Natick man charged with possessing "illegal gun"

"A juvenile walking on West Central Street saw what he thought was a machine gun inside the minivan and noticed the doors unlocked"

There is always a snitch.
if your close enough to notice contents and lock or un locked your a snooper and or casing the place.
 
If he was smart enough to STFU or deny everything the police will need additional proof since it was an unlocked van anyone could access. The proof could be AR15 accessories/ammo at home, prints on the gun (I wonder if they did this?) or anything else to prove he is a gun person.

The possibility of an acquittal based on "anyone had access to put it there", combined with the excellent chance of a conviction, is a setup for a plea bargain.
 
General Law - Part I, Title XIX, Chapter 131, Section 63

MGL said:
Section 63: Loaded shotgun or rifle in motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat
Section 63. A person, other than the director of law enforcement, his deputy directors of enforcement, chiefs of enforcement, deputy chiefs of enforcement, environmental police officers, deputy environmental police officers, warden and members of the state or local police in areas over which they have jurisdiction, special officers or persons charged with the protection of persons or property while acting in the discharge of their respective duties, as such, and paraplegics as provided in section sixty-five, shall not, except upon land owned or occupied by him, have in his possession or under his control in or on any motor vehicle or aircraft a loaded shotgun or rifle, nor shall he have in his possession or under his control in any motor boat a loaded shotgun or rifle unless authorized by the director in regulations relating to the hunting of migratory waterfowl; and any person shall, upon the demand of any officer authorized to enforce this chapter, display for inspection any shotgun or rifle in his possession or under his control in a motor vehicle, aircraft or motorboat while not on property owned or occupied by him.

Once the three stooges figure out what is really illegal, this guy is screwed with the above violation (which makes him PP).

He was not in the car, therefore it was *not* "in his possession or under his control". This is a storage issue. It's obvious that he completely failed the storage requirements, but I don't think 131 § 63 applies here.

If it *does* apply here because he owns the car, then the regular rules about storage vs. transportation get all wonky.

My understanding is that if you're driving somewhere, it's "transportation" and "unloaded" is a requirement; and in the case of a "large capacity rifle" a locked case is also a requirement. But as soon as he parked it's no longer transportation, it's storage. In which case it being loaded is legal (assuming it's in a locked case or has a trigger lock)
 
General Law - Part I, Title XIX, Chapter 131, Section 63

Once the three stooges figure out what is really illegal, this guy is screwed with the above violation (which makes him PP).
Ignoring for a moment the lack of an LTC by the van's owner, wouldn't this "loaded rifle found in unoccupied van" be a storage-related violation as opposed to a possession of loaded rifle hunting-related violation? [thinking]

EDIT: Opps! Milktree beat me to it! [cheers]
 
Last edited:
If the van was unlocked how hard is it to believe someone planted it there?

Did he have information implication Hillary or exonerating Kavanaugh?

And who loads a gun with 26 rounds? Unless maybe it was a 25 round mag with one in the pipe?

No, it was a 30 rds mag with 4 in the chamber.
 
If you kept his mouth shut, and says he doesn't know who to put it there, and has no other shooting paraphernalia at his house, which they will search, he has a chance of walking, where they can't tie it to him directly
 
If you kept his mouth shut, and says he doesn't know who to put it there, and has no other shooting paraphernalia at his house, which they will search, he has a chance of walking, where they can't tie it to him directly

Honestly, from his mug shot, he doesn't look bright enough to hit any of those points...
 
If you kept his mouth shut, and says he doesn't know who to put it there, and has no other shooting paraphernalia at his house, which they will search, he has a chance of walking, where they can't tie it to him directly

Except, of course, when they trace the serial number of the gun and tie it to him
 
"A juvenile walking on West Central Street saw what he thought was a machine gun inside the minivan and noticed the van’s doors were unlocked. The juvenile called his family and together they called police."

This family should be lauded as heroes of the Fatherland. Kid would have made one awesome Hitlerjugend.
 
He was not in the car, therefore it was *not* "in his possession or under his control". This is a storage issue. It's obvious that he completely failed the storage requirements, but I don't think 131 § 63 applies here.

If it *does* apply here because he owns the car, then the regular rules about storage vs. transportation get all wonky.

My understanding is that if you're driving somewhere, it's "transportation" and "unloaded" is a requirement; and in the case of a "large capacity rifle" a locked case is also a requirement. But as soon as he parked it's no longer transportation, it's storage. In which case it being loaded is legal (assuming it's in a locked case or has a trigger lock)

Ask GOAL about this as I recall them stating that after the law change in 1998 (making one a PP), many LTC holders lost their licenses as they had been bagged by EPOs with a loaded gun leaning against a bumper or in a MV (that they were not sitting in).

Of course we also have the C. 140 prohibition of having an uncased long gun on a public way. Since no court has ruled that even a locked car is a legitimate locked container . . . I am not certain right now and no time to research the actual wording of the law . . . whether or not that C. 140 prohibition states "carry" on a public way vs. possessed on a public way (visible in a car). In any case I'm certain that a judge would rule for the prosecution because guns!
 
Right, everyone is throwing their hats in the ring so Im just going to add some fuel to this fire...

If he can only be hit with storage, then he gets off free under Heller. Prosecution will severely f*** up some state laws.

Personally, I think he's f***ed, but worth some banter.
 
Of course we also have the C. 140 prohibition of having an uncased long gun on a public way. Since no court has ruled that even a locked car is a legitimate locked container . . . I am not certain right now and no time to research the actual wording of the law . . . whether or not that C. 140 prohibition states "carry" on a public way vs. possessed on a public way (visible in a car). In any case I'm certain that a judge would rule for the prosecution because guns!
The state of MA has published a statement that a trunk is a locked container:

Gun ownership in Massachusetts

If charges, this would form the basis of a defense based on entrapment by estoppel.
 
Hmmm, if he had no FID/LTC, how could he be tied to the SN?

ATF calls up the manufacturer and finds which distributor they sold it to. Then they call up the distributor and find which FFL they sold it to. Then they call up the FFL and find who they sold it to. Chances are, he bought it from the FFL.
 
ATF calls up the manufacturer and finds which distributor they sold it to. Then they call up the distributor and find which FFL they sold it to. Then they call up the FFL and find who they sold it to. Chances are, he bought it from the FFL.
I must be missing something here....would an FFL sell/transfer to a buyer with no FID/LTC in MA?
 
I must be missing something here....would an FFL sell/transfer to a buyer with no FID/LTC in MA?
Do we know that he is and has always been a MA resident? Do we know that he did not buy it in another state from an FFL that did not know that an FID/LTC was required to possess in MA (remember long guns can by purchased in any state if legal to possess in your home state). Do we know that he is not also a FL/NH/ME resident or some other summer home? Do we know that he did not previously have an LTC or FID and it expired or was revoked?

I can come up with a lot of scenarios where the gun is traceable to him and he does not have a current LTC/FID
 
I must be missing something here....would an FFL sell/transfer to a buyer with no FID/LTC in MA?

No, but tons of MA people are blow ins.... not difficult for a resident elsewhere to get a gun in a free state. Lots of people move here and never get licensed, etc... that's how this stuff happens.
 
The state of MA has published a statement that a trunk is a locked container:

Gun ownership in Massachusetts

If charges, this would form the basis of a defense based on entrapment by estoppel.

It wouldn't be visible by the kid if it was locked in a trunk. Obviously it was out in the open in the vehicle, so this won't help him at all.
 
The search of the van is fine, improper storage or safe keeping/community caretaker, take your pick for rationales. The search is not based illegal possession because unless you know the owner is unlicensed that's a dead end probably. But the search warrant for the house is cute, I bet that get's trashed.
 
Ask GOAL about this as I recall them stating that after the law change in 1998 (making one a PP), many LTC holders lost their licenses as they had been bagged by EPOs with a loaded gun leaning against a bumper or in a MV (that they were not sitting in).

Of course we also have the C. 140 prohibition of having an uncased long gun on a public way. Since no court has ruled that even a locked car is a legitimate locked container . . . I am not certain right now and no time to research the actual wording of the law . . . whether or not that C. 140 prohibition states "carry" on a public way vs. possessed on a public way (visible in a car). In any case I'm certain that a judge would rule for the prosecution because guns!

If I understand you correctly, you just made my point. He wasn't driving, therefore it's storage, and 131§63 isn't relevant.

But he's still screwed for lots of other reasons. Just not that one.
 
Police questioned both the owner of the minvan and Newhall-Thayer and determined the gun belonged to Newhall-Thayer. He does not have a gun permit, Rossi said.

Money 'graf.

So stupid I'm not even going to ask for his Delta Tau Chi NES Pledge screen name.

ETA: "Natick Man" is like Ed Fleury on "stairoids"(*).
=====
(*) To employ the mispronunciation used by the spokeschick in the radio ad for Noxitril.
 
Last edited:
The search of the van is fine, improper storage or safe keeping/community caretaker, take your pick for rationales. The search is not based illegal possession because unless you know the owner is unlicensed that's a dead end probably. But the search warrant for the house is cute, I bet that get's trashed.
Not arguing, just trying to understand the rationale behind this.
If he own the car, and they found a gun in it, wouldn't that be sufficient for a search of his home? Is it relevant that the car was parked in front of his home? I'm thinking they would also be able to find something linking him to the gun itself, records or fingerprints.
 
Not arguing, just trying to understand the rationale behind this.
If he own the car, and they found a gun in it, wouldn't that be sufficient for a search of his home? Is it relevant that the car was parked in front of his home? I'm thinking they would also be able to find something linking him to the gun itself, records or fingerprints.
The warrant has to link the illegal conduct to additional evidence or illegal conduct in the home. Probably the best argument is the one you point out for nexus to the home, that records may be found there. I've also seen holsters and cleaning supplies sought in search warrants.
 
You guys are missing the forest for the trees.

It looks to me like a new narrative has begun. Watch carefully to see if they begin pushing this new narrative aggressively out through media.

This is similar to the beginning of the "AR's are illegal to transfer" push that was begun by State officials about 6 or 8 months before Healey's "legislation by press conference". Back at that time, a gunsmith I knew, when he was talking with the MA officials about licensing, said that they kept underscoring the notion that it was "not legal to transfer an AR15 that was not in MA prior to the 94 ban". He and I were talking about the licensing process and he asserted that and I said WTF are you talking about--AR's are perfectly legal, they just have to meet post-ban configuration requirements--but he told me emphatically no, that he had asked several times, and the state licensing official was adamant--it was "illegal" to transfer an AR15 in MA.

I was puzzled by it at first, then I saw what happened.

The way it seems to work is they circulate it first among a captive audience--bureaucrats and those pleading for a license of some sort--then they push it out to the general public via media, who (understandably confused) question the bureaucrats and they get a uniform head nod. It's f*cking gaslighting is what it is--but the AG has staked out her territory already, she had just chosen "at this time" not to enforce it. Keep your eye out--I'm gonna guess something is coming.
 
Back
Top Bottom