Pre-Trial Detention for Career Firearm Offenders

[GOAL]

First let say thanks for all the support that NES has given to GOAL. Secondly, the forum has been a great place to vet proposals, legislations, etc. The people on the forum, other than a few, provide thoughtful and reasoned feedback that greatly assists us in our mission. Thank you.

So, here is another one for you to look at.

Some may remember that a while back, Bristol County DA Sutter was using the dangerousness hearing statutes to hold career criminals in possession of firearms without bail. The statutes he was using were not really meant for that purpose, but were intended for abuse violations: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/276-58a.htm

After meeting with the DA, I agreed with what he ws trying to do, which is put the career criminals in jail and keep them there. However, as I explained to him, the problem is ensuring our people don't get caught up in this. So as a result we have been working on some new language that would allow him to hold true career criminals. The following language is the draft of what would be a new statute. We hae tried to make it clear that any such person being held is obviously a violent career criminal. Please give it a look and give me your thoughts.

"The commonwealth may move, based on dangerousness, for an order of pretrial detention or release on conditions for a person who has been charged with a second or subsequent offense of felony possession of a weapon or machine gun as defined in section 121 of chapter 140 and has been previously convicted of a violent crime as defined in section 121 of chapter 140 having served a committed term of imprisonment after sentencing had been carried out for said violent crime."

 

[lord1234]

Jim,
If the person has been convicted of a violent crime not involving a firearm, would a first offense not be liable to a detention hearing? I don't know of any "violent crimes" that would not be statutory disqualifiers for owning a firearm.

Basically the only time I would think it shouldn't happen is if it is (a) their first violent crime they have been accused of AND (b) they were in possession of a weapon at the time

My 2c

 

[GOAL]

The following is the MA defintion of a violent crime. Keep in mind that we are saying that they would have had to have served time for the first conviction to be considered for this.

Chapter 140, Section 121: “Violent crime”, shall mean any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, or any act of juvenile delinquency involving the use or possession of a deadly weapon that would be punishable by imprisonment for such term if committed by an adult, that: (i) has as an element the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force or a deadly weapon against the person of another; (ii) is burglary, extortion, arson or kidnapping; (iii) involves the use of explosives; or (iv) otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to another.

 

[Bob P]

Jim,
If the person has been convicted of a violent crime not involving a firearm, would a first offense not be liable to a detention hearing? I don't know of any "violent crimes" that would not be statutory disqualifiers for owning a firearm.

Basically the only time I would think it shouldn't happen is if it is (a) their first violent crime they have been accused of AND (b) they were in possession of a weapon at the time

My 2c

I think the proposed ammendment addresses that by being an 'and' statement.

2 conditions:

1) Second (or more) offense involving felony posession of a weapon
2) Prior violent offense

IANAL but it looks like effective wording for what you're trying to do.

 

[MetalgodZ]

I'm normally against mandatory sentencing (and other mandatory punishments) so I'm open to debate on this, but if you've already been convicted of a violent crime and you've now established a pattern of violent actions, I don't see anything wrong with this. The proposed language looks fine to me.

Besides, it gives me something to suggest as an alternative when I write/call/fax to express my opposition to the microstamping and "automatic weapons ban" B.S. crap that's being looked at right now. Due to the "but we HAVE to do SOMETHING [cry]" factor, it's MUCH more politically viable to be able to suggest an alternative like this than just oppose two other "somethings."

 

[seanc]

Could being in possession of a magazine come into play here??

As much as I like the idea of putting and keeping criminals behind bars. I'd hate to see some sort of witch hunt start for anybody having in their possession a post 94 10+ round mag (or I suppose "high capacity clip" as our very informed legislators like to call them).

 

[GOAL]

Could being in possession of a magazine come into play here?? QUOTE]

It shouldn't. The language we used was specific to the official term of "weapon" as defined in section 121:

“Weapon”, any rifle, shotgun or firearm.

 

[Underwhere]

I think that is a clear compromise. Good work.
One step at a time.

 

[Spanz]

Common sense in negotiating new MA laws?? I am speachless! You've got my support.

 

[Half Cocked]

Keep in mind that we are saying that they would have had to have served time for the first conviction to be considered for this.

Really?

 

[Half Cocked]

After meeting with the DA, I agreed with what he ws trying to do, which is put the career criminals in jail and keep them there.

Amazing what you can learn from someone and how your opinion can change simply by talking to someone.

My opinion is that GOAL should be doing more of this.

Good for you for finally doing it.

 

[wolf223]

Really?

i agree with Half Cocked...


so the criminals bla bla bla....


what about the law abiding citizen?

MA has a so-called mandatory 2.5 year sentance for anyone caught w/o an LTC / FID - who is in possesion bla bla bla...

what about us?

maybe i'm reading this wrong... the courts WILL continue to let the felons walk in and out of court, so this legislation will NOT help "us" in any way... IMO.

i must be reading this wrong...