Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Methuen case

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2

    Methuen case

    Does anyone know the status of the young Methuen man arrested for having an unsecured revolver and 30rd magazines? This seems like it could be a turning point in MA if a good lawyer could get a judge to rule those laws unconstitutional. Last I heard he was going to trial back in october.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Soares View Post
    Does anyone know the status of the young Methuen man arrested for having an unsecured revolver and 30rd magazines? This seems like it could be a turning point in MA if a good lawyer could get a judge to rule those laws unconstitutional. Last I heard he was going to trial back in october.
    Not sure. I remember commenting on their public facebook page and telling the public information officer that he needed to check his footing. I told him he needed to be sure that his department was in compliance with the Federal Gun Free Schools Act when off duty. He quickly stopped commenting about the "law being the law". I kept reiterating to him that it's a federal felony for state and local cops to carry off duty withing a 1000 feet of a school with a personal gun without a license to possess or carry a firearm.

    Many cops in Mass do commit this federal felony everyday so I thought I'd have fun with Johnny Law.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Background:

    Tipped by gun dealer, police seize assault rifles from college student's bedroom
    CNHI News Service


    "Police said Mokad was licensed to own and carry the two assault rifles and the handgun but not the high capacity ammunition clips. They also said one of the weapons was unlocked in a bedroom Mokad shared with a 6-year-old."

    http://www.eagletribune.com/cnhinews...udents-bedroom

    "Methuen police and agents from the FBI, ATF and Homeland Security also seized an AK-47 WASR-10 assault rifle, an MP assault rifle and a .38 caliber Ruger handgun.

    Authorities said they are investigating what Mokad planned to do with the weapons and high capacity clips. A judge ordered him held on $15,000 bail and to surrender his passport."


    "Authorities said they were tipped to the weapons cache when the student's father called a gun store to ask how to modify an assault rilfe to fire a 30-round clip. They said the father also inquired about purchasing a silencer for the rifle."



    Asking questions in Massachusetts = probable cause for multi agency raid?

    Uhm, silencers are perfectly legal in 40 states with $200 and an NFA tax stamp. While possession is criminal in a few draconian domains, ASKING will get you raided by ninja clad goons intent to kill?

    I see the natives are all giving the police all the respect they deserve for their efforts....

    https://www.facebook.com/MethuenPoli...36179926415931

    https://www.facebook.com/MethuenPolice

    Apparently, the people are terrified enough they have JBTs pointing loaded firearms at someone and subsequently kidnapping them and locking them away in a dungeon for 5 years or more and making it virtually impossible for them to acquire meaningful employment ever after for the act of possessing stamped sheet metal parts with springs in them. It must be the people. The thugs don't have power to take on that role on their own, do they?

    Wait, how come the FBI, ATF and DHS were involved for a relatively minor violation of a state law?
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Assault weapons.....and he has a funny sounding name.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Assault weapons.....and he has a funny sounding name.
    Thanks. I was about to spin out of control and take the actions of the oppressors and turn them into a conspiracy theory.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  6. #6
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    "Police said Mokad was licensed to own and carry the two assault rifles and the handgun but not the high capacity ammunition clips. They also said one of the weapons was unlocked in a bedroom Mokad shared with a 6-year-old."

    http://www.eagletribune.com/cnhinews...udents-bedroom

    District of Columbia v. Heller


    "(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

    That decision was followed later with:

    McDonald v. Chicago

    McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.



    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury vs. Madison [1803]
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  7. #7
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    "Police said Mokad was licensed to own and carry the two assault rifles and the handgun but not the high capacity ammunition clips. They also said one of the weapons was unlocked in a bedroom Mokad shared with a 6-year-old."

    http://www.eagletribune.com/cnhinews...udents-bedroom

    District of Columbia v. Heller


    "(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

    That decision was followed later with:

    McDonald v. Chicago

    McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.



    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury vs. Madison [1803]
    You do realize those cases don't affect MA right?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  8. #8
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Soares View Post
    Does anyone know the status of the young Methuen man arrested for having an unsecured revolver and 30rd magazines? This seems like it could be a turning point in MA if a good lawyer could get a judge to rule those laws unconstitutional. Last I heard he was going to trial back in october.
    Haven't heard much about him. Not sure how they were going to prove the mags were post ban. Unless he had some brand new polymer mags that are clearly post ban, then its tough for the state to prove when they were made.

    No way of getting around the unsecured firearms though. Especially with the little kid in the room.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  9. #9
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Wowwie!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    You do realize those cases don't affect MA right?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Oh my!!!

    Did you not see,, they are Supreme Court Cases??
    They DO apply to ALL of the states,,, all 57 of them!!!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  10. #10
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    You do realize those cases don't affect MA right?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    WARNING: Using this users posts as legal advice may lead to loss of liberty, freedoms or your life. Primus's posts contain opinions that have caused brain cancer in laboratory rats.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	implied-facepalm1.jpg 
Views:	79 
Size:	38.2 KB 
ID:	11216
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  11. #11
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    Oh my!!!

    Did you not see,, they are Supreme Court Cases??
    They DO apply to ALL of the states,,, all 57 of them!!!!
    I stand corrected. I apologize I misread it. I was wrong.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  12. #12
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    So now I've been looking more into it, because something doesn't seem right about the DC v. Heller case. Specifically he portion about not being able to force guys to lock up firearms.

    https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...40/Section131L

    Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

    My thought was..... wtf? If the Heller case was a USC case how come it doesn't get rid of this?

    Apparently it's because Heller v. DC doesn't affect any of the other states since DC is a federal controlled distric, not a state. In fact, apparently this hasn't affected any Federal Firearms laws.

    Also, I was thinking how is this Methuen kid getting charged with this if Heller protects him. Heller doesn't. It doesn't seem to protect or help anyone other then the residents of DC.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    So now I've been looking more into it, because something doesn't seem right about the DC v. Heller case. Specifically he portion about not being able to force guys to lock up firearms.

    https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...40/Section131L

    Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

    My thought was..... wtf? If the Heller case was a USC case how come it doesn't get rid of this?

    Apparently it's because Heller v. DC doesn't affect any of the other states since DC is a federal controlled distric, not a state. In fact, apparently this hasn't affected any Federal Firearms laws.

    Also, I was thinking how is this Methuen kid getting charged with this if Heller protects him. Heller doesn't. It doesn't seem to protect or help anyone other then the residents of DC.
    Once again, cherry picking bites you in the ass.

    McDonald v. Chicago

    McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.



    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury vs. Madison [1803]
    Last edited by Fuller Malarkey; 01-30-2014 at 01:20 PM.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  14. #14
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    Once again, cherry picking bites you in the ass.

    McDonald v. Chicago

    McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.



    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury vs. Madison [1803]
    Oh ok..... amazing... you found that the 2nd applies to all states through the 14th.

    You are truly a genius and I am in awe.

    Ok back to reality.

    McDonald v Chicago doesn't address locking up firearms.
    141 131 still stands.... obviously.

    DC v. Heller said "can't force to lock guns up".

    But that only applied to DC

    Chicago came out and said "2nd applies to all states".

    It DOESN'T say "heller applies to all states"



    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  15. #15
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held:

    "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."

    McDonald v. Chicago held:

    "The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded."

    The McDonald decision explicitly takes Heller further and applies it to state and local laws via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/201...to-states.html

    "In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects
    the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose
    of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis
    counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that
    protects a right that is fundamental from an American
    perspective applies equally to the Federal Government
    and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14.
    We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the
    Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right
    recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.


    It is so ordered.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

    Both cases, D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were argued by the same attorney, Alan Gura. I'm sure that was coincidental.

    "originally posted by Pinus

    Chicago came out and said "2nd applies to all states".

    It DOESN'T say "heller applies to all states"
    Oh.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held:

    "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."

    McDonald v. Chicago held:

    "The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded."

    The McDonald decision explicitly takes Heller further and applies it to state and local laws via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/201...to-states.html




    Both cases, D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were argued by the same attorney, Alan Gura. I'm sure that was coincidental.



    Oh.
    Perfect. You should be this guys lawyer then. You can get his charges tossed.

    Or not....

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  17. #17
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Perfect. You should be this guys lawyer then. You can get his charges tossed.

    Or not....

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Well, that was quite the cutting comeback.
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuller Malarkey View Post
    "Police said Mokad was licensed to own and carry the two assault rifles and the handgun but not the high capacity ammunition clips. They also said one of the weapons was unlocked in a bedroom Mokad shared with a 6-year-old."

    http://www.eagletribune.com/cnhinews...udents-bedroom

    District of Columbia v. Heller


    "(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

    That decision was followed later with:

    McDonald v. Chicago

    McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.



    "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury vs. Madison [1803]
    Exactly my point. It seems that the SCOTUS has ruled the law unconstitutional but until a case is actually used to challenge it, it stays on the books and threathens law abiding citizens. This guy did nothing wrong but has his life and reputation tarnished.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •