate to hang something on this guy, it's obnoxious. The DA/prosecutor should be hung out to dry here. This is classic NIFONG grade BS here.

ETA: Now, even if he is exonerated, how much you want to bet she (the "wife") has a 209A on him, or is going to pull one? Welcome to MA!

-Mike
 
Last edited:
one-eyed Jack said:
Do you suppose that the State Police Lab has the expertise to make a determination on the "silencers". Jack.
Click to expand...

Let's also note that this is the same lab that has had numerous problems with evidence and the like in the past few years. IIRC there are even cases out there that are possibly jeopardized one way or another due to improper handling of evidence.

-Mike
 
I think they are still trying to nail him with something because the light has gone on in their heads that they could be sued for false arrest and imprisonment. AT least I hope to God they can be (sued).
 
Silencers / Flash Suppressors

It sounds to me like the silencers are not flash suppressors for a flaregun, but flash suppressors for a standard firearm. I suspect he is claiming he purchased the flash suppressors to prevent the muzzle flash from a firearm from being mistaken as a distress flare and thus violating the marine signally laws.

The prosecutor is pushing this because:

1) The media made a huge deal about this guy at his arrest, and if he's let go the media will hang releasing "this armed menace" without charges
2) Dismissing the charges means admitting to making a mistake, and then she looks like an idiot. If she pushes this, to the lay-person, this will look like his lawyer getting him off on a technicality
3) If she drops the charges it will be very hard for the local chief of police to justify determining that he's unsuitable.
4) She likely thinks she's "protecting society" by keeping him in jail, despite the fact that he hasn't broken any laws.
5) She clearly has the judge on her side, even if she doesn't have the law on her side.
 
I don't think they can get him on the 500 foot discharge thing since the law clearly states that all you need is an established test or target range and the owners permission. They may be able to get him on being too close to a road (150 ft) but that does not seem to be the charge here.
 
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.
Click to expand...

If the charges have changed, doesn't that mean the facts did as well?
What evidence did either have for assuming he was a danger to the community?

I hope he sues every frigging one of these bastards involved with his unlawful detention! They are making a**h***s of themselves and violating his rights in the interum!
 
drgrant said:
"A state police lab is in the process of trying to rig the tests so they can say he had silencers"

Fixed it for them. The DA is so absurd, so desperate to hang something on this guy, it's obnoxious. The DA/prosecutor should be hung out to dry here. This is classic NIFONG grade BS here.

ETA: Now, even if he is exonerated, how much you want to bet she (the "wife") has a 209A on him, or is going to pull one? Welcome to MA!

-Mike
Click to expand...
She put the 209A on him the day she filed for the divorce. Shocker I know.
 
Regardless of the rest of the condo building, there probably are other houses not associated with the condo within 500 feet of his condo. Manchester is a fairly dense town as far as housing goes. So, he's screwed there unless he manages to keep his mouth shut (and an earlier comment from his lawyer seemed to admit that he was using it as a range but it was OK for some reason -- bad move, sounds like they may have already opened their mouths about it).
 
ShadeWPI said:
It sounds to me like the silencers are not flash suppressors for a flaregun, but flash suppressors for a standard firearm.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think this is likely more bad reporting. It does seem more likely that they're talking about a "flash suppressor" of some sort and are getting the nomenclature wrong. If so it will be very interesting to see what case law comes out of this.
 
The other houses within 500ft do not matter (someone please correct me if I am wrong):

Section 12E. Whoever discharges a firearm as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, a rifle or shotgun within five hundred feet of a dwelling or other building in use, except with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (a) the lawful defense of life and property; (b) any law enforcement officer acting in the discharge of his duties; (c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof; (d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established; (e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined under the provisions of section fifty-six A of chapter one hundred and forty; and (f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with section thirty-nine of chapter one hundred and forty-eight.
Click to expand...

Prepper said:
Regardless of the rest of the condo building, there probably are other houses not associated with the condo within 500 feet of his condo. Manchester is a fairly dense town as far as housing goes. So, he's screwed there unless he manages to keep his mouth shut (and an earlier comment from his lawyer seemed to admit that he was using it as a range but it was OK for some reason -- bad move, sounds like they may have already opened their mouths about it).
Click to expand...
 
I can't believe this guy is still sitting in jail. I hope he rakes his 'wife' and the town over the coals with lawsuits.

This whole debacle stunk to high heaven from day one.

Can someone tell me why the state police are conducting tests on his 'silencers' rather than an independent lab?
 
gene said:
If the charges have changed, doesn't that mean the facts did as well?
What evidence did either have for assuming he was a danger to the community?
Click to expand...

No, the facts haven't changed. He still hasn't done anything wrong, they just don't want to admit that. They're not going to tell us what makes him so dangerous that he can't be released. They're just proving everything that the "tin foil hat conspiracy nutjobs" have been saying. These "dangerousness" laws that allow someone to be locked up without trial were designed to be used against lawful citizens who had broken no laws but were being made out to be "domestic terrorists" because they have opinions or ideas that are different from those who know better whether or not they're actually dangerous.

The way this will probably end so the state doesn't have to admit it's wrongdoings: Mr. Girard will die in prison under suspicious circumstances. His death will be ruled a suicide after very little investigation, and the media won't even mention it.

Can someone tell me why the state police are conducting tests on his 'silencers' rather than an independent lab?
Click to expand...

Because an independent lab would find that these devices weren't silencers.
 
Last edited:
(Mods, feel free to delete if you fear copyright violation)

*** BEGIN QUOTE ***
From the Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law 14th edition by Ronald Glidden

C. 269 § 12E Discharge of Firearm Within 500 Feet of Dwelling
Whoever discharges a firearm as defined in section one hundred and twenty-one of chapter one hundred and forty, a rifle or shotgun within five hundred feet of a dwelling or other building in use, except with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than three months, or both.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

(a) the lawful defense of life and property;
(c) persons using underground or indoor target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant thereof;
(d) persons using outdoor skeet, trap, target or test ranges with the consent of the owner or legal occupant of the land on which the range is established;
(e) persons using shooting galleries, licensed and defined under the provisions of section fifty-six A of chapter one hundred and forty; and
(f) the discharge of blank cartridges for theatrical, athletic, ceremonial, firing squad, or other purposes in accordance with section thirty- nine of chapter one hundred and forty-eight

Penalty: 3 months in HOC or $100 or both fine and imprisonment
Right of Arrest: No

1. Firing Ranges Need Not Be Certified As Such: Clause (d) exempts target ranges but does not require any special certification for a range to qualify. At least one Massachusetts District Court case through out a criminal complaint against a homeowner who had built a do-it-yourself range in his back year near other houses.

2. Neighbors: It appears that if you a on a firing range on your own property it is irrelevant how close your neighbors home is from that range or from the gunshots. While a local noise ordinance may come into play, officers often find themselves unable to satisfy neighbors concerns over noise or safety because of the exemptions listed in this section.

3. Relationship to Chapter 131: Chapter 131, §58 prohibits shooting any firearm upon or across any state or hard surfaced road, or within 150’ of such highway. This section also prohibits possession of a loaded firearm on the land of another or within 500’ of a dwelling in use except as authorized by the owner or occupant. It is unknown whether or not a person might be exempted under Chapter 269, §12E but still be found guilty of Chapter 131, §58.

**** END QUOTE ***

EDIT: rereading point #3 maybe they will get him on this issue (Chapter 131, §58).
 
Last edited:
chaynes68 said:
At least one Massachusetts District Court case through out a criminal complaint against a homeowner who had built a do-it-yourself range in his back year near other houses.
Click to expand...

Ugh. [banghead]
 
Is that the case that was dismissed in the Berkshires? If so, the situtaion was that a round actually left the shooting range and hit a house (I think)...the criminal complaint was dismissed, but there may have been ciivil issues.

jasons said:
Ugh. [banghead]
Click to expand...
 
even if all charges are dropped and he is found to have not broken any laws, he will still never see his gun permit or guns again nore will he get back the time he served in jail. THAT is the real crime.
 
matt1956 said:
even if all charges are dropped and he is found to have not broken any laws, he will still never see his gun permit or guns again nore will he get back the time he served in jail. THAT is the real crime.
Click to expand...

Depends on a few factors.... if he is exonerated, then he has to deal with the 209A against him. Once he gets that vacated, he's clear on the front end, at least. 10 bucks says MTBS would never give him back his license, though, via suitability or some crap like that. At least then though he could exfil the state and go live somewhere
else where he is free to own guns.

-Mike
 
matt1956 said:
even if all charges are dropped and he is found to have not broken any laws, he will still never see his gun permit or guns again nore will he get back the time he served in jail. THAT is the real crime.
Click to expand...

Doesn't he have to convicted to be statutorily DQ'd from an FID? If he is not eventually convicted of something then once the 209A runs out he should be able to get back those firearms not requiring an LTC (if any).

He could move to more sane town and hope or could move out of state where non of this crap matters. What is really to hold him here anymore? He'll never walk down the street or do business in this area without people pointing at the crazy machine gun guy.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Of course he's a danger to the community...he owns GUNS!!! [shocked][shocked][shocked]
 

Similar threads

What are your silliest, most useless firearms.
4 5 6
Replies
179
Views
5K
wmassregulators
W
Hunter Biden unveils defense tactics in Delaware gun case
Replies
1
Views
225
Broc
Broc
Gun Rights Group scams
Replies
5
Views
305
Acujeff
Acujeff
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
621
Zappa
Zappa
What's acceptable Secure Storage for gun safes, guns and ammo in MA when in moving transition for an extended period of time?
Replies
24
Views
505
houdini
houdini
Back
Top Bottom