-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Unauthorized transfer of firearms from State Police Armory?
- Thread starter BostonFJ40
- Start date
PaulR
NES Member
Have they released the names of the troopers yet?
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,363
- Likes
- 109,131
silly rabbit, laws are for the little people
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 1,732
- Likes
- 1,206
My guess is that the firearms in question are the hundreds of M14 and M16A1 rifles that the staties received from the Army about a dozen or so years ago. These weapons are still considered to be machine guns by the BATFE, even though Army armorers converted them to semi-auto only before distributing them to police departments nationwide. All they paid for was the shipping. The weapons were obtained for no charge.
thorin
NES Member
"An investigation that led to the recent suspension of three state troopers involves allegations that they sold several hundred used State Police guns to a Greenfield firearms dealer on behalf of the department, then received more than a dozen of those weapons, free of charge, for their personal use, according to two people familiar with the probe."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ws-scrutiny/i8fMR4Rxbu6VSJz6yyYAyN/story.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...ws-scrutiny/i8fMR4Rxbu6VSJz6yyYAyN/story.html
i'm sure they'll find some way to spin it off on the dealer. like the dealer somehow convinced them to illegally transfer the firearms, so it's all the dealer's fault. nothing to see here. move along folks.
we those full auto MGs? If yes, a dozen of them would be worth a whole lot. Nice score comrades polizeis!
PaulR
NES Member
Meh.
Article makes me want to side with the cops.
Makes it look like "this is the way we've always done it, what's the problem? oh, so these guys got a couple old guns, big deal" Probably from an ethics standpoint yea ok that's bad....doesn't seem like the crime of the century though...not like that other story where the evidence room was raided for everything for years n years.
What am I missing?
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,363
- Likes
- 109,131
How much of a break do you need to get on 'several hundred' firearms before you can throw a few pistols back?
Interesting that the article seems to gloss over the real issue, that the officers received numerous gifts from the vendor.
Sure, trading in the old guns is a good thing, and at most it looks like they messed up on the procedure, maybe they should have gotten multiple bids. But the real issue is the "more than a dozen" guns the officers received as gifts. It's not even that it's guns, its taking gifts, and from a vendor that has a history of doing this.
Sure, trading in the old guns is a good thing, and at most it looks like they messed up on the procedure, maybe they should have gotten multiple bids. But the real issue is the "more than a dozen" guns the officers received as gifts. It's not even that it's guns, its taking gifts, and from a vendor that has a history of doing this.
You are missing the kickback.
The dealer giving them some of the guns for their personal use is a bribe -- that is no different than stealing the guns directly from the armory.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sounds like things along these lines have been going on for years. Now, if you were a reasonable person trying to prevent fraud and bribery in the folks working for the state, wouldn't you want to avoid doing business with a company that had been investigated before? Just to avoid any "appearance of impropriety"? How much do you want to bet that Jurek brothers gets a lot of those special "no bid" contracts. The departments involved just say "hey, we need X number of X firearms. Send a PO over to Billy-Bob and tell him not to forget my scotch this Christmas."
If the officers allegedly involved did, in fact, receive firearms from the dealer in exchange for fascilitating the sale, would they not be guilty of receiving
? Link
I'm sure the officers involved are all fine, upstanding members of our community, though. No wrong-doing at all.
Garys
NES Member
It's more along the lines of a kick back. State employees are forbidden to accept more than $50.00/year from a vendor or potential vendor. That amount is intended to cover things such as if a salesman brings in coffee for the purchasing agent.
I would also expect that the state has a property office that is in charge of disposing of surplus property. Maybe that's done by department, maybe it's done by one agency. I know that in Boston, all of our vehicles were transferred to the Transportation Department for disposal unless they were being traded in for new vehicles.
I would also expect that the state has a property office that is in charge of disposing of surplus property. Maybe that's done by department, maybe it's done by one agency. I know that in Boston, all of our vehicles were transferred to the Transportation Department for disposal unless they were being traded in for new vehicles.
Yes, it is a kickback. A kickback is another way of stealing from your employer. You are letting the vendor give your employer a worse deal, provided that they kick back some of the cash to you under the table. It is effectively stealing from your employer and is illegal.
DPR
NES Member
They could be suspended by the state from bidding or submitting proposals.
Appears as though they've done this before so I would not be surprised if the state does just that.
- - - Updated - - -
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Its Massachusetts. Everyone expects corruption in their public officials...lol.
kevin9
NES Member
If this part be true, then by all means throw the book at them for corruption (kickbacks).
The rest of it still sounds like retroactive rule changes, and maybe paperwork mistakes. It appears the vendor had a contract to exchange trade-ins for new guns already. One might wonder who complained, another vendor, or someone in the office who didn't get their piece of the kickbacks.
If that were the case, the FFL can start looking for a new line of work after the charges are filed against them. If they did accept the firearms as a return for doing business with one vendor improperly or even properly, they are idiots who are out of a job.
I don't know - maybe something else is going on.
A friend of mine - who works as a prison guard - when I told him recently that I was selling off some of my stuff told me that he knows tons of guys - all LEO - who are looking to buy stuff. Probably coincidence - but still seems a coincidentally odd IMHO.
What war?The war on crime ha!
Similar threads
