The weren't the only ones.Probably just coincidence that North Shore Firearms was the seller to the cop, according to the indictment.![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
-
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***
Wow they actually popped a LEO for flipping Glocks
- Thread starter rocket500
- Start date
Varmint
NES Member
Probably just coincidence that North Shore Firearms was the seller to the cop, according to the indictment.
lol, wow.
Glockster30
NES Member
Yeah, I know. I was just pointing out the favorite gun store preferred by NES members.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
TC McQuade
NES Member
Wonder if this had anything to do with any of this
June 8 2015
The Boston Police Department says they have almost completed their internal investigation of a brutality case that happened nearly six years ago, despite never collecting crucial video evidence. On June 9, 2009, Boston police officer Adarbaad Karani and bouncers at the Revolution Rock Bar were caught on video attacking a patron, causing severe injuries that included a broken jaw and multiple concussions.
Karani and the bouncers dragged Carnelli outside the bar and threw him to the ground. Karani climbed on top of Carnelli, forcing his knee into the man’s back.
Carnelli was charged with assault and battery on a police officer, but the charge was later dismissed by a judge. Last year, he received a $100,000 settlement from the bar and a $300,000 settlement from the city as part of a personal injury lawsuit.
Furthermore, tomorrow marks six years from the date that Carnelli was attacked, which is the statute of limitations for assault and battery, making a false police report, and most other crimes in Massachusetts, which means it's almost certain Karani will not face any criminal charges as a result of his actions.
June 8 2015
The Boston Police Department says they have almost completed their internal investigation of a brutality case that happened nearly six years ago, despite never collecting crucial video evidence. On June 9, 2009, Boston police officer Adarbaad Karani and bouncers at the Revolution Rock Bar were caught on video attacking a patron, causing severe injuries that included a broken jaw and multiple concussions.
Karani and the bouncers dragged Carnelli outside the bar and threw him to the ground. Karani climbed on top of Carnelli, forcing his knee into the man’s back.
Carnelli was charged with assault and battery on a police officer, but the charge was later dismissed by a judge. Last year, he received a $100,000 settlement from the bar and a $300,000 settlement from the city as part of a personal injury lawsuit.
Furthermore, tomorrow marks six years from the date that Carnelli was attacked, which is the statute of limitations for assault and battery, making a false police report, and most other crimes in Massachusetts, which means it's almost certain Karani will not face any criminal charges as a result of his actions.
I was going to mention this possibility. Lot of people commenting on this on one of GOAL’s Facebook posts. Many are quick to blame the cop because one of the guns wound up with a gang member. I weighed in and asked how do they know that the guns weren’t stolen from a licensed gun owner???
Wild guess they traced this gun that wound up in the hands of a gang banger and probably found that this cop bought it new and FA-10’d it very quickly to a non LEO individual. Probably dumb enough to do it same day or something like that.
You don’t. But you don’t know it was either. There is enough smelly about this that GOAL should be keeping it at arms length at least until more comes out vs immediately using it as a club to try and beat Moar with. This particular club has to potential to turn in their hand.
I've been leafing through part of the case record which includes text messages between the cop and his friends. It looks like the friend might have geen getting jammed up after one of the guns was stolen out of the locked glove box in his car. It could easily have all unravel from there. One of the Glock buying friends was a witness against the cop also. The defense at one point contends that the guns were 'gifts' in so far as the discount from the retail price constituted the 'gift'.
Just like Abramsky, one relatively minor and unconnected contact with the cops can end up being a big federal problem in the end.
Just like Abramsky, one relatively minor and unconnected contact with the cops can end up being a big federal problem in the end.
My nephew just became a cop in a town just southwest of braintree. The chief told him that he can't buy a Glock (only handgun specifically mentioned) without written permission from the chief. This is regardless of whether it is a duty gun or not. He was also told that he can't transfer firearms to civilians, but i'm not sure if that rule applied to all firearms or only Glocks (a notoriously dangerous semi-automatic assault gun that can fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger - with black market magazines that have been modified to hold fifteen or more bullets, which are often incorrectly called cartridges or rounds.)
Some legitimate "cop shops" won't sell blue label guns without a chief's letter. This is because the AG threatened some of them about just accepting credentials . . . it really says that the gun bought MUST be used STRICTLY for duty purposes in the AG's CMR. NONE of the purchases made these days can actually comply with this as cops are issued duty guns and everything else is either off-duty or personal use.
There is nothing in MGL or CMR restricting a legitimate sale (use it a while and decide to move on to something else) of a blue label gun to a civilian (large-cap mags are a different story). That said, chiefs oftentimes make rules that their officers must abide by or risk disciplinary action, so a chief could indeed make this a department rule.
Varmint
NES Member
i don't see how that by itself constitutes a straw purchase, but probably he did it multiple times or they have some evidence that it's more than buyer's remorse. Like if you buy it and hate it so much you sell it same day, you wouldn't buy 3 more of the same gun.
I think there are 2 counts so buying two identical glocks and flipping them same day would look a lot like a straw purchase.
Doubt they look into it but for fact that one wound up in the hands of a bad guy.
Definitely could be more to it though and there probably is.
Doubt they look into it but for fact that one wound up in the hands of a bad guy.
Definitely could be more to it though and there probably is.
Must suck to be on the receiving end of the law. What a shame.
The guy all but admitted that the guns were bought for his friends with his LEO discount. The text messages are great. See attached.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
It's good for him that there's no law against abusing our language like that. Wow.
namedpipes
NES Member
He's going to have to sell a butt load more Glocks to pay half a million dollars in fines...
namedpipes
NES Member
The typical 1-3 yrs in ActualPrison (TM) is probably a bigger deal. (I'm not a fed sentencing guru, but there's some algorithm from the byzantine empire that will likely get used to calculate his
sentence. ) This guy is probably going to eat the big one, there is rarely, if ever "plea out for a felony, but walk" option with the feds, as the judges typically don't have that kind of latitude given the
guidelines.
-Mike
This guy only gets 3 months jail time?
O’Sullivan and McDuffy are to smartLike they would bust a Cop named Francis McDuffy or Patrick O'Sullivan![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Remember when the Globe thought AR15s were illegal in MA and knowledgeable gun owners showed them they weren't? Let them think Glocks are illegal. Nothing good comes from showing them, or anyone else, otherwise.
"
Seems pretty common for local news to not understand MA gun laws and misreport on them. From the article:
"He purchased the firearms, which can't be acquired by civilians, using police identification and falsely certified they were for official police use. During one instance, he said the firearm was not for resale."
It makes it sound like his real crime was providing prohibited firearms to the unwashed masses.
Seems pretty common for local news to not understand MA gun laws and misreport on them. From the article:
"He purchased the firearms, which can't be acquired by civilians, using police identification and falsely certified they were for official police use. During one instance, he said the firearm was not for resale."
It makes it sound like his real crime was providing prohibited firearms to the unwashed masses.
