Was: Mike from Titegroup enters not guilty plea - update: 5/9/14 - plead out

[rjh200]

The more I read this the more it pisses me off! How is this not a class action lawsuit based on fair commerce laws? How is it that nobody fought this yet? You're going to lose in the lower courts but I don't see how it can be lost in the higher courts? If he was so open about it then why not fight it? I am sure we could have easily funded his defense? Something just isn't adding up here. I just don't know how someone can be so vocal in opposition and then just back down.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Bonesinium]

A similar situation occurred with Maadi-Griffitn. The proprietor made a 50BMG kit that was a "non-gun" by published BATFE standards, which was important because the owner (Stewart) was a convicted felon. The BATFE told him to knock it off. He refused, so the BATFE found a cooperative federal court to accept the BATFE's determination that the parts were "readily convertable" to an operational gun, and thus, he was a felon in possession and an unlicensed dealer. If he had heeded their early warnings, he could have opened a sub shop instead of heading to club fed.

This example, and maybe that is LenS point, is one of how if the government wants, they will screw you over, if you don't play by their rules. So for those reasons, you should play by their rules. Sort of like Ares Armory, and in a way, sort of like the Bundy Ranch situation. But that is an argument saying you should just follow along or you will be oppressed. That isn't exactly a great argument from a moral or philosophical standpoint. Might be good practically, but that is pretty ephed up.

The only way to challenge an interpretation of the law you think is bogus is in court as a plaintiff in a civil action; not as a defendant in a criminal one.

Not unconditionally true. You can always raise the argument that the law in unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful as a criminal defendant.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Not unconditionally true. You can always raise the argument that the law in unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful as a criminal defendant.

You are absolutely correct in the literal sense of the word.

What I was trying to say is "The only sane strategic way to challenge......". You can "afford the stakes" of taking the issue to trial and risking a loss in a civil action against the state. Many defendants talk a good game about how they "aren't going to cop a plea" early on in the process but, after they get ground down by both legal fees and the threat of a severely enhanced penalty for insisting on a trial, cop a plea as trying to prove the point is just too risky.

In any case, you earned a rep point.

 

[Bonesinium]

You are absolutely correct in the literal sense of the word.

What I was trying to say is "The only sane strategic way to challenge......".

In any case, you earned a rep point.

Fair enough. There are multiple ways of looking at it. From a practical standpoint, if you value your freedom, I agree with you and LenS. I totally disagree from a moral standpoint. And for that reason, I think not having sympathy for someone is disappointing to say the least. It is like saying, "well sure, that is wrong and you shouldn't need to follow it, but you have to anyways, so too bad for you!"

 

[Rob Boudrie]

How is this not a class action lawsuit based on fair commerce laws?

A class action suit is used when the plaintiff is seeking damages for a large group of people ("the class"). When challenging the validity of a law, one needs specific plaintiffs and, if the law is overturned, all persons in similar situations benefit. Even if your logic was sound (and, unfortunately, it is weak based on how courts have tended to rule), class action would not be the way to go.

For example, the alien LTC case had only two named plaintiffs (Fletcher and Haas), however, the result is that all legal resident aliens in MA are now eligible for an LTC if they meet the requirements.

Challenging a gun law is not as simple as arguing "fair commerce". Various courts in the country have upheld laws banning certain classes of firearms (just look at NY, CT, CA and NJ for examples). It takes a lot more than gun owners feeling something is "unfair" to form the basis of a sound legal challenge.

I think not having sympathy for someone is disappointing to say the least.

One can both have sympathy for the individual and also recognize that it was a self inflicted injury.

 

[ntomsw]

So he wasn't just selling off list guns, he was also selling brand new high cap magazines???

 

[Len-2A Training]

Set him straight? What does that mean? Are you suggesting he wasn't aware he was in violation of a MGL, or that one must always follow all legislation, regardless of the lawfulness/constitutionality of it?

You don't have sympathy for those that actually take a stand and ignore unlawful legislation? That is disappointing.

Challenging it in a federal court that follows the law as little as our legislators and enforcers is often just an exercise in futility.

Yes, initially I thought that perhaps he might have confused himself wrt the expired Fed ban and was unaware that we had a statewide ban that will never expire. So I had a trusted friend of his try to explain it to him in case he was doing this out of ignorance.

To set my record straight. My Wife picked up some post-ban large-cap mag and I said to her (not Mike) that "you can't have that as it is illegal for you to possess", at which point Mike piped up that "it was a silly federal thing that no longer applied". So when it started I wasn't correcting Mike but my Wife. Then Mike started to brag that he had fought the AG and won and therefore there wasn't anything that they could do to him. I dropped the subject and called Darius when I got home.

As for Federal Court, I guess you don't track Comm2A's cases? We have and are having success because they are very careful to pick narrow cases and do superb legal work to win them!

A similar situation occurred with Maadi-Griffitn. The proprietor made a 50BMG kit that was a "non-gun" by published BATFE standards, which was important because the owner (Stewart) was a convicted felon. The BATFE told him to knock it off. He refused, so the BATFE found a cooperative federal court to accept the BATFE's determination that the parts were "readily convertable" to an operational gun, and thus, he was a felon in possession and an unlicensed dealer. If he had heeded their early warnings, he could have opened a sub shop instead of heading to club fed.

The only way to challenge an interpretation of the law you think is bogus is in court as a plaintiff in a civil action; not as a defendant in a criminal one.

Listen to Rob, he is a very knowledgeable person in this arena, far more so than I on how courts operate.

Fair enough. There are multiple ways of looking at it. From a practical standpoint, if you value your freedom, I agree with you and LenS. I totally disagree from a moral standpoint. And for that reason, I think not having sympathy for someone is disappointing to say the least. It is like saying, "well sure, that is wrong and you shouldn't need to follow it, but you have to anyways, so too bad for you!"

Dying on your sword in a MA Court for moral reasons is not going to change any laws or win too many friends. Gun law and "civil disobedience" is NOT a winning combination in a commie state where sheeple are convinced that sheltering in place and door to door searches is the proper way for subjects to handle a threat!

A class action suit is used when the plaintiff is seeking damages for a large group of people ("the class"). When challenging the validity of a law, one needs specific plaintiffs and, if the law is overturned, all persons in similar situations benefit. Even if your logic was sound (and, unfortunately, it is weak based on how courts have tended to rule), class action would not be the way to go.

For example, the alien LTC case had only two named plaintiffs (Fletcher and Haas), however, the result is that all legal resident aliens in MA are now eligible for an LTC if they meet the requirements.

Challenging a gun law is not as simple as arguing "fair commerce". Various courts in the country have upheld laws banning certain classes of firearms (just look at NY, CT, CA and NJ for examples). It takes a lot more than gun owners feeling something is "unfair" to form the basis of a sound legal challenge.


One can both have sympathy for the individual and also recognize that it was a self inflicted injury.

Rob is spot on here as usual. Pay heed to him if you want to see real change anytime in your lifetime.

So he wasn't just selling off list guns, he was also selling brand new high cap magazines???

Correct, at least when we were there . . . that was my first experience with his shop. I was only in there one additional time as I brought a police officer in there that was looking for some reloading supplies.


----------------------

To all:

Don't assume from my posts in this thread that I agree with our laws. I won't defend those unjust laws. HOWEVER I'm not stupid or arrogant enough to believe that if we flagrantly disobey them AND SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS that somehow we will win points in the public eye or come out unscathed when that bear comes after us with claws and teeth showing! That's why my choice is to donate money monthly to Comm2A and help them help us to get rid of some of those laws, a small piece at a time! YMMV

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Dying on your sword in a MA Court for moral reasons is not going to change any laws or win too many friends.

This brings up another issue.

If you challenge a gun law as a criminal defendant, the system will choose if you face trial in state or federal court. State court in MA is heavily stacked against gun owners, but often gives CWOFs or no prison time deals for non violent offenses. Federal court isn't as biased but, under federal sentencing guidelines, non-prison dispositions are far less likely.

If you bring a civil case, you can often choose if you go federal or state (provided you make sure you don't get bit by federal abstention rules) and, furthermore, can sometimes even choose the federal district in which you file.

Dying on your sword in a MA Court for moral reasons is not going to change any laws or win too many friends.

It can actually establish case law that makes things worse.

Pay heed to him if you want to see real change anytime in your lifetime.

Don't pay me heed. Pay Comm2a cash for change.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Don't pay me heed. Pay Comm2a cash for change.

I do both!

 

[Admin]

I am just glad he avoided prison time. If his shop was located 30 miles north this would all be a non-issue.

 

[drgrant]

So he wasn't just selling off list guns, he was also selling brand new high cap magazines???

At least in the last couple years he was in operation, if he did this, it wasn't openly. I bought 10s from him all the time but he didn't even have preban around never mind post ban large cap.

-Mike

 

[ntomsw]

At least in the last couple years he was in operation, if he did this, it wasn't openly. I bought 10s from him all the time but he didn't even have preban around never mind post ban large cap.

-Mike

I never saw it in person either. Guess that doesn't mean much though.

 

[Smash05]

This brings up another issue.

If you challenge a gun law as a criminal defendant, the system will choose if you face trial in state or federal court. State court in MA is heavily stacked against gun owners, but often gives CWOFs or no prison time deals for non violent offenses. Federal court isn't as biased but, under federal sentencing guidelines, non-prison dispositions are far less likely.

If you bring a civil case, you can often choose if you go federal or state (provided you make sure you don't get bit by federal abstention rules) and, furthermore, can sometimes even choose the federal district in which you file.


It can actually establish case law that makes things worse.


Don't pay me heed. Pay Comm2a cash for change.

This is true in almost all respects. The proliferation of "gun courts" has made the prosecution of gun crimes a primary political issue that has play, gets DA's re-elected, and almost guarantees that if you are charged with a firearm related offense you would HAVE to go to trial. ADA's see a posting to a gun unit as steps on the ladder to promotion and trial experience. If you want to risk a minimum mandatory be my guest. Hire myself or one if my brothers and sisters, we've been there before.

 

[rjh200]

A class action suit is used when the plaintiff is seeking damages for a large group of people ("the class"). When challenging the validity of a law, one needs specific plaintiffs and, if the law is overturned, all persons in similar situations benefit. Even if your logic was sound (and, unfortunately, it is weak based on how courts have tended to rule), class action would not be the way to go.

For example, the alien LTC case had only two named plaintiffs (Fletcher and Haas), however, the result is that all legal resident aliens in MA are now eligible for an LTC if they meet the requirements.

Challenging a gun law is not as simple as arguing "fair commerce". Various courts in the country have upheld laws banning certain classes of firearms (just look at NY, CT, CA and NJ for examples). It takes a lot more than gun owners feeling something is "unfair" to form the basis of a sound legal challenge.


One can both have sympathy for the individual and also recognize that it was a self inflicted injury.

Thanks for some of the clarification. My question is more around a "class" being MA FFL's or even manufacturers filing suit because they are being prevented from selling a product for really no rational reason. MA can't prove any benefit whatsoever from banning one handgun over another. Not going after it from a consumer side but from the commerce side.

Interested to hear your feedback.



Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Mark from MA]

Basically the state got its pound of flesh and shut him down for good. That is the whole intention of this thing.


No one dealer or small set of dealers is going to fall on the sword to sue the state over AG commerce clauses.


Many other states have gun dealer associations and take their legal battles to the state via that route as to not expose and single out induviduals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Len-2A Training]

Thanks for some of the clarification. My question is more around a "class" being MA FFL's or even manufacturers filing suit because they are being prevented from selling a product for really no rational reason. MA can't prove any benefit whatsoever from banning one handgun over another. Not going after it from a consumer side but from the commerce side.

Interested to hear your feedback.

Sadly, MA dealers seem to care less. There was a case filed (and lost) against the AG Regs (which are almost the same as the MGL that requires the EOPS List). They never filed an appeal so we lost that one forever. The MA Dealers Assn president was the RAT, need I say more? [I've been told that the MA Dealers Assn is dead and an attempt to resurrect it failed a few years ago.]

MA dealers just like gun clubs and gun club members are (for the most part) not activists and just don't have the stick-to-it-ness required to wage a campaign against unjust laws.

 

[rjh200]

Thanks LenS. That is to bad as I think that would be the only real shot we have of changing these ridiculous lists. Two more years and I can hopefully move out of this damn state.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[Mark from MA]

Sadly, MA dealers seem to care less. There was a case filed (and lost) against the AG Regs (which are almost the same as the MGL that requires the EOPS List). They never filed an appeal so we lost that one forever. The MA Dealers Assn president was the RAT, need I say more? [I've been told that the MA Dealers Assn is dead and an attempt to resurrect it failed a few years ago.]

MA dealers just like gun clubs and gun club members are (for the most part) not activists and just don't have the stick-to-it-ness required to wage a campaign against unjust laws.

Didnt even realize MA ever had a dealers association. But i can certainly understand that with the cast of characters in this state that it doesnt amaze me they couldnt get their shxt together.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JCV]

Now could he have sold these same guns to LEOS? I know they weren't Glocks but what about Springfields? Would the LEO have needed a letter from his Chief...?

 

[drgrant]

Now could he have sold these same guns to LEOS? I know they weren't Glocks but what about Springfields? Would the LEO have needed a letter from his Chief...?

No. Not exempt.

-Mike

 

[Wrench75]

yeh, they turned that into a show on Netflix... "Orange is the new black"
lots of hot lesbian sex on that show....

Ya, I keep waiting for Kate Mulgrew to get it on... no wait...

It is a great show but unfortunately only has one hot chick in it, Laura Prepon, and she will only be in 4 episodes this season and won't be back full time until season 3. It is coming back June 6th BTW.

However, if hot lesbian sex is what you are interested in I could direct you to a few sites...

 

[Wrench75]

Now could he have sold these same guns to LEOS? I know they weren't Glocks but what about Springfields? Would the LEO have needed a letter from his Chief...?

And just because MA gun laws make soooo much sense. He could have split the guns in half and legally sold the frames to anyone with a license. As MA doesn't consider a frame a firearm frames are not subject to any lists. The rest of the parts are non-regulated and could be sold to anyone with or without a license.

Incidentally, that is also why you can transfer a new AR lower, that has never been part of a rifle, with only a bill of sale in MA, FA10s are for "firearm" transfers.

 

[PaulD]

Sadly, MA dealers seem to care less. There was a case filed (and lost) against the AG Regs (which are almost the same as the MGL that requires the EOPS List). They never filed an appeal so we lost that one forever. The MA Dealers Assn president was the RAT, need I say more? [I've been told that the MA Dealers Assn is dead and an attempt to resurrect it failed a few years ago.]

MA dealers just like gun clubs and gun club members are (for the most part) not activists and just don't have the stick-to-it-ness required to wage a campaign against unjust laws.

How many people in general are activists about anything? The answer is next to none. The only ones who are either don't have jobs or are rich enough that they can pay someone else to do the work for them and, of course, politicians because that's their slimy job.

People who have regular jobs and families don't have enough left over bandwidth to fight against the man (or wanna be man in the case of certain MA politicians).

 

[dwarven1]

Basically the state got its pound of flesh and shut him down for good. That is the whole intention of this thing.

I think that a good argument could be made that it was "pour encourager les autres" - for the encouragement of others. Now no one else is likely to stand up to the AG or even try to fly under the radar.

 

[Len-2A Training]

And just because MA gun laws make soooo much sense. He could have split the guns in half and legally sold the frames to anyone with a license. As MA doesn't consider a frame a firearm frames are not subject to any lists. The rest of the parts are non-regulated and could be sold to anyone with or without a license.

Incidentally, that is also why you can transfer a new AR lower, that has never been part of a rifle, with only a bill of sale in MA, FA10s are for "firearm" transfers.

So very true. With a little knowledge and wisdom he could have thumbed his nose at them and still been 100% legal . . . this would never have happened, or he would have won hands-down if they tried. Sadly that is not how he played his hand.

 

[Coyote33]

Set him straight? What does that mean? Are you suggesting he wasn't aware he was in violation of a MGL, or that one must always follow all legislation, regardless of the lawfulness/constitutionality of it?

You don't have sympathy for those that actually take a stand and ignore unlawful legislation? That is disappointing.

Challenging it in a federal court that follows the law as little as our legislators and enforcers is often just an exercise in futility.

The more I read this the more it pisses me off! How is this not a class action lawsuit based on fair commerce laws? How is it that nobody fought this yet? You're going to lose in the lower courts but I don't see how it can be lost in the higher courts? If he was so open about it then why not fight it? I am sure we could have easily funded his defense? Something just isn't adding up here. I just don't know how someone can be so vocal in opposition and then just back down.

Could he appeal in a federal court that his Constitutional rights were violated? If so, and if he won (I know, a lot of if's), could he then also fight to get his $6,000 back? It would be great to hear that this is not yet over, but something better were to come out of it.

I am just glad he avoided prison time. If his shop was located 30 miles north this would all be a non-issue.

Amen to that! I was wondering if this was the case. If he moved out of MA, could he own guns again? Could he sell guns again?

And just because MA gun laws make soooo much sense. He could have split the guns in half and legally sold the frames to anyone with a license. As MA doesn't consider a frame a firearm frames are not subject to any lists. The rest of the parts are non-regulated and could be sold to anyone with or without a license.

Incidentally, that is also why you can transfer a new AR lower, that has never been part of a rifle, with only a bill of sale in MA, FA10s are for "firearm" transfers.

So very true. With a little knowledge and wisdom he could have thumbed his nose at them and still been 100% legal . . . this would never have happened, or he would have won hands-down if they tried. Sadly that is not how he played his hand.

Could someone open a shop that only sold frames and parts, but not guns? If so, would a FFL license be required? What about just parts and no frames, but just things like barrels, sights, grips, magazines, and all other non-serialized parts? What about ammunition?

I think that a good argument could be made that it was "pour encourager les autres" - for the encouragement of others. Now no one else is likely to stand up to the AG or even try to fly under the radar.

Of course, if he were to have "WON" this, it would have been "for the encouragement of others" in another direction entirely.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Amen to that! I was wondering if this was the case. If he moved out of MA, could he own guns again? Could he sell guns again?

Could someone open a shop that only sold frames and parts, but not guns? If so, would a FFL license be required? What about just parts and no frames, but just things like barrels, sights, grips, magazines, and all other non-serialized parts? What about ammunition?

No he is now a Federally Prohibited Person.

Yes, but Feds consider frames as guns therefore FFL required but NO state license. Ammo in MA requires a state license to sell, same with large-cap mags.

If someone did this, there would be an almost instant push for changing the law (which GOAL advocated as part of their omnibus bill a few years ago) so that frames would be a gun under MA law! Right now this flies under the radar and best left that way.

 

[jar]

No he is now a Federally Prohibited Person.

Yes, but Feds consider frames as guns therefore FFL required but NO state license. Ammo in MA requires a state license to sell, same with large-cap mags.

If someone did this, there would be an almost instant push for changing the law (which GOAL advocated as part of their omnibus bill a few years ago) so that frames would be a gun under MA law! Right now this flies under the radar and best left that way.

Do you think ATF would grant an FFL without a MA dealers license? I'm guessing they wouldn't, but don't have anything solid to back that up.

 

[JCV]

Do you think ATF would grant an FFL without a MA dealers license? I'm guessing they wouldn't, but don't have anything solid to back that up.

I believe you need to be an FFL before you can apply for a MA dealer's license. I'm sure a dealer will chime in though.

 

[drgrant]

I moved all these FFL or non-FFL junk dealer questions here (as its own thread) as they don't really have anything to do with what happened to Mike, so anyone looking for Coyote33's stuff, go here...

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/249656-To-FFL-or-not-to-FFL