1 year probabtion in gun case.

[GSG]

http://www.telegram.com/article/20071206/DIGESTS/712060357

Man convicted in firearms case
OXFORD — Christopher C. Dupont, 41, of 14 Bartlett St., has been found guilty in Dudley District Court on firearms and domestic assault charges that stemmed from an incident Aug. 24 involving domestic disturbance report.

Mr. Dupont also was found guilty of assault and battery, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, two counts of threatening to commit the crime of murder, and possession of a firearm and ammunition without a firearms identification card.

He was placed on probation for a year.



But wait, it gets better, this was the original story:
http://www.telegram.com/article/20070826/DIGESTS/708260464

Man arrested after neighborhood lockdown
OXFORD-- A disturbance led to the arrest of Christopher C. Dupont, 41, of 14 Bartlett St. on firearms and domestic assault charges late Friday night.

Police responded at 11:20 p.m. to a report of a domestic disturbance at Mr. Dupont’s home, neighbors telling officers that Mr. Dupont had assaulted his wife, and threatened both their lives.

According to police, neighbors told officers that one neighbor trying to assist was struck by Mr. Dupont with an unidentified weapon. Neighbors said Mr. Dupont had a gun and was refusing to leave his home.


After securing the area, police instructed neighbors to stay in their homes with doors locked.

A half hour later, police said, Mr. Dupont came out of the house, surrendered and was taken into custody. A search of the home turned up a rifle and ammunition.

Police charged Mr. Dupont with domestic assault and battery, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, threatening to commit the crime of murder, and possession of a firearm and ammunition without a Firearms Identification card.

Investigating officers included Detective William Marcelonis and Officers Carol Knapp, Randy McCarthy and Derek Courchaine.


How nuts is this?

 

[Admin]

What a shocker... He will kill her within two years.

 

[SKS Ray]

Probation for a year eh?

If I can copy a quote from the movie Blow:
Diego Delgado: Twenty-six months? For murder? I must meet your lawyer.

 

[JonJ]

Unreal.

 

[Garys]

So much for the mandatory sentence for unlicensed possession of a firearm. I'd guess that one was plea bargained away.

Sadly Derek, you're probably right although it could be way less than two years.

Gary

 

[drgrant]

I love how well the gun laws in this state work. That lack of a
license certainly stopped him from terrorizing people with the
gun!

-Mike

 

[GSG]

I think it's crazy that after all of that he gets probation, nothing more, not even a fine. If they'd responded to a medical emergency or something and found the illegal gun, I'd understand a bit more, but after the assaults with a dangerous weapon and assault and battery, plus the gun charge, and they hardly even slap his wrist.

Is anyone here willing to bet that his illegal gun wasn't Mass. compliant?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Is anyone here willing to bet that his illegal gun wasn't Mass. compliant?

As despicable as he is and the "sentence" is an abomination. Nobody cares if a gun is "MA compliant" except the dealer selling it to you or the media. You can own all sorts of NON-MA compliant guns here and you aren't violating any laws by owning them.

It's what you do with your guns that makes YOU (not anyone specific) a criminal or not.

 

[GSG]

I was being serious about being Mass. compliant, just saying, WTF are they helping with it if even when that "dangerous" gun isn't legal they don't do dick to the offender.

 

[Arioch]

What a shocker... He will kill her within two years.

Not if she arms and trains herself.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I was being serious about being Mass. compliant, just saying, WTF are they helping with it if even when that "dangerous" gun isn't legal they don't do dick to the offender.

Non-compliant guns are NOT ILLEGAL. Plain and simple.

If you seriously want to make possession illegal, you should be spending your time with the Brady Bunch not here!!

 

[KMaurer]

I was being serious about being Mass. compliant, just saying, WTF are they helping with it if even when that "dangerous" gun isn't legal they don't do dick to the offender.

The alleged reason for both the EOPS list and the AG regulations is that some guns are supposed to be prone to accidental discharge or serious (i.e., Ka-Boom) malfunctions. It has nothing to do with these guns supposedly being more dangerous to someone who is shot with them. IOW, they're claiming that they're protecting us from greedy, crooked gun manufacturers and/or our own ignorance and stupidity. Of course they're not really trying to "help" with anything; they're simply trying to dry up the legal supply of guns one piece at a time. It you actually believed that it had anything to do with safety, you were suckered.

Ken

 

[GSG]

I'm not backtracking here, I swear I had a typo. I WASN'T being serious about being Mass. compliant. I was being sarcastic, and I typed a quick reply without reading over it to see what I'd typed. My mistake.

If you read my previous posts on here, I think you'll see that I'm a full supporter of the 2A. I think felons should be able to have guns. If they're so dangerous, lock up up or kill them, but don't take a constitutional right away.

I'll be sure to re-read my posts better, sorry.

 

[Len-2A Training]

OK, no problem.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

The alleged reason for both the EOPS list and the AG regulations is that some guns are supposed to be prone to accidental discharge or serious (i.e., Ka-Boom) malfunctions. It has nothing to do with these guns supposedly being more dangerous to someone who is shot with them......... It you actually believed that it had anything to do with safety, you were suckered.

+1

 

[RKG]

Since the sentence appears to be illegal on its face, I suspect that there is something wrong (or incomplete) in the news report.

G. L. (2006 ed.) ch. 296, sec. 10(a) (in part):

"[Persons carrying without the documentation required by whatever they were carrying] shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years, or for not less than 18 months nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction. The sentence imposed on such person shall not be reduced to less than 18 months, nor suspended, nor shall any person convicted under this subsection be eligible for probation, parole, work release, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served 18 months of such sentence; provided, however, that the commissioner of correction may on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of a correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this subsection a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; or to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric service unavailable at said institution. Prosecutions commenced under this subsection shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file."

 

[anthonyne]

From the view point of someone that supports gun control laws. What is the response when asked how gun control laws apply to a situation like this? Clearly, we all know these laws do nothing. Have any of you read any articles or heard interviews where someone with an anti agenda has been asked how gun control laws even apply to certain incidents?

 

[hminsky]

From the view point of someone that supports gun control laws. What is the response when asked how gun control laws apply to a situation like this? Clearly, we all know these laws do nothing. Have any of you read any articles or heard interviews where someone with an anti agenda has been asked how gun control laws even apply to certain incidents?

I admit to being very puzzled by the news reports. After going through the training class to get my LTC, and reading the regulations, I then see these news reports and they always seem complete nonsense. I read about how some thug in Dorchester was found with an AK47 under his bed, and he ends up not being charged with anything, not even unsafe storage (of an illegal high cap weapon!). And I have to figure either the news reports are getting everything all wrong, or else the scum are getting away with murder and violations of all the gun laws, while the law abiding gun owners are living in fear of any minor infraction.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The "norm" is to "file the gun charges" (meaning that they do not prosecute on those charges).

This is first-hand info from the Chief Justice of one of our District Courts. I chastised his ass for this, but he had an explanation that is understandable and makes all the gun control laws totally unworkable at the state level. [If you use Advanced Search here and dig some, I already posted the entire story one or more times in the past.]