Pelham Police Chief Edward Fleury: could he have avoided warrant?

[Reptile]

Mr. Fleury's trouble began when he allegedly pulled a G27 with a laser and pointed at his friend. He was acquitted on those charges. In the mean time a search warrant was issued to search his house looking for the Glock 27 in question. While looking through his house the police discovered a number guns that were not locked in a safe or having trigger locks. In a separate trial from the assault case, he was convicted of unsafe storage and lost his gun rights.

I know the police went to great efforts to lure him out of his home in order to search it.

It disturbs be that he became a PP (Prohibited Person) due to his storage of guns. Those gun storage laws exist only in Massachusetts and nowhere else in this nation.

I want to know if the warrant and subsequent search of his home could have been avoided.

If he knew that the police wanted to take the G27 into evidence - could Mr. Fleury have simply given it to the police and have avoided the search of his home?

 

[amm5061]

Short answer: no. Remember this was a complete railroad job. They were out to get him in any way possible. Simply surrendering the firearm in question would never have stopped any of this, just likely changed the timeline. Also remember that they purposely busted locks on the attic door and various storage containers to claim they were "flimsy."

 

[appraiser]

Just as a clarification , this is Pelham MASSACHUSETTS, not Pelham NH.

The C.O.P. in Pelham NH is a pretty reasonable fellow BTW

 

[EJFudd]

Short answer: no. Remember this was a complete railroad job. They were out to get him in any way possible. Simply surrendering the firearm in question would never have stopped any of this, just likely changed the timeline. Also remember that they purposely busted locks on the attic door and various storage containers to claim they were "flimsy."

Exactly.

Remember that he had his usual Glock carry gun with him when he was called to the police station under totally false pretenses. He had no idea of what kind of shit was about to go down on him. Anyway, he gave it to the police and was arrested for his special crime. But the police excuse for the raid was that it might not have been the same Glock that was shown to Peter Terapulsky that fateful night. For as we all know, all Glocks look pretty much the same.

Bottom line is that they were out to screw him and that's exactly what they did... and that all depended on the massive police raid taking place. So trust me: It was going to take place no matter what Mr. Fleury did or didn't do. It was a predetermined certainty.

 

[Tyke]

Short answer: no. Remember this was a complete railroad job. They were out to get him in any way possible. Simply surrendering the firearm in question would never have stopped any of this, just likely changed the timeline. Also remember that they purposely busted locks on the attic door and various storage containers to claim they were "flimsy."

I don't recall there being a minimum container/lock strength specified in MGL?

 

[EJFudd]

I don't recall there being a minimum container/lock strength specified in MGL?

If I recall correctly, case law has had something to say about that (albeit still vague, confusing and ambiguous as Hell).

The 20 state troopers and local cops did manage to break through the attic door lock and possibly additional locks on boxes containing the guns in the attic (the latter is still not entirely clear from news reports). The locks were termed "flimsy" in trial testimony by the cops and that's what led to his convictions for the locked attic-stored guns.

Of course, that still left one gun unlocked and unsupervised downstairs on which it appears he would have been convicted anyway. Remember what they say: "All they need to find is one."

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I don't recall there being a minimum container/lock strength specified in MGL?

Read Commonwealth v. Hyde, and you will remain confused.

 

[rwl1955]

His big mistake was staying in Pelham, he should have moved to NH.

 

[browncoat]

The take away from this case is to be on friendly terms with your PD. If you aren't, they can ruin your life if they feel like it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sniper (+)]

I'm just going to leave this here and walk away...

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock".

 

[noxin]

The take away from this case is to be on friendly terms with your PD. If you aren't, they can ruin your life if they feel like it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, the takeaway is that the law (and any BS law that does nothing useful ) should be removed so the police don't have such an easy path to **** people over at their whim.

 

[amm5061]

I'm just going to leave this here and walk away...

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock".

You seem to be laboring under the incorrect assumption that the Constitution and USSC rulings that don't conform to the desired outcome apply in MA.

 

[rsj]

No, the takeaway is that the law (and any BS law that does nothing useful ) should be removed so the police don't have such an easy path to **** people over at their whim.

If you don't have an expensive lawyer the law means whatever the people in charge say it means at that moment.

XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

common defence = your right to keep and bear arms is dependent on the PD chief's opinion of you, etc. (until gun X gets banned)

 

[drgrant]

Short answer: no. Remember this was a complete railroad job. They were out to get him in any way possible. Simply surrendering the firearm in question would never have stopped any of this, just likely changed the timeline. Also remember that they purposely busted locks on the attic door and various storage containers to claim they were "flimsy."

This, when he got off WRT Westfield the moonbat AG/DAs etc, all had a huge murderboner and were gunning for this guy... government in this state has difficulty when it gets made sport
of....

-Mike

 

[amm5061]

This, when he got off WRT Westfield the moonbat AG/DAs etc, all had a huge murderboner and were gunning for this guy... government in this state has difficulty when it gets made sport
of....

-Mike

Yup. He was a total idiot for not packing up and moving out of state immediately after Westfield was resolved. Physically moving himself out of reach of the MA AG/DAs jurisdiction was the only way he could have saved this from happening.

 

[namedpipes]

If you don't have an expensive lawyer the law means whatever the people in charge say it means at that moment.



common defence = your right to keep and bear arms is dependent on the PD chief's opinion of you, etc. (until gun X gets banned)

Of course, as you probably know, that clause is null and void per the US Constitution.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I'm just going to leave this here and walk away...

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock".

let's hear from the attorneys on the forum, on this one.

 

[Reptile]

let's hear from the attorneys on the forum, on this one.

If I was him, I'd mortgage the house and pay a good attorney to appeal his BS conviction.

After all the news reports and articles - long story short - the guy was railroaded!

I'll throw this out here... if Comm2a seriously gets some big guns behind this and comes up with a good plan for action - I'd donate $400.00 to them. I'm getting my taxes back in 3 months.

 

[EJFudd]

If I was him, I'd mortgage the house and pay a good attorney to appeal his BS conviction.

After all the news reports and articles - long story short - the guy was railroaded!

I'll throw this out here... if Comm2a seriously gets some big guns behind this and comes up with a good plan for action - I'd donate $400.00 to them. I'm getting my taxes back in 3 months.

That's certainly generous. I would donate more too for that specific purpose as I feel that the safe storage law is one of the greatest legal threats to gun owners in Massachusetts. But I don't see Comm2A ever taking on the case of the railroading of ex-CoP Fleury. In the end, rationally or irrationally, too many people will always hate him for Westfield and/or for his personality flaws and for alleged bad behavior at times while CoP in Pelham (MA). He is not an ideal "clean & sympathetic" candidate on which to base an appellate case that might have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. I believe Comm2A would need a better candidate and a better case or it will just be another wasted effort.

That said, I hope Mr. Fleury does pursue his appellate case on his own and I hope he wins it. He was set-up, lied to and railroaded just because of his past even though he was found not guilty on all previous charges. It's as ugly as ugly gets for a gun owner in this crazy state. When all else fails, they will get you on the safe storage law. That's how it works in Massachusetts.

 

[amm5061]

That's certainly generous. I would donate more too for that specific purpose as I feel that the safe storage law is one of the greatest legal threats to gun owners in Massachusetts. But I don't see Comm2A ever taking on the case of the railroading of ex-CoP Fleury. In the end, rationally or irrationally, too many people will always hate him for Westfield and/or for his personality flaws and for alleged bad behavior at times while CoP in Pelham (MA). He is not an ideal "clean & sympathetic" candidate on which to base an appellate case that might have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is. I believe Comm2A would need a better candidate and a better case or it will just be another wasted effort.

That said, I hope Mr. Fleury does pursue his appellate case on his own and I hope he wins it. He was set-up, lied to and railroaded just because of his past even though he was found not guilty on all previous charges. It's as ugly as ugly gets for a gun owner in this crazy state. When all else fails, they will get you on the safe storage law. That's how it works in Massachusetts.

He was basically screwed from the get-go with the gun under the cushions. That one was a slam dunk, but they wanted to lock him up for the rest of his miserable life for getting off on Westfield, so they piled on and now we've got this giant shit sandwich that is MA safe storage.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

He was basically screwed from the get-go with the gun under the cushions. That one was a slam dunk, but they wanted to lock him up for the rest of his miserable life for getting off on Westfield, so they piled on and now we've got this giant shit sandwich that is MA safe storage.

To me it seems easy enough, but I am no Attorney and I don't know how ****ed up the court system is. Reading this seems like an easy win?

Originally Posted by Sniper (+)

I'm just going to leave this here and walk away...

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock".

 

[EJFudd]

He was basically screwed from the get-go with the gun under the cushions. That one was a slam dunk, but they wanted to lock him up for the rest of his miserable life for getting off on Westfield, so they piled on and now we've got this giant shit sandwich that is MA safe storage.

If he were just treated like a human being by the cops right from the start, this insanity would never even have come up. The lies and the raid on his house were entirely unnecessary... unless they were out to get him at any cost, of course.

Yes, in the end, the infamous "gun hidden under the cushion" was all they really needed to convict him. All the BS about "flimsy" locks and 20 state troopers managing to break through the attic door didn't even matter. His licensed wife being home alone somehow didn't matter. The lies to get him out of the house didn't matter. In the end, it all boiled down to that one gun hidden under the cushion and now Fleury is a convicted felon and PP for life. Insane but true. Welcome to Massachusetts.