P G Dowd, Northboro, Ma

[FalArAk]

Although I don't remember the details, there is already a law that allows the PD to send the guns to the MSP for destruction after a set amount of time . . . I suspect that it is 1 year (from fuzzy memory, may well be wrong).

I don't think there is a lot of red tape involved, just requires a lot of storage space that most PDs don't have available.

Len,they couldn't legally destroy the guns if the owner was still involved in a court case that in turn would determine his "suitability",correct ?

I would imagine that the dept could send them to the MSP for destruction only AFTER the owner was deemed "unsuitable",or after the owner failed to pick them up after a reasonable time after being declared "suitable".

 

[Mike S]

Guys, speaking on a personal level here, not conveying any GOAL message.

I agree with much of what is being said here, the system needs to be changed which enables his business.

I WILL point out these issues to Jim and everyone else and I can ensure you that they will be made aware.

Nobody has a right to tell him how to run his business. We do however have the right to make sure we change what enables that end of it.

Thanks for bringing this up.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Nobody has a right to tell him how to run his business.

Agreed, but GOAL has the right to include an article in the Outdoor Message that describes his business practices, and condemns them as deplorable and acting against the interests of GOAL members.

I request that GOAL do so.

Accepting a donation from Mr. Dowd, and thanking him for his support of GOAL, is a tacit acceptance of his current policies as something less than working against MA gun owners.

What GOAL needs to work at from the legislative side:

1. State regulation of bonded warehouse fees, similar to the regulation of towing fees

2. A prohibition on refusing to release gun A because the owner isn't coughing up the fees for guns B, C and D

3. A requirement that PDs make the guns available to pickup by a legally entitled individual (LTC holder for non-209a confiscations, FFL holder for 209s) for a miniumum of 30 days before turning the guns over to a bonded warehouse.

4. A legislative clarification that return of guns picked up by an FFL under such circumstances are not subject to the "lists" or consumer regulations affecting the sale of firearms.


If NOBODY ran a bonded warehouse, PDs would already be prohibited from destroying the guns for a period of time (I think one year) after confiscation - therefore, every bonded warehouse is part of the problem.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len,they couldn't legally destroy the guns if the owner was still involved in a court case that in turn would determine his "suitability",correct ?

I would imagine that the dept could send them to the MSP for destruction only AFTER the owner was deemed "unsuitable",or after the owner failed to pick them up after a reasonable time after being declared "suitable".

Greg, I honestly don't know. I doubt that they would hold them thru multiple appeals and we all know that the District Court (with 99% certainty) would hold in favor of any local chief.

My guess is that the PD would get rid of them (send to MSP for "disposal in accordance with MGLs" == destruction) long before 1 year is up, then the MSP would destroy them.

 

[terraformer]

What GOAL needs to work at from the legislative side:

1. State regulation of bonded warehouse fees, similar to the regulation of towing fees

2. A prohibition on refusing to release gun A because the owner isn't coughing up the fees for guns B, C and D

3. A requirement that PDs make the guns available to pickup by a legally entitled individual (LTC holder for non-209a confiscations, FFL holder for 209s) for a miniumum of 30 days before turning the guns over to a bonded warehouse.

4. A legislative clarification that return of guns picked up by an FFL under such circumstances are not subject to the "lists" or consumer regulations affecting the sale of firearms.


If NOBODY ran a bonded warehouse, PDs would already be prohibited from destroying the guns for a period of time (I think one year) after confiscation - therefore, every bonded warehouse is part of the problem.

Everything but one is needed. But 1 is too nanny state for me and fails to get at the problem. If you made any FFL an eligible BW, then there would be plenty of market pressure to regulate price. The real key is that as part of #3, you make the PD responsible for promulgating that the effected individual can chose the BW of his choice if the other conditions are not met and then hold the PDs to be responsible for not following #3. ie; they pay when they screw it up. I think this whole thing goes away then. Right now, if what I have heard is true, there are too many PDs who default to Dowd immediately because of his misleading ads (imagine what he says in person???). Cut off the bulk of the supply and this becomes a side business for local FFLs instead of the primary business for a few people.

 

[Coyote33]

... as part of #3, you make the PD responsible for promulgating that the effected individual can chose the BW of his choice if the other conditions are not met and then hold the PDs to be responsible for not following #3. ie; they pay when they screw it up. I think this whole thing goes away then....

 

[drgrant]

Everything but one is needed. But 1 is too nanny state for me and fails to get at the problem. If you made any FFL an eligible BW, then there would be plenty of market pressure to regulate price.

The part you're missing is there is no market pressure because the PD isn't the one paying the price. EG, an anti gun PD could give a crap less if the storage fee costs (for you) are $100 a gun per day. As it is now, they get to basically choose the facility, as far as I can tell.

In order to have anything resembling a free market the person the guns were getting confiscated from would at least have to have a choice of a bunch of different bonded warehouses.

The best idea yet is to just destroy the notional altogether, and allow anyone with an MA state dealer license to "act" as a bonded warehouse if they
wish, with the "victim" being given a choice of whoever they wanted to use for that purpose.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Everything but one is needed. But 1 is too nanny state for me and fails to get at the problem. If you made any FFL an eligible BW, then there would be plenty of market pressure to regulate price.

The person paying for the service does not select the vendor. As long as this remains the case, price and practice regulation is necessary.

If the user selects the FFL who picks up the guns on his/her instructions, MGL does not require it to be a bonded warehouse. The "bonded warehouse" requirement comes in when the PD selects the FFL to do the storage, and exists because the FFL is being used for "involuntary storage". Any FFL is currently eligible to do the task if so designated by the owner, however

(a) The designated FFL has to beat Dowd in a race to the guns. There have been cases where PD's asked Dowd to hurry so he could beat the owner's designated FFL (or LTC holder in the case of a non-209a confiscation)

(b) Many FFLs will be concerned that transfer back to the original owner will place them afoul of the "list" or "AG regulations". If this were really the case, then it would also be illegal for an FFL to take a non-compliant handgun in for gunsmithing, repair it, and return it to the owner.

The best idea yet is to just destroy the notional altogether, and allow anyone with an MA state dealer license to "act" as a bonded warehouse if they
wish, with the "victim" being given a choice of whoever they wanted to use for that purpose.

Already the case, IF the owner gives the FFL permission. This requires cooperation from the PD however, which will vary depending on the attitude of the PD and sympathy, or lack thereof, for the individual's case.

 

[terraformer]

The real key is that as part of #3, you make the PD responsible for promulgating that the effected individual can chose the BW of his choice if the other conditions are not met and then hold the PDs to be responsible for not following #3. ie; they pay when they screw it up. I think this whole thing goes away then.

I didn't make myself clear I guess. That is what you two are saying, isn't it?

 

[drgrant]

If the user selects the FFL who picks up the guns on his/her instructions, MGL does not require it to be a bonded warehouse. The "bonded warehouse" requirement comes in when the PD selects the FFL to do the storage, and exists because the FFL is being used for "involuntary storage". Any FFL is currently eligible to do the task if so designated by the owner, however

The question I have, is is this always offered by the PD? I get the impression this is really only a problem because many PD's don't offer the gun owner a choice in the matter. It sounds to me like "We're stealing your guns and sending them to a bonded warehouse, and you're going to like it."

-Mike

 

[bostonasphalt2]

I, personally, would donate money to any person here who got an FFL and store front to act as a bonded warehouse and was 2A friendly, not 2A parasitic.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

And here is a very recent example:

GOAL would like to thanks all of these companies for supporting GOAL and helping make the Lucky 20 Raffle the success that it is. Lew Horton Distributing Co. Inc, Auto Ordnance/Kahr Arms, Tite Group Sporting, Northeast Traders, Mike's Gun Shop, Savage, Smith & Wesson, PG Dowd Firearms, Camfour

When I saw that, I almost puked. PG Dowd, and NET? Ugh, sorry, but no. A small part of me starts to wonder exactly what GOAL is doing.....

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Nobody has a right to tell him how to run his business. We do however have the right to make sure we change what enables that end of it.

Myrequest for a formal GOAL condemnation of bonded warehouse practices presents an interesting, albeit uncomfortable, test of character for GOAL.

Gun rights organizations in states with "binding sign" laws frequently speak out against businesses that put up "CCW holders not welcome with their guns" signs - and don't refuse to take a stand or criticize such businesses while hiding behind "nobody has a right to tell them how to run their business". Although GOAL has no legal authority to issue orders a business regarding how it should be run, it is appropriate to speak out against businesses that work against the interests of the persons GOAL represents.

It is convenient to hide behind dodges to avoid confronting the direct issue: Mr. Dowd has been a donor to GOAL for years and, coincidentally, GOAL has remained silent on the issue of bonded warehouse abuses (legal behaviors, but abuses none the less). Perhaps the previous failure to address this issue was an oversight, but no more. GOAL is faced with a test: How does the management react when a member requests a formal, and strong, stand be taken against the businesses practices of a member who has, with the exception of this egregious situation, been a loyal donor?

The NET situation is quite different, as there could be negative political implications if GOAL took the action of criticizing a business for reporting an alleged violation of law to the state. One of GOALs keystones of credibility is that it has never advocated anyone break the law and coming down on someone for reporting a violation thereof is treading close to encouraging the violation of the law.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The question I have, is is this always offered by the PD? I get the impression this is really only a problem because many PD's don't offer the gun owner a choice in the matter.

No.

One prominent gun lawyer told me of a case where the PD made a "please hurry, the owner is getting his own FFL down her to try to take possession of the guns" call to a bonded warehouse when said attorney notified the PD he was making such arrangements.

I do not know if there have been situations where a FFL, with paperwork in hand and documented consent from the owner, was refused transfer while the PD waited for a bonded warehouse ... but it would not surprise me if that happened.

 

[Len-2A Training]

(b) Many FFLs will be concerned that transfer back to the original owner will place them afoul of the "list" or "AG regulations".

I believe that EOPS is now taking the position that every such transfer to the original owner (in the rare case they get their LTC back) requires another FA-10 . . . which would then put the FFL in NON-Compliance with the MGLs/AG Regs if the gun in question was NOT on the EOPS List and AG Regs compliant (or exempt from same by virtue of age). This would serve their useful purpose of getting the guns out of MA and virtual forfeiture by the rightful owner.

The question I have, is is this always offered by the PD? I get the impression this is really only a problem because many PD's don't offer the gun owner a choice in the matter. It sounds to me like "We're stealing your guns and sending them to a bonded warehouse, and you're going to like it."

-Mike

I'd be surprised if a fair number of PDs didn't do this.

 

[Coyote33]

I believe that EOPS is now taking the position that every such transfer to the original owner (in the rare case they get their LTC back) requires another FA-10 . . . which would then put the FFL in NON-Compliance with the MGLs/AG Regs if the gun in question was NOT on the EOPS List and AG Regs compliant (or exempt from same by virtue of age). This would serve their useful purpose of getting the guns out of MA and virtual forfeiture by the rightful owner.



I'd be surprised if a fair number of PDs didn't do this.

Just for the record, this is Len's belief, not a statement of fact.

Sorry Len, but you are so often good with the facts, that people might have missed this nuance. (-:

 

[Scrivener]

Add one more requirement:

That the bonded warehouse must make the gun(s) available for retrieval upon demand during normal business hours.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Just for the record, this is Len's belief, not a statement of fact.

Sorry Len, but you are so often good with the facts, that people might have missed this nuance. (-:

Fair enough. But I purposeful in my words. I have reason to believe it to be true, but don't have any factual info to make that statement as "fact".

 

[tom1022]

Well I had no idea about this bonded warehouse nonsence when I started this thread. My interaction with PG Dowd was much simpler in scope, he just told me a flat out lie on the value of a firearm. He knew I would find out the next day, and I did.

On it's face it seems incredible that the "bonded warehouse" could be a source of free inventory and the website is a sales channel for that free inventory. Wonder how owners feel when they see their dad's service revolver go on the web site. No wonder he keeps his door locked.

I am surprised Mr Dowd has not responded.

Glad I asked this question and glad you all posted. Sounds like GOAL should go on record, and politely refuse ill be gotten gain.

Happy New Year

 

[Coyote33]

Good point. I wonder, is PG Dowd on NES? It would be interesting to hear his side of the story.

 

[EC1]

I believe that EOPS is now taking the position that every such transfer to the original owner (in the rare case they get their LTC back) requires another FA-10 . . . which would then put the FFL in NON-Compliance with the MGLs/AG Regs if the gun in question was NOT on the EOPS List and AG Regs compliant (or exempt from same by virtue of age). This would serve their useful purpose of getting the guns out of MA and virtual forfeiture by the rightful owner.

So, let me add some food for thought. If you do get an FFL to get your guns before they get shipped to a bonded warehouse; and the owner does get their LTC back, why would an FA10 be required? What makes it different from having a gun on consignment at an FFL? (before you get to the discussion about not being able to retrieve the gun anytime you wanted, if the aforementioned gun grab happened and the guns were already at a dealer on consignment and the LTC re-instated you wouldn't need the FA-10)

 

[MassMark]

Dowd will take the Ted stance and either not bother to respond, or send a minion to do so...

 

[Len-2A Training]

So, let me add some food for thought. If you do get an FFL to get your guns before they get shipped to a bonded warehouse; and the owner does get their LTC back, why would an FA10 be required? What makes it different from having a gun on consignment at an FFL? (before you get to the discussion about not being able to retrieve the gun anytime you wanted, if the aforementioned gun grab happened and the guns were already at a dealer on consignment and the LTC re-instated you wouldn't need the FA-10)

Because the lawyers at EOPS and CHSB seem to make up their own rules frequently and pass them down as "law" (their interpretation anyway). At one time (a number of years ago), I was told by a reputable authority that no FA-10 on a frame/bare lower NOR when you built it up since you built it and didn't newly "acquire" it. A few years ago, a new regime took over and EOPS "ruled" that FA-10s ARE REQUIRED when you build a frame. What made me angry wasn't the rule itself, but that people were told one thing and operated on good faith, now they could be looked upon as criminals for doing so . . . with no notice whatsoever of the "rule change"! [NOTE: This never affected me directly as I never bought a bare frame or built a gun to date.]

 

[Scrivener]

Because the lawyers at EOPS and CHSB seem to make up their own rules frequently and pass them down as "law" (their interpretation anyway). At one time (a number of years ago), I was told by a reputable authority that no FA-10 on a frame/bare lower NOR when you built it up since you built it and didn't newly "acquire" it. A few years ago, a new regime took over and EOPS "ruled" that FA-10s ARE REQUIRED when you build a frame.

That no FA-10 is required for the transfer of a bare frame is clear from an objective reading of MA law; specifically, the definition of a firearm.

That one is required upon the build-out of that frame is equally obvious from the law.

I fail to see any intelligent basis for the alleged earlier position holding that no FA-10 is required upon the completion of the gun.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I fail to see any intelligent basis for the alleged earlier position holding that no FA-10 is required upon the completion of the gun.

It was an "interpretation" by EOPS attorneys as I understood it at the time.

 

[Scrivener]

It was an "interpretation" by EOPS attorneys as I understood it at the time.

From a first-hand discussion, or more internet legend / gun store rumor?

 

[Len-2A Training]

From a first-hand discussion, or more internet legend / gun store rumor?

NOT from a gun store or Internet legend.

If you'll be at the luncheon on Thursday, we can talk about it after the meeting, OK?

 

[wolf223]

i am very curious on actual "statistics" of what firearms P G Dowd is picking up from PDs. not BS speculation.

the inventory on the yankee artifacts website is usually not that great overall.

so part of me is wondering if these are, in fact abandoned firearms vs. someone who gets into a pickle and either

a. calls a buddy to pick up his stuff

or

b. call his neighborhood FFL to pick up and sell the guns

or

actually goes to court and found NOT guilty and gets his LTC and guns back directly from the PD

 

[EddieCoyle]

the inventory on the yankee artifacts website is usually not that great overall.

Believe it or not, that's the cream of the crop.

I don't like the guy's rumored business practices (if he really does lie to PDs), but I can understand why he does some of the things he does, even some of the things that piss you all off.

Take his "all or nothing" rule. This seems to really piss people off, but I can understand why he does it. If he only lets people bail out their 'good' guns, he'd be left with all the crap. By 'crap', I don't just mean all the .40s either - I mean filthy Marlin 60s, broken Sears shotguns, and rusty single-shot .22s. This kind of crap is worthless, but still expensive. Technically, they're still guns and have to be treated as such, and he's got to still pay for insurance and for whatever his space is costing him. He can't just throw this crap in a dumpster.

If I was running such a business, I'd institute a "you've got to take your crap if you want your good stuff" policy too. I'd do it differently though. If someone wanted to keep storage expenses down by bailing their guns out over time, I'd let them do it - but they'd have to take the crap first.

 

[Coyote33]

I'd like to see Dowd and GOAL get a chance to comment on this. I guess that will have to wait for a weekday (business day).