safetyfirst2125
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2020
- Messages
- 15,571
- Likes
- 40,149
Quincy District Court Case #2156CR001042 if anyone wants to keep an eye on it here:
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 February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
I like your dream!!Maybe he is a trojan horse case. Money in the bank. Fund a defense to get the laws voided.
Worked for the Plymouth County DA and has "firearm offenses" on his list of specialties.a DUI defense? hmm.
most likely just a silly rich schmuck with several ultra expensive shotguns he could not part with, and, now, the whole shit show will begin.I like your dream!!
There is nothing for them to "look at". The CMR is clear that there is NO expiration of certs and Chief Glidden also makes that clear in his seminar, book and when LOs ask him. They do what they want because it is cheaper and faster (by years) to comply vs. go to court (maybe 2-3 years later).What Com2A needs to look at is this 5 year expiration of the certificate most towns came up with. The law says nothing about that. Good for life.
Sure, just like BassPro when they knowingly sold new Glocks on opening day, after C-pher personally (he was an employee) told the company president that they weren't legal to sell. They folded like a cheap suit and they have much deeper pockets than any individual from Cohasset.Maybe he is a trojan horse case. Money in the bank. Fund a defense to get the laws voided.
Apparently nobody gets to choose [...] when they'll have a tragic boating accident.
What will be a court's reaction to an LO's testimony that... The CMR is clear that there is NO expiration of certs and Chief Glidden also makes that clear in his seminar, book and when LOs ask him. They do what they want because it is cheaper and faster (by years) to comply vs. go to court (maybe 2-3 years later).
You think 1) they visited twice? 2) they'd let him leave while they're gone?"We'll be back with a search warrant!"
That's a hint that you take all of that stuff and either give it to a legal buddy or drop it in the haaaahbahhhh.
Then they'd charge him with obstruction, illegal dumping, and destruction of evidence."We'll be back with a search warrant!"
That's a hint that you take all of that stuff and either give it to a legal buddy or drop it in the haaaahbahhhh.
Or illegal possession of firearms. Don't need a warrant if he carries them into the driveway to load in the trunk of his car.Then they'd charge him with obstruction, illegal dumping, and destruction of evidence.
Or he is one of those people who openly talk about shit they should not openly talk about. I know at least a couple people who regularly talk about shit they shouldn't have with people they shouldn't - I know it's only a matter of time before they f*** themselves.
What if this guy is a Pro-2A activist trolling a political prosecution to gift us a cherry case to advance activism?
the same thing i said - it is so odd and unusual to see that police got him surveyed and apprehended like he was a druglord - just over the 16 guns? odd story.Then they'd charge him with obstruction, illegal dumping, and destruction of evidence.
They did say they had been investigating something (else?) when they "learned" of his possession of guns. Dunno.the same thing i said - it is so odd and unusual to see that police got him surveyed and apprehended like he was a druglord - just over the 16 guns? odd story.
there has to be something else there we do not know about. an ex who came up with documented threats made to her, or, who knows.
You think 1) they visited twice? 2) they'd let him leave while they're gone?
If they've jack boots as shiny as it sounds, in sure they'd be happy to post a guard who will arrest him if he leaves the scene of their alleged crime. And that assumes they didn't get the warrant first.
Where's it day they went to him first? Am I reading it wrong? The write up looks like they were told the guns exist, for the warrant, then went to his house. Was there ever a "come back with a warrant" event?The next day???? I can't see them posting a cop there. Maybe they did. Bleep them.
Yep, and it sucks when it's right there in f***ing black and white.Well, in order for anything to change someone has to go through the legal battle that will be extremely long and expensive- who needs that… a plea deal is easier.
it's mAss, cuz gunsThere's probably a lot going on here that we can't tell from the press release. My two biggest questions are: 1) how/why were the police able to get a warrant. Something had to have happened. 2) Why is there a dangerous hearing? It's pro forma for some DAs when there are gun charges, but usually there should be a reason beyond 'cuz gun.
View: https://twitter.com/DeadArchist/status/1397297844911058945
Maybe Cohasset pulled the same deal on this guy if he had moved in and attempted to apply for a license?
Where's it day they went to him first? Am I reading it wrong? The write up looks like they were told the guns exist, for the warrant, then went to his house. Was there ever a "come back with a warrant" event?
View: https://twitter.com/DeadArchist/status/1397297844911058945
Maybe Cohasset pulled the same deal on this guy if he had moved in and attempted to apply for a license?
Would love to write FU in black marker and send it back. But....yeah, that is some 2A kick in the teeth by a gestapo PDNo coercion there….
Bob
I know I'm dumb, but I'm not seeing that in the press release:Went to house on 22nd. Came back with warrant on 23rd. Like in the press release. At least the way they worded it it sounds like off they went and then got a warrant.
On May 22, detectives assigned to the Cohasset Police Criminal Investigation Division, while conducting a separate investigation, received detailed information related to the presence of numerous illegally-owned firearms in GRANOFF’S home. GRANOFF does not have a license to carry a firearm.
As a result of learning this information, Cohasset Police detectives, applied for, received and executed a search warrant of GRANOFF’S home on Sunday, May 23. The court authorized search of the home resulted in police seizing multiple firearms, high-capacity magazines and a quantity of ammunition.
I know I'm dumb, but I'm not seeing that in the press release:
"On May 22 [...] while conducting a separate investigation, received detailed information" != went to his house and requested access.
The next paragraph starts with "As a result of learning this information, Cohasset Police detectives, applied for, received and executed a search warrant."
I fail to see where they stopped in for tea before showing up with the warrant. Is there another version of this presser that I'm not finding? Am I simply deaf to all the dog whistles?
That time passed is clear to me.On May 22. a little further along. . . " on Sunday, May 23. The court authorized search of the home"
That means the next day.
MIGHT it have been before-midnight/after-midnight? Maybe. It didn't READ that way.
You ain't dumb. They police better than they write.
What I'm not seeing is the visit to the house in Cohassett on May 22. Again, "detectives assigned to the Cohasset Police Criminal Investigation Division, while conducting a separate investigation, received detailed information related to the presence of numerous illegally-owned firearms in GRANOFF’S home" does not, to me, mean they were at the house. It seems equally likely that they were investigating e.g. his business partner, who happens to be a drug kingpin, and found a copy of Granoff's firearms inventory spreadsheet on a shared PC.
I mean, with threads like these, it's easy to skim...Well one of us had reading comp issues. I swore it said they investigated at his home. Lol