Think this guy is screwed?

Snapshot said:
Do we "know"? No. But how many gang bangers do you know of put trigger locks on their illegal guns?
Click to expand...

I did not say he was a gang-banger. There are, unfortunately, plenty of good responsible people who are prohibited and would be in violation of FOPA.
 
Mr. Huizinga may face federal charges, including transporting guns across state lanes and not having a license to carry firearms
Click to expand...
Where does this stupid shit come FROM?!?!?

ATF: I repeatedly transport firearms across state lines.

Let me know when you wanna stop by.
 
haha, as im reading this thread the story just came on tv.....


anyway, what the heck is the deal with this???

"Mr. Huizinga may face federal charges, including transporting guns across state lanes and not having a license to carry firearms"
 
Jose said:
Where does this stupid shit come FROM?!?!?

ATF: I repeatedly transport firearms across state lines.

Let me know when you wanna stop by.
Click to expand...

hollewud7 said:
haha, as im reading this thread the story just came on tv.....


anyway, what the heck is the deal with this???

"Mr. Huizinga may face federal charges, including transporting guns across state lanes and not having a license to carry firearms"
Click to expand...

As Half Cocked suggested, he may be a federally prohibited person who isn't protected by FOPA. Even if he's never been in trouble with the law before he could have an active restraining order against him, have renounced his US citizenship, been court ordered into a mental institution, etc. etc.
 
GSG said:
As Half Cocked suggested, he may be a federally prohibited person who isn't protected by FOPA. Even if he's never been in trouble with the law before he could have an active restraining order against him, have renounced his US citizenship, been court ordered into a mental institution, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

maybe so, but then that charge would be "not having an ltc"
 
lowbuckbob said:
For a routine traffic stop, the Trooper cannot go beyond the scope of the original infraction (the traffic violation) without clear and articulable facts that would lead him to believe there is reasonable suspicion warranting a further search. This would include having the operator alight from the vehicle to perform a pat frisk. During a traffic stop, the subject is contained within the vehicle and if he produces his license and registration and there are no extenuating circumstances, there is no need to proceed any further. If, however, the Trooper perceives any suspicious behavior that would lead him to believe something other than the nexus of his original stop is afoot, he is indeed free to conduct any further investigation as the situation warrants.
Click to expand...

+1 Well Stated!
 
Half Cocked said:
Do we know that he was not an otherwise prohibited person?
Click to expand...

HC, it does note that the authorities said he has no previous criminal record.


Jose said:
Where does this stupid shit come FROM?!?!?

ATF: I repeatedly transport firearms across state lines.

Let me know when you wanna stop by.
Click to expand...

ATF wouldn't waste their time with this case.



However, if all he had were locks on the guns, then I don't believe that satisfies FOPA. They have to be in the trunk or otherwise not easily accessible from the passenger compartment in locked cases.
 
vellnueve said:
ATF wouldn't waste their time with this case.
Click to expand...

That's because someone driving their guns through several states to reach their destination is not a crime, does not require any "permits", and is a trumped up bullshit charge. [angry]


I do have a question.

How does one comply with the FOPA requirements that the firearms and ammunition not be "directly accessible from the passenger compartment" when the only secured compartment in your vehicle IS the passenger compartment?

Do I have to have a cap over my truck's bed? Can I NOT use my wife's Chrysler Pacifica (a station wagon-type vehicle) which does not have a separate trunk? What about a Chevy Tahoe or Toyota 4Runner?

Do gun owners who might travel through hostile states have to do so in a sedan?
 
It is a very common problem. You go out and buy a $40 lockable case.

And next time you buy a truck, make sure it is at least an "extended cab" type, so there is just enough room behind the seat to store two or so of such cases.
 
One of the law's provisions was that persons traveling from one place to another for a shooting sports event or any other lawful activity cannot be arrested for a firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gas) and the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, in a locked container.[5]
Click to expand...

Jose, that issue has already been considered and dealt with.
 
That .50BMG necklace is hawt!

I swear the media producers salivate over gun stories. Can you imagine what their production meetings must be like? "Okay evil black gun story. Who wants it? We'll go with the scary assault weapon angle to imply that something nefarious was afoot."

Alas, we've become so unthinking that we gobble up whatever trash the media puts out there. Just keep the "reality" TV flowing. It's our version of Soma.
 
Jose said:
That's because someone driving their guns through several states to reach their destination is not a crime, does not require any "permits", and is a trumped up bullshit charge. [angry]
Click to expand...

Yep, that's my point.

I do have a question.

How does one comply with the FOPA requirements that the firearms and ammunition not be "directly accessible from the passenger compartment" when the only secured compartment in your vehicle IS the passenger compartment?

Do I have to have a cap over my truck's bed? Can I NOT use my wife's Chrysler Pacifica (a station wagon-type vehicle) which does not have a separate trunk? What about a Chevy Tahoe or Toyota 4Runner?

Do gun owners who might travel through hostile states have to do so in a sedan?
Click to expand...

I misquoted. The driver needs to be able to not easily get access. A locked case solves that. In a cabless truck, I imagine it'd have to go behind the seat.
 
The report from LSM is lacking enough detail to determine what really is going on here. Some possibilities that "might" make these charges legit:

  • If the person is a "prohibited person" due to past record, FOPA won't protect him.
  • If the guns/ammo weren't stored in compliance with FOPA, he isn't protected. If either or the knucks were within his reach while driving, he would be subject to MGLs and he's screwed.
  • Brass knucks in "possession" while driving (or walking around) is a MA felony. You can possess them (as a paperweight) or transport them in the trunk/out of reach of driver/passengers and that is legal.
  • One LSM report insinuated that they took ammo off his person, that would be illegal possession without a MA LTC and not protected by FOPA if true.

In general FOPA is honored in MA, however:

  • MA LEOs are regrettably not trained appropriately in the area of firearms law. Most LEOs are pretty clueless wrt what is legal and what isn't. I have seen info where someone was arrested for something that isn't a crime, had guns confiscated when they were perfectly legal, etc.
  • MA being so gun-unfriendly, having any gun or obvious gun case visible in a car/truck/SUV is looking to get harassed, with the possibility of trumped up charges for non-existent "crimes".
  • Even though a gun case in the bed of a truck is perfectly legal (FOPA), wisdom says to make sure that it is NOT visible with the naked eye of an inquiring officer in MA. Locked tool chests in the truck bed can avoid all this type of unpleasantness.

To the case at hand:

  • I've never heard of federal laws prohibiting transportation of guns/ammo across state lines. [If person is a federally prohibited person, then this may indeed be a legit charge.]
  • MA has no prohibitions against carrying knives, except fully-auto knives.
  • Possession of ammo/any type of gun/hi-cap mags in MA require a MA LTC.
    Very narrow exceptions only under FOPA, attending a gun show/exhibition/competition, otherwise you are subject to worse penalties than murder in the state.
  • Some LEOs in MA "make up laws" on the fly, due to personal prejudice mixed with lack of actual knowledge about MA gun laws (fills 400 pg book written specifically to train new LEOs in the state). I think that perhaps "contempt of cop" (see Joseph Wambaugh's books) may be in play here, such that the trooper decided to throw the kitchen sink at this guy and he wasn't smart enough to invoke FOPA. Even if he's legal, likely they will screw him up and force him to take a plea bargain, making him a lifetime prohibited person.
  • The "necklace" shown last night (.50BMG hung on a cord) by a Trooper requires at least an FID (or LTC) to possess, even though it has two holes drilled thru it! Absolutely moronic law, but it still can be prosecuted as "ammo" w/o a permit and hang him for life. Remember, no exemption for spent brass! <Dumber than Dumb>
 
There are a remarkable number of knives, etc, that are illegal to have on you in MA. I am sure an 18 y.o. from CT is not going to know all this stuff. He probably just saw some brass knuckled at a show or some weird out of state shop, and thought they were tacticool:

M.G.L. Chapter 269 Section 10 (b)

(b) Whoever, except as provided by law, carries on his person, or carries on his person or under his control in a vehicle, any stiletto, dagger or a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position, any ballistic knife, or any knife with a detachable blade capable of being propelled by any mechanism, dirk knife, any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches, or a slung shot, blowgun, blackjack, metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles, nunchaku, zoobow, also known as klackers or kung fu sticks, or any similar weapon consisting of two sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather, a shuriken or any similar pointed starlike object intended to injure a person when thrown, or any armband, made with leather which has metallic spikes, points or studs or any similar device made from any other substance or a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand, or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends; or whoever, when arrested upon a warrant for an alleged crime, or when arrested while committing a breach or disturbance of the public peace, is armed with or has on his person, or has on his person or under his control in a vehicle, a billy or other dangerous weapon other than those herein mentioned and those mentioned in paragraph (a), shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years in the state prison, or for not less than six months nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction, except that, if the court finds that the defendant has not been previously convicted of a felony, he may be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction.

Mass does a really bad job explaining all the laws on the books! It is too bad that a valid legal defense is not "laws are too screwed up or hard to find to make sense out of"
 
Last edited:
What I find most troubling is the troopers proclamation that a bullett neclace denotes a "state of mind". WTFO? State of Mind? What does that even mean? Now clothing or jewlery is justcause for a search? Hope this kid wasn't wearing a "shoot em all and let god sort em out" t-shirt.

His comment on state of mind is really scary.
 
offisland said:
What I find most troubling is the troopers proclamation that a bullett neclace denotes a "state of mind". WTFO? State of Mind? What does that even mean? Now clothing or jewlery is justcause for a search? Hope this kid wasn't wearing a "shoot em all and let god sort em out" t-shirt.

His comment on state of mind is really scary.
Click to expand...

No kidding. Ever seen the way the MSP dress? Do their uniforms denote a certain "state of mind?"
 
offisland said:
What I find most troubling is the troopers proclamation that a bullett neclace denotes a "state of mind". WTFO? State of Mind? What does that even mean? Now clothing or jewlery is justcause for a search? Hope this kid wasn't wearing a "shoot em all and let god sort em out" t-shirt.

His comment on state of mind is really scary.
Click to expand...

This attitude that looks is reflective of intent has been around since the dawn of time. Every generation has their boogey man from greasers to punks to stoners to goths to gangbangers. Those who belong to those groups do it for the reaction. The kid got the reaction he wanted, just not the one he bargained for. He shouldn't be screwed for life for it either.
 
Mr Weebles said:
No kidding. Ever seen the way the MSP dress? Do their uniforms denote a certain "state of mind?"
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you're reading into the uniform something that isn't there. In the 20's and 30's the MSP was primarily a mounted unit. Their uniform pants are part of their history -- they are essentially riding pants and the boots are riding boots.

The MSP uniform predated the Nazi SS uniform, and it appears that the SS uniform was basically a copy of the MSP uniform, not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SS_uniform

The MSP certainly has a militaristic attitude. But I don't blame the uniform nor do I see the uniform as an expression of this. The uniform is part of their history.
 
M1911 said:
Actually, I think you're reading into the uniform something that isn't there. In the 20's and 30's the MSP was primarily a mounted unit. Their uniform pants are part of their history -- they are essentially riding pants and the boots are riding boots.

The MSP uniform predated the Nazi SS uniform, and it appears that the SS uniform was basically a copy of the MSP uniform, not the other way around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SS_uniform

The MSP certainly has a militaristic attitude. But I don't blame the uniform nor do I see the uniform as an expression of this. The uniform is part of their history.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point.

The way they dress has no bearing on their "state of mind."

Nor does that kid having a .50BMG bullet on his necklace denote his "state of mind."
 
Mr Weebles said:
That's exactly my point.

The way they dress has no bearing on their "state of mind."
Click to expand...

I guess I misunderstood you. I've heard some people say things like "MSP act like storm troopers and look like them too -- check out their uniform." When the reality is that the SS storm troopers copied the MSP, not vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Re FOPA, my ignorance of the actual acceptable methods of storage comes from the fact that every state that I have traveled to or through with firearms only requires that firearms be unloaded and cased, with ammo stored separately.

I have never needed FOPA protection due to the laws of the states that I have traveled through or visited.
 
Blitz1 said:
Liberals DUH [thinking]

I just saw it on TV as well, this guy is Evil according to them. [thinking][hmmm]

The media is more concerned about American idol. [sad2]
Click to expand...

The one thing the TV people I saw focused on was the .50 cal necklace or pen or whatever it was.

Edit: Just saw this, which makes the point above:
greycar said:
Officer Conti states that the demilled 50bmg worn on a lanyard around his neck implies a state of mind that led to further investigation. These were "highly sophisticated weapons", according to madam prosecutor. [hmmm]

There is a NECN video on this Glob page. http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/03/state_police_fi.html
Click to expand...


I think by "highly sophisticated", they mean that they weren't Lorcins or Jennings'.



Jose said:
That's because someone driving their guns through several states to reach their destination is not a crime, does not require any "permits", and is a trumped up bullshit charge. [angry]


I do have a question.

How does one comply with the FOPA requirements that the firearms and ammunition not be "directly accessible from the passenger compartment" when the only secured compartment in your vehicle IS the passenger compartment?

Do I have to have a cap over my truck's bed? Can I NOT use my wife's Chrysler Pacifica (a station wagon-type vehicle) which does not have a separate trunk? What about a Chevy Tahoe or Toyota 4Runner?

Do gun owners who might travel through hostile states have to do so in a sedan?
Click to expand...
How about a Jeep Wrangler with no top or back seat?




KilgoreTrout said:
...Alas, we've become so unthinking that we gobble up whatever trash the media puts out there. Just keep the "reality" TV flowing. It's our version of Soma.
Click to expand...

What is "Soma"?



LenS said:
The report from LSM is lacking enough detail to determine what really is going on here. Some possibilities that "might" make these charges legit:

  • ...
  • One LSM report insinuated that they took ammo off his person, that would be illegal possession without a MA LTC and not protected by FOPA if true.
...

  • ...
  • Even though a gun case in the bed of a truck is perfectly legal (FOPA), wisdom says to make sure that it is NOT visible with the naked eye of an inquiring officer in MA. Locked tool chests in the truck bed can avoid all this type of unpleasantness.

If all I had was the bed of a truck, I think a pocket would be the safest place to keep some ammo. Imagine if you had a fender bender. Everything would be all over the place.



To the case at hand:


  • ...
  • Possession of ammo/any type of gun/hi-cap mags in MA require a MA LTC.
    Very narrow exceptions only under FOPA, attending a gun show/exhibition/competition, otherwise you are subject to worse penalties than murder in the state.
    ...
  • The "necklace" shown last night (.50BMG hung on a cord) by a Trooper requires at least an FID (or LTC) to possess, even though it has two holes drilled thru it! Absolutely moronic law, but it still can be prosecuted as "ammo" w/o a permit and hang him for life. Remember, no exemption for spent brass! <Dumber than Dumb>
Click to expand...

This is just ridiculous. Quoting Scrivener here: "What you tolerate, you validate. What you put up with, you deserve!"
 
Last edited:
To go one more step:

Doing or having something that is legal, is not probable cause to search and arrest you, and cost you thousands of dollars in legal fees, and 10 years or so in jail if you are an 18 year old kid w/o the resources to defend youself.

Know the law if you will serve it, and use just a teeny bit of common sense as you do and realize this kid was probably NOT on a mission from Allah to blow up the LNG tanks or something.

He was a kid that took the precautions he thought he was required to take, to get through MA legally and ran into someone that, by that newspaper article, did not like his necklace.
 
Trooper Mike Conti who is reported to make comments about the lanyard indicating a state of mind, and the concern over body armor found in the stop is definitely a "gun person" who will be fully aware of the nuances of FOPA 86. He heads, or is very involved in the MSP firearms training and writes a column for Guns & Ammo magazine.

There are a lot of details one cannot determine from the report - mainly, were the specific requirements of FOPA86 followed?

It seems that they police made the initial conclusion that this person was "up to no good" and acted accordingly. What we may never know is what would have happened if all FOPA 86 requirements were followed and the gun cases were spotted but no red flags like a 50BMG lanyard or brass knucks were involved, and the subject had the presence of mind to politely explain that he was traveling in accordance with FOPA86.

It's the details we don't really know that define the difference between good police work and an abuse of power in this case.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Can you guys tell me what this is?
Replies
7
Views
501
LittleCalm
L
I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
692
chris_1001
chris_1001
Concerns Grow Over ISIS-K Attack in the US; Former Top General Says, 'I Think This Is Inevitable'
Replies
18
Views
439
G4Y4HK
G
Is this a new term? Zombie guns.
Replies
9
Views
363
hminsky
H
How Democrats Think Suppressors Work
Replies
9
Views
376
Nightshift
Nightshift
Back
Top Bottom