asp
NES Member
Thanks. That clears it up. Doesn't make sense, but it clears it up.
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Was: Mike from Titegroup enters not guilty plea - update: 5/9/14 - plead out
- Thread starter KilgoreTrout
- Start date
- Status
In for donation.
So is this potentially a case that will challenge the roster? In other words, should we be pulling out all the stops ala Westford style to get behind this, GOAL, COMM2A, NRA, It'sTime, rallies, local clubs, etc?
So is this potentially a case that will challenge the roster? In other words, should we be pulling out all the stops ala Westford style to get behind this, GOAL, COMM2A, NRA, It'sTime, rallies, local clubs, etc?
Thanks! So, this being the so, is this the kind of case that might produce a useful ruling/precedent if defended properly?
Not that I don't care about Mike's welfare, just wondering how this might impact the environment for all of us here in the PRM.
This information is all over NES, but for convenience here is the current EOPS "Approved Firearms Roster". There are all sorts of guns on that list that you can't generally buy from a dealer in Mass (e.g., a new Glock 19). That is because the attorney general has a completely different process (and no list is available) where dealers are told, one way or another, that certain guns are not allowed for sale. This is why you can't just walk into Bass Pro and get a Glock 19 even though it is on the roster. If a dealer sold you that Glock 19 (with 10-round mags -- the AWB in Mass is another issue) then the AG would have a problem and might or might not do something about it. If a dealer sold you a Kimber 1911 (not on the roster at all) that is a more serious and different problem altogether and is apparently, at least in part, what we have here -- sales of off-roster guns. In all cases, as far as I know, the problem resides with the dealer. The buyer, properly licensed, is able to own the gun. The dealer just can't sell or transfer it.
Needless to say, this is all complete horseshit.
Needless to say, this is all complete horseshit.
I think that would depend upon the basis used for the defense. Does he base his defense on the roster being unconstitutional? If he does, I doubt he will win in state court, even if it goes up to the Supreme Judicial Court. I think he would somehow have to get it into federal court to have a chance of finding a sane judge.
Mods, someone, make a thread with a paypal or other donation link ASAP. $20 from everyone that's active here on NES can fund this trial for a very long time, and god knows a ruling in his favor could change the game in MA for gun owners.
Comm2A needs to get in on this.
Comm2A needs to get in on this.
That's the big problem (I would imagine). Firearms transactions are meticulously recorded, so if an off-roster gun was transferred or sold there likely is fairly clear paperwork to prove it. The EOPS roster is clear, the law is clear. All of it is probably unconstitutional, but no Mass court is going to say that. So he would probably have to lose, face jail time, somehow get an appeal into Federal court, win, face state appeal up the chain, keeping winning or appealing, and maybe even get to the Supreme Court. That's a lot of money and interim jail time to be facing even if it works out in the end.
If this were just on-roster transfer against the wishes of the AG it would be much less of a problem. As it is, it seems almost as tough (maybe the same) as an FFL fighting a Mass AWB violation (apart from the status of the buyer).
I really hate Massachusetts for doing things like this.
IANAL, but that's how I see it as well. I wish him well but it seems like a long shot.
Before I respond below, I'd like to caution people here . . . Nothing we post here can help Mike, BUT everything here is "discoverable" and can be used by the DA to HURT MIKE'S CASE! So please be careful. Mike is a good guy.
Correct.
Exactly and IANAL but it appears to me (and others) that the AG did NOT want a show-down in court, as Reilly might have lost that case.
Right and right. This one is serious business.
Yes.
Good synopsis. It was Section 123 you were looking for that lays out criteria for testing/approval by EOPS. Just one technical correction. GCAB reviews results from test lab and RECOMMENDS approval to the Secretary of Public Safety (who actually controls the EOPS List and can decide to not accept the GCAB recommendations).
Sorry but being a MA Court case, IANAL but I don't think there is a prayer of a chance that any MA judge would rule against the EOPS List requirement in MGL. Federal Court is the only place that might rule that way, based on the 2A, which MA courts deny applies in MA.
See above comment.
AG Regs violations TTBOMK have not been successfully (by the AG) brought against any MA Dealer. They tried against Mike before but failed to show up (I think that was a strategic move on their part). They have attacked non-MA Dealers and won . . . basically I don't think that the non-MA Dealers showed up in MA courts and just took their lumps, paid a fine and signed a "cease and desist" order to make it (and them) go away.
This is nowhere near the same and I expect Mike to negotiate a plea deal as his only way out. Those FA-10 forms in the system are prima fascia evidence of what occurred and he can't win against that in a MA courtroom where they believe that the US Constitution does not apply in MA. In spite of my dire analysis, I wish Mike nothing but the best and would love to see him win . . . being a realist however I just don't see that happening in this case.
Correct.
Exactly and IANAL but it appears to me (and others) that the AG did NOT want a show-down in court, as Reilly might have lost that case.
Right and right. This one is serious business.
Yes.
Good synopsis. It was Section 123 you were looking for that lays out criteria for testing/approval by EOPS. Just one technical correction. GCAB reviews results from test lab and RECOMMENDS approval to the Secretary of Public Safety (who actually controls the EOPS List and can decide to not accept the GCAB recommendations).
Sorry but being a MA Court case, IANAL but I don't think there is a prayer of a chance that any MA judge would rule against the EOPS List requirement in MGL. Federal Court is the only place that might rule that way, based on the 2A, which MA courts deny applies in MA.
See above comment.
AG Regs violations TTBOMK have not been successfully (by the AG) brought against any MA Dealer. They tried against Mike before but failed to show up (I think that was a strategic move on their part). They have attacked non-MA Dealers and won . . . basically I don't think that the non-MA Dealers showed up in MA courts and just took their lumps, paid a fine and signed a "cease and desist" order to make it (and them) go away.
This is nowhere near the same and I expect Mike to negotiate a plea deal as his only way out. Those FA-10 forms in the system are prima fascia evidence of what occurred and he can't win against that in a MA courtroom where they believe that the US Constitution does not apply in MA. In spite of my dire analysis, I wish Mike nothing but the best and would love to see him win . . . being a realist however I just don't see that happening in this case.
Re: Mike from Tite Group enters Not Guilty plea
As I see it (note that I'm just an interested layperson, not a lawyer.) There are a number of issues with using a criminal case to fight an unconstitutional law.
1. It has to get to an appeals court to have any precedential value at all
2. The possible criminal penalties change the calculus for the defendant. It's much easier to risk a bunch of time and money to make a point than your freedom. Even if jail is avoided, a conviction would be a MA firearms prohiibition for sure, and likely a federal one.
3. Hnaging your hat on a constitutional issue takes away time and resources from preventing the prosecution from proving the alleged crime in the first place.
4. The supreme court has already show that it's likely unwilling to take a criminal appeal on 2a grounds by denying cert in williams and masciandaro.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2
As I see it (note that I'm just an interested layperson, not a lawyer.) There are a number of issues with using a criminal case to fight an unconstitutional law.
1. It has to get to an appeals court to have any precedential value at all
2. The possible criminal penalties change the calculus for the defendant. It's much easier to risk a bunch of time and money to make a point than your freedom. Even if jail is avoided, a conviction would be a MA firearms prohiibition for sure, and likely a federal one.
3. Hnaging your hat on a constitutional issue takes away time and resources from preventing the prosecution from proving the alleged crime in the first place.
4. The supreme court has already show that it's likely unwilling to take a criminal appeal on 2a grounds by denying cert in williams and masciandaro.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2
warwickben
bubba Kalashnikov
Mike from Tite Group enters Not Guilty plea
Hope for the best
Hope for the best
Quiet
Banned
Are you saying that they still actually believe this and/or express this view in their rulings even in the face of recent SCOTUS rulings, or are you saying that they are just issuing decisions which seem at odds with 2A?
Forget PayPal, someone set up an indiegogo page and take this thing national.
Me too. I only bought one gun from Mike years ago but he really seemed like a decent guy.
I read both of your statements as the same thing.
Their rulings have made it clear that the 2A does not apply in MA. EOPS (and I suspect the AG as well, but no proof) has told PDs to operate as they were prior to Heller, that nothing has changed wrt MA laws and policies. To me, that message is clear.
What he can do is argue a MTD on 2nd Amendment Grounds. If and when that motion is denied, he can move for an interlocutory appeal, though not under the normal interlocutory rules. If the SJC denies appellate review, that order can be appealed to the USSC. Now, that is an unlikely chain of events, but possible. You cannot certify a question of Constitutional Law to the Federal Courts directly, there has to be a court ruling first, and that ruling needs to have a constitutional issue that can be resolved by the USSC. This would be a direct review of an SJC ruling by the USSC, and they would have to consider whether the issue was ripe. That issue is what might cause the USSC to wait until there is a guilty finding, unless there is an argument made that such a finding would be an irreversible harm. Now, one could file a 1983 action against the Commonwealth - claiming a violation of civil rights by the investigating agency. Also a tough road.
Re: Mike from Tite Group enters Not Guilty plea
Just heard back from attorney Brennan and he said:
" There isn't anything formally set up. I'll talk to Mr. Wheelock and find out how he wants to deal with it and get back to you.* I'm sure he appreciates all the support. Thank you.*Michael Brennan"
Just heard back from attorney Brennan and he said:
" There isn't anything formally set up. I'll talk to Mr. Wheelock and find out how he wants to deal with it and get back to you.* I'm sure he appreciates all the support. Thank you.*Michael Brennan"
Please keep us updated if you hear anything further.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,608
- Likes
- 33,723
Just think of a big red rubber stamp over copies of the US Constitution distributed in MA with the notation "void where prohibited by law".
Last edited:
- Status
