Pelham Mass Chief: ‘Improperly stored arsenal’ described in trial

Every freaking cable lock that comes with your purchase can be taken care of with a pair of bolt cutters in seconds
Click to expand...
Remember the 5 basic ways to open a lock: Picking, shimming, drilling, rapping and impressioning. I have found that rapping frequently works on cable locks. They are also frequently pickable. I haven't tried drilling or shimming, and I never learned impressioning (other than theory).

Many trigger locks can be removed by inserting a tool by the trigger guard and unlatching the ratchet. I've done this twice at matches when the owner forgot his key. In one case, the owner was sweating it during a flight to Toronto muttering "damn, I forgot the key" and I was muttering "not a problem, we'll deal with it". Since the lock was undamaged he could even re-lock the gun for transport (required by Canadian law).
 
browncoat said:
Yeah it definitely stinks. You know similar tactics could be used on any of us.
Click to expand...

EJFudd said:
Oh, it gets even worse. Consider the issue of the guns stored up in the attic (accessed through a ceiling pull-down door apparently). They were stored in boxes with locks on them (or trigger locks in some cases - that is still unclear). But according to police testimony, the boxes and/or locks were "flimsy" and the cops were able to break the locks or the attached hardware and get to the guns... hence, "unsafe storage"! [rolleyes]

So think about that and how it might apply to any of us. [thinking]
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder why these lawrs are in existence, right? [bs1]

I think after this case, its pretty clear if it wasn't before...
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Remember the 5 basic ways to open a lock: Picking, shimming, drilling, rapping and impressioning. I have found that rapping frequently works on cable locks. They are also frequently pickable. I haven't tried drilling or shimming, and I never learned impressioning (other than theory).

Many trigger locks can be removed by inserting a tool by the trigger guard and unlatching the ratchet. I've done this twice at matches when the owner forgot his key. In one case, the owner was sweating it during a flight to Toronto muttering "damn, I forgot the key" and I was muttering "not a problem, we'll deal with it". Since the lock was undamaged he could even re-lock the gun for transport (required by Canadian law).
Click to expand...

Trigger locks are one of the easiest ones to break. Grab either side with vise grips and twist. Usually, counter-clockwise. It takes all of 10 seconds and you're in [smile]
 
Horrible said:
Makes you wonder why these lawrs are in existence, right? [bs1]

I think after this case, its pretty clear if it wasn't before...
Click to expand...
Well, it's supposed to be for the children, right? [thinking] It's not about theft if a trigger lock alone satisfies the law so it must be about preventing immediate use by an unauthorized person and, of course, preventing use by the children. But there were no children in this household... just two licensed adults. [hmmm]

And here's my biggest b*tch of all: From the cops testimony, 90% of the 200+ item gun collection were fully secured without question. They also checked each and every gun in the house. None were illegal, stolen or otherwise problematic in any way... not even a single post-ban magazine apparently. [thinking] Of the 20-something remaining "unsecured" guns, most were in "flimsy" (not perfectly secured) boxes in the attic or were found in the master bedroom. 5 of the offending "unsecured" gun charges have already been dismissed or he was found not guilty in regard to them. I believe the judge in the current trial is also excluding at least some of the remaining guns as well (possibly the master bedroom guns?). One gun was noted in the news reports as having a trigger lock but the key was still in the lock. Duh. One was said to be in a trash bag although it was most likely one of those extra-heavy-duty plastic gun store/ammo bags that looks like a trash bag in color. Possibly a new acquisition?

Where am I going with all this? IMHO, I believe Fleury & Mrs Fleury were cognizant of the safe storage law and were not blatantly flaunting it or ignoring it like the prosecutor would have the jury believe. In fact, it sounds like they were going out of their way to comply with the safe storage law, albeit not in 100% perfect by-the-book compliance that fateful day. If the attic-stored guns get excluded along with the master bedroom guns, we are down to so few offending guns left that you can count them on one hand (i.e., the ones that allegedly violated the law once Mrs. Fleury was removed from the house by the cops). [thinking]

If I were on the jury, despite apparent past douchebaggery and stupidity, he would walk. [hmmm]
 
Ringworm said:
This is a CoP...an elected person. Not one of the fancy union thugs. Yes, there's a distinct difference on they're treated...
Click to expand...

Chief of Police is an appointed positon. Sheriff is an elected position and that position has been reduced to virtual uselessness in MA.
 
amm5061 said:
... This is not how the law is supposed to work, even in this ****ing corrupt state.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I believe the law is working in this instance, EXACTLY as the framers of it envisioned.

It's being used as a strategy to "get" someone they want "gotten".

That's not right. It's not how the law is supposed to be used. But it likely IS the way the author of the original bill hoped it would work.
 
namedpipes said:
I disagree.

I believe the law is working in this instance, EXACTLY as the framers of it envisioned.

It's being used as a strategy to "get" someone they want "gotten".

That's not right. It's not how the law is supposed to be used. But it likely IS the way the author of the original bill hoped it would work.
Click to expand...

it's even better when the cops decide that 'cuz they could open a locked case, it wasn't REALLY locked'.

WTF. So does the bar eventually elevate to 'but I could open the case with this':

stored.jpg

so it wasn't REALLY secure......[frown]
 
browncoat said:
Is this not entrapment?
Click to expand...
rwl1955 said:
********
Sure as hell looks like it to me.
Click to expand...
It's even worst than that. It was the betrayal of Fleury's two friends, Peter Terapulsky (who decided to start this whole CF and now deeply regrets it) and current Pelham Police Chief Gary Thomann, who lied repeatedly to get his "friend" Fleury out of his house. It also begs the question: Is Pelham Police Chief Gary Thomann still lying now on the witness stand??? [thinking]

Lord knows I am no lawyer, but from a layman's point of view, doesn't "entrapment" go directly to the intent of the persons setting up and conducting the raid? [thinking] One of my questions all along has been: Why didn't Pelham Police Chief Gary Thomann, supposedly a close friend, simply call ex-Police Chief Fleury on the phone and tell him to drop off his Glock (the one from the alleged assault incident) at the police station as part of the assault investigation? Does anyone honestly think Fleury would not have done so? What the heck other options did he have? None. And remember, Fleury was eventually cleared of the assault charge and that would have been the end of this whole idiotic mess. So it does look to me like they were looking for a whole lot more than just Fleury's Glock carry piece. They were out to get him for sure.
 
JayMcB said:
it's even better when the cops decide that 'cuz they could open a locked case, it wasn't REALLY locked'.

WTF. So does the bar eventually elevate to 'but I could open the case with this':

View attachment 207716

so it wasn't REALLY secure......[frown]
Click to expand...
This goes right to the heart of one of the questions that could affect many of us: Exactly how secure does secure have to be? [thinking]

Recall the case of the guy who claimed that his bedroom, equipped with a typical bedroom door "privacy lockset", was secure enough to meet the secure storage law requirement... and he lost. But we never got a better definition out of that case or the appeal as to what would have been secure enough for a room or closet to meet the requirement (if a room or closet could meet the requirement at all). [hmmm]

Well, I now see that Fleury's lawyer and his wife are claiming that the attic door *did* have a lock on it. Was that one of the "flimsy" locks that the police were able to easily break though? [thinking] Sounds like it was... but we may have to wait until tomorrow's news coverage of the trial to find out more.

+++

EDIT: Trial is over. Jury has it now. http://www.gazettenet.com/Jury-begins-deliberations-in-trial-of-former-Pelham-Police-Chief-12618441
 
Last edited:
Recall the case of the guy who claimed that his bedroom, equipped with a typical bedroom door "privacy lockset", was secure enough to meet the secure storage law requirement... and he lost.
Click to expand...
I doubt the judges actually believed that the "privacy lockset" was being used to keep the bedroom locked for secure gun storage.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I doubt the judges actually believed that the "privacy lockset" was being used to keep the bedroom locked for secure gun storage.
Click to expand...
Correct. The point is that they didn't rule out the concept of a locked room or locked closet meeting the law. They just ruled that the bedroom "privacy lock" (which didn't even use a real key) was inadequate to meet the requirements of the law.

Put another way, we know what they wouldn't accept... but they passed on telling us what they would accept. [thinking]
 
jpk said:
every time I see one of these threads I have to wonder why y'all continue to live in Mass
Click to expand...

Still underwater on the house and can't afford to buy a new one.


Update:

Just checked Zillow and it's no longer underwater, but still not enough of a cushion to make it worth selling right now.
 
Last edited:
EJFudd said:
It's even worst than that. It was the betrayal of Fleury's two friends, Peter Terapulsky (who decided to start this whole CF and now deeply regrets it) and current Pelham Police Chief Gary Thomann, who lied repeatedly to get his "friend" Fleury out of his house. It also begs the question: Is Pelham Police Chief Gary Thomann still lying now on the witness stand??? [thinking]

Lord knows I am no lawyer, but from a layman's point of view, doesn't "entrapment" go directly to the intent of the persons setting up and conducting the raid? [thinking] One of my questions all along has been: Why didn't Pelham Police Chief Gary Thomann, supposedly a close friend, simply call ex-Police Chief Fleury on the phone and tell him to drop off his Glock (the one from the alleged assault incident) at the police station as part of the assault investigation? Does anyone honestly think Fleury would not have done so? What the heck other options did he have? None. And remember, Fleury was eventually cleared of the assault charge and that would have been the end of this whole idiotic mess. So it does look to me like they were looking for a whole lot more than just Fleury's Glock carry piece. They were out to get him for sure.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree and after that sort of testimony there is no way I could vote to convict on any of the charges. No matter how big a scumbag he might be, he should walk on this BS..


EJFudd said:
Correct. The point is that they didn't rule out the concept of a locked room or locked closet meeting the law. They just ruled that the bedroom "privacy lock" (which didn't even use a real key) was inadequate to meet the requirements of the law.

Put another way, we know what they wouldn't accept... but they passed on telling us what they would accept. [thinking]
Click to expand...

Why would the judiciary ever try to help legal gun owners avoid legal jeopardy? Not going to happen.
 
Why would the judiciary ever try to help legal gun owners avoid legal jeopardy? Not going to happen.
Click to expand...
Couture would disagree. Ooops, forgot, he was carrying illegally do it doesn't count.

The "privacy lock security the bedroom for gun storage" ranks up there with "I was conducting an investigation into child abuse and porn so I could turn the results over to the authorities" in terms of credibility.
 
Last edited:
I would assume the Glock handgun the warrant was for was located in an easy (non-attic) area of the house and probably discovered early in the search.

Question for the police and attorney types: When a search warrant is issued for a very specific item, and that item is found, does the authority for a continued search end or does the warrant allow the police to fish the entire pond even after their catch?
 

Similar threads

Bear Creek Arsenal
2
Replies
31
Views
851
greencobra
greencobra
Jury finds NRA and Wayne LaPierre liable in civil corruption trial
Replies
24
Views
636
ThePreBanMan
ThePreBanMan
Mass. out-migration study. Everyone is leaving!
2 3 4
Replies
95
Views
2K
P51MA
P
FFL dimension requirements for office space in Mass
Replies
6
Views
353
rudiewhitebwoy
rudiewhitebwoy
  • Locked
Ammo Shipping to Mass
Replies
25
Views
688
drgrant
drgrant
Back
Top Bottom