Most charges dropped in Manchester gun case

Friday said:
Channel 7 picked this up last night- the mentioned that all but 2 of the charges have been dropped, but they got the silencer and indoor range bit wrong, of course. They did mention he's been held without bail for 19 days, though.

ETA: Of course my wife's response, when they put up the clip of his collection of rifles says, "wow, look at that arsenal." I asked her if there was any legal limit to how many guns he could own. (she's an atty.) I then asked her how many of those rifles does she think he could fire at the same time? The answers of course, were none and one. She holds an LTC-A ALP, like me, and she still had this kneejerk reaction to a table full of old rifles.

It's a disease, I tell ya.....
Click to expand...


Just wait until 'reasonable restrictions' from the SC ruling(s) get turned into limits on how much you can own.

I can't even imagine how a term as nebulous as 'reasonable restrictions' gets defined or limited going forward.
 
RFWAVELENGTH said:
No judge will override a chief's denial if the chief determines that the applicant is "not suitable".
Click to expand...

False. See, among others, Gemme v. Ricciardi, 25 Mass.L.Rptr. 65 (Mass. Super. 2008)

Here the District Court Judge heard and assessed the testimony of percipient witnesses called by both parties, much of which was not available to Chief Gemme at the time he made his decision to revoke Ricciardi's license to carry a firearm. From that evidence he formed a conclusion about what happened at the Ricciardi residence that was significantly different than the conclusion reached by Chief Gemme. The District Court Judge specifically found that Ricciardi did not point his firearm at anyone and did not threaten to shoot anyone. Thus, the District Court Judge found that the complaining witnesses' claims that they had been assaulted at gunpoint, the very claims that formed the basis for Chief Gemme's decision that Ricciardi was unsuitable to carry a firearm, were untrue. The District Court Judge did not simply substitute his own judgment for Chief Gemme's. Rather, he carefully analyzed all of the evidence at the hearing, including witness testimony not available to the Chief, and determined that there was no reasonable ground for the Chief to revoke Ricciardi's license and that his decision, under the circumstances, was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.

After a review of the entire record, I cannot conclude that there was a substantial error of law in the District Court's judgment that there was no reasonable ground for Chief Gemme to revoke Ricciardi's license. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
steveyc272 said:
False. See, among others, Gemme v. Ricciardi, 25 Mass.L.Rptr. 65 (Mass. Super. 2008)
Click to expand...
There was also the Wakefield case. Wakefield PD will not issue or renew a LTC to anyone who was ever the subject of a 209A restraining order, justified or not. Now, a 209A is strictly a civil matter unless it is violated. A Wakefield gun owner, who once had a 209A issued against him, was refused a LTC renewal. He took the Chief of Police to court and lost. The judge upheld the Chief's opinion that anyone who has ever been subjected to a restraining order is forever "unsuitable". LTCs are discretionary and licensing authorities have a lot of leeway. I can imagine that Gemme ordered all kinds of restrictions to be placed on Ricciardi's LTC or even downgraded him to LTC-B.
 
RFWAVELENGTH said:
There was also the Wakefield case. Wakefield PD will not issue or renew a LTC to anyone who was ever the subject of a 209A restraining order, justified or not. Now, a 209A is strictly a civil matter unless it is violated.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is BS. Anything which makes you a federally prohibited person (eg, while the RO is active) is NOT a matter of civil law. You are effectively considered a criminal under an active DV based RO (like a 209A).

-Mike
 
Titan said:
Just wait until 'reasonable restrictions' from the SC ruling(s) get turned into limits on how much you can own.
Click to expand...

You don't have to wait, it's already in the gun laws of several communist states. This nostrum that McDonald will allow states to impose more restrictions is silly.... they're already doing whatever they want. The change will be that those restrictions can possibly be subjected to a test against a couple of supreme court rulings, whereas before there basically was no constitutional test for ANY gun law.

-Mike
 
Underwhere said:
I wonder if there is something we can do for him.

That guy could be 75% of the people on this board.
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking. Everyone on this board loves to talk but wouldn't help out this guy because half of the people here still think he's a "nut". In reality, there are many here that if a friend or wife etc called in on them being "concerned" the same thing would happen to you. Gun parts laying around, "assault rifles", body armor, pepper spray... I could go on forever. You'd get nailed to the wall just like this guy.
 
TomH said:
This is what I was thinking. Everyone on this board loves to talk but wouldn't help out this guy because half of the people here still think he's a "nut". In reality, there are many here that if a friend or wife etc called in on them being "concerned" the same thing would happen to you. Gun parts laying around, "assault rifles", body armor, pepper spray... I could go on forever. You'd get nailed to the wall just like this guy.
Click to expand...

If I lived in MA and a moonbat PoPo department saw my gun room I would easily be in the same boat as him.
 
derek said:
If I lived in MA and a moonbat PoPo department saw my gun room I would easily be in the same boat as him.
Click to expand...

Maybe even the same cell. But they wouldn't let two right wing extremists share a cell as they might form a conspiracy to endanger children everywhere. With soda bottles and indoor ranges.
 
drgrant said:
Sorry, but this is BS. Anything which makes you a federally prohibited person (eg, while the RO is active) is NOT a matter of civil law. You are effectively considered a criminal under an active DV based RO (like a 209A).

-Mike
Click to expand...
Not BS at all. In this case, the guy was going through a divorce and the ex got the 209A RO on him. He kept a low profile and saw the divorce through to its completion. He was then able to get his LTC back after the RO expired. When renewal time came, he ran into a policy change in Wakefield. The chief's new policy was not to issue any LTCs or renew any LTCs for anyone who ever had a RO against them in their lifetime. Didn't matter if the RO expired 20 years ago; you are now "not suitable" in Wakefield. The judge upheld the chief's discretion in refusing the renewal, even though the guy was not legally prohibited from owning firearms. Just a chief being a dickhead.
I never implied that the guy attempted to renew a LTC while under a RO. You are correct in stating that would be against federal and state law.
 
The chief's logic is that the issuance of an RO represents a judicial finding that someone has been found to present a threat of violence to another person, and the expiration of the RO does not remove the history of such a judicial finding from their record. It would be interesting to see how he would fare using that logic as the basis to terminate an officer of his who gets an RO as part of the divorce process.
 
This kind of case is why I'm happy to be leaving this part of the country. Out west there is no issue at all anywhere I'm likely to travel. And the Sheriff's office would never pull this crap in Yakima county. He'd be out on his ear come next election. Same for the County Attorney. Even in Seattle he would have been released on PR or a small bond right away.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The chief's logic is that the issuance of an RO represents a judicial finding that someone has been found to present a threat of violence to another person, and the expiration of the RO does not remove the history of such a judicial finding from their record. It would be interesting to see how he would fare using that logic as the basis to terminate an officer of his who gets an RO as part of the divorce process.
Click to expand...
Twisted logic indeed. The chief still would have to issue the guy an FID upon application. If the chief considers him to be such a threat with a handgun, will he be any less of a threat with a shotgun or a high-powered centerfire rifle? If somebody decides to take a shot at me, I pray that he/she has a handgun. Shotguns and high-velocity rifles have a much greater hit probability and cause devastating wounds to the body when they connect. As far as terminating an officer, most departments around here are Civil Service. It takes an act of Congress to get rid of them. On top of that, many are unionized, which provides an additional level of employment security those of us in the private sector can only dream of.
 
Palladin said:
this poor prick. He should have robbed & killed someone, he'd be out on $10k bail
Click to expand...

Yep.

derek said:
If I lived in MA and a moonbat PoPo department saw my gun room I would easily be in the same boat as him.
Click to expand...

And it's not just Mass. Here the guy's wife called the cops. If she had decided to get a restraining order (maybe she did eventually?) due to a perceived threat, that makes it criminal to possess guns under federal law. That gets the police into your life, and as we see here, once they declare you a threat to society it's game over, regardless of whether any laws are broken. That's more likely to happen in Mass than NH, but it can happen anywhere.
 
Bill Nance said:
This kind of case is why I'm happy to be leaving this part of the country. Out west there is no issue at all anywhere I'm likely to travel. And the Sheriff's office would never pull this crap in Yakima county. He'd be out on his ear come next election. Same for the County Attorney. Even in Seattle he would have been released on PR or a small bond right away.
Click to expand...


Just be prepared. There's no moonbat shortage in the Northwest.

If health care can be defeated there may be hope for stemming the progressive tide, at least for a while.
 
Twisted logic indeed.
Click to expand...
The problem is partially with the statutes. Although everyone knows the real deal with ROs, the actual law states that they are issued when there is a credible threat of violence and, as such, the argument exists that legally speaking, the issuance of such an RO is a judicial finding such a threat exists.
 
RFWAVELENGTH said:
There was also the Wakefield case. Wakefield PD will not issue or renew a LTC to anyone who was ever the subject of a 209A restraining order, justified or not. Now, a 209A is strictly a civil matter unless it is violated. A Wakefield gun owner, who once had a 209A issued against him, was refused a LTC renewal. He took the Chief of Police to court and lost. The judge upheld the Chief's opinion that anyone who has ever been subjected to a restraining order is forever "unsuitable". LTCs are discretionary and licensing authorities have a lot of leeway. I can imagine that Gemme ordered all kinds of restrictions to be placed on Ricciardi's LTC or even downgraded him to LTC-B.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make your previous statement true.

The point being is that people who had their LTC revoked shouldn't think that there isn't any legal recourse. I am not implying that it is easy, but there has been, and presumably will continue to be, judges that will overturn LTC denials/revocations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
he is due back in court 4/1, so within if you want to go sit in the court in the morning you can fill us in
 
namedpipes said:
I dunno. I can't find any reference to the guy since the 3/17 article. It's almost like everyone agreed to stop talking/reporting about it.

He's been "disappeared".
Click to expand...

I suspect he was released and told to shut his face to avoid embarrassment to the .gov involved. Someone can file a PRR/FOIA to find out...
 
I heard from someone in the know that he's being released.

A certain establishment of education that his wife works at has extra officers on detail at her building as long as she's in the building.

They're worried he'll try to kill her. If I was her, I'd be worried too after shitting on her vows in such a gracious manner.
 

Similar threads

Southington, Ct., gun store break in
Replies
3
Views
192
Sf Becket
Sf Becket
NES-NH Dinner - Sunday, June 9, 2024 at 5PM - Manchester, NH
2
Replies
31
Views
695
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Another gun buy-back pulls in 75.
Replies
13
Views
372
TrashcanDan
TrashcanDan
Help ID this odd ball case.....
Replies
15
Views
412
JuergenG
JuergenG
ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS DISPARAGE SCOTUS AS SECOND AMENDMENT CASES, ELECTION LOOMS
Replies
0
Views
97
Coyote33
Coyote33
Back
Top Bottom