Comm2A Sues Town of Dighton

Status
Not open for further replies.
Knuckle Dragger

Knuckle Dragger

Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
8,422
Likes
6,299
Location
My forest stronghold
Feedback: 26 / 0 / 0
Comm2A and an individual plaintiff have filed a federal civil rights action against the Town of Dighton and Chief Robert MacDonald for suspending a resident's FID card and seizing his two shotguns in violation of state law.

The is very straightforward example of police bullying. The complaint speaks for itself, so we want people to read it (complaint).

The police reports support our complaint are even more damning. We're looking forward to this one.

A special thanks to attorney Matt Trask for a job very well done in this case.
 
That complaint is beautiful in content, wording, formatting, and syntax. Attorney Trask did a great job.
 
Looks like a slam dunk. Interested in seeing what comes of it.

Curious why a request to expunge record of the actions taken wasn't made. Is that because it's unlikely to be granted, or because it's something to be pursued separately?
 
Is it just me, or does that stand out as a clear "Open and Shut" case if there ever was one?
 
The infringement gets more unbelievable as time goes by. The police chief makes up the rules to suit his own agenda. I hope this 19 year old isn't a grandfather before this case gets settled.
Best regards.
 
Unbelievable! That is extremely clear and seems like a slam dunk case.
I wonder if the seized items have been shipped off to a bonded warehouse and accrued fees in excess of their value. Tack on another injury in that case.
 
One question, since what the chief is doing is already in violation of the law, would this case be precedent setting? The outcome would basically be a Chief can't do what a Chief already can't do.

I'm not questioning the decision to support this clear open and shut case, rather just curious about how in this example this will benefit Mass gun owners going forward.

Keep up the good work

Mike
 
Just a few questions after reading the narrative

Can anyone say why the police went into the house without a warrant? Were they allowed in under protest or under false pretenses? Was the license suspended before or after the seizure occurred? Did the police reports state that the guns were properly locked? Was the ammunition properly stored/locked? Was the plaintiff cited or charged with any firearms violation during or after the seizure?

Should those questions have been answered in the complaint?
 
I can't wait to see how this turns out. It has been my understanding that cable locks and trigger locks were acceptable for storage but not for transport in MA. If, as the claim asserts, the initial police report states that the shotgun was properly locked. Then it should be a slam dunk since the sgt and chief never saw the shotgun and can only act based on the facts in the officer's report.
 
Wrench75 said:
I can't wait to see how this turns out. It has been my understanding that cable locks and trigger locks were acceptable for storage but not for transport in MA. If, as the claim asserts, the initial police report states that the shotgun was properly locked. Then it should be a slam dunk since the sgt and chief never saw the shotgun and can only act based on the facts in the officer's report.
Click to expand...

Don't shotguns just have to be unloaded for transport? Like, not even in a case or in the trunk of a vehicle? Mass prudence is one thing, but the actual law is another.
 
noxin said:
Don't shotguns just have to be unloaded for transport? Like, not even in a case or in the trunk of a vehicle? Mass prudence is one thing, but the actual law is another.
Click to expand...

According to GOAL:
TRANSPORTING IN A VEHICLE: The law specifies how certain types of guns are to be transported.

  • Handguns under a Class A License: “No person carrying a loaded firearm (i.e. handgun) under a Class A license to carry firearms… shall carry the same in a vehicle unless such firearm while carried therein is under the direct control of such person.” (Chapter 140, section 131C)
  • Handguns on a Class B License: “No person carrying a firearm under a Class B license to carry firearms shall possess the same unless such weapon is unloaded and contained within the locked trunk of such vehicle or in a locked case or other secure container.” (Chapter 140, section 131C)
  • Large Capacity rifles and shotguns: “No person possessing a large capacity rifle or shotgun under a Class A or Class B License… shall possess the same in a vehicle unless such weapon is unloaded, and contained within the locked trunk of such vehicle or in a locked case or other secure container.” (Chapter 140, section 131C)
  • Rifles and Shotguns: “No person .. shall have in his possession or under his control in or on any vehicle or aircraft a loaded shotgun or rifle.. Chapter 131, section 63
Click to expand...
MA Firearms Transportation and Storage Requirements
 
crazymjb said:
I'm not questioning the decision to support this clear open and shut case, rather just curious about how in this example this will benefit Mass gun owners going forward.

Keep up the good work

Mike
Click to expand...
We're looking for a federal court to issue a declaratory judgement that the plaintiff's rights were violated because his license was suspended and his guns seized in violation of state law or any the exigent of any exigent circumstance. That would be a ruling that can be used elsewhere because it clearly connects the license to the exercise of the right. (The two are NOT related. Sure, you have rights under the Second Amendment, but you have no right to a license necessary to exercise those rights.) That's something we cannot get from a MA court. A MA court would merely rule that the chief overstepped his authority and order the license be restored.

I'm sure that's exactly what the the police were thinking. The worst that could happen is that they'd have to return the plaintiff license and property. That's not even a slap on the wrist and is no deterrent to this chief or others. However, a finding that the plaintiff's rights were violated is a different matter entirely.

Quiet said:
Just a few questions after reading the narrative

Can anyone say why the police went into the house without a warrant? Were they allowed in under protest or under false pretenses? Was the license suspended before or after the seizure occurred? Did the police reports state that the guns were properly locked? Was the ammunition properly stored/locked? Was the plaintiff cited or charged with any firearms violation during or after the seizure?

Should those questions have been answered in the complaint?
Click to expand...
Chap 140 section 129d requires the plaintiff to turn over his firearms and ammunition upon the suspension of his FID card. That they seized a black powder gun and other non-regulated items was improper, but typical.

At no time were the plaintiff's firearms stored or transported improperly or in violation of MA law. The plaintiff held an FID card and so was not bound by section 131C which only applies to LTC holders and the possession in a vehicle of handguns and "large-capacity" rifles and shotguns. The complaint and police reports verify that the two shotguns were stored with locking devices.
 
The really crazy thing--if I've read it correctly--is that if this kid had had an LTC (which is a "may issue") as opposed to an FID (which is "shall issue") there would have been no overreach by the police. That is a really frightening thought. A CoP can basically take away an individual's 2A rights for any stupid reason they like in this state.
 
Wrench75 said:
They do have to be locked down. Here is the law...

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131c
Click to expand...
NO THEY DO NOT! You are wrong. noxin is correct.

Section 131C only applies to hand guns and 'large capacity' rifles and shotguns possessed in a vehicle under an LTC.

These were pump shotguns and the plaintiff had an FID card. 131C does not apply. You can legally transport a pump shotgun in the front seat of your car as long as it's unloaded.
 
Looks great, guys. I wouldn't know a good or bad complaint if I saw one, but my common folk logic says this looks like a real winner. Good luck to Mr. Plouffe and Comm2A.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
NO THEY DO NOT! You are wrong. noxin is correct.

Section 131C only applies to hand guns and 'large capacity' rifles and shotguns possessed in a vehicle under an LTC.

These were pump shotguns and the plaintiff had an FID card. 131C does not apply. You can legally transport a pump shotgun in the front seat of your car as long as it's unloaded.
Click to expand...

OK relax there big guy! I hadn't seen your other post before I posted mine. I clicked reply over an hour ago and between reading shit and getting sidetracked several other posts went up including yours. Sheesh, you might want to consider trying decaf...

- - - Updated - - -

WallHack said:
Is it bad that I've never heard of Dighton?
Click to expand...


It would be worse to be intimately familiar with it. I hate that town...
 
This is awesome! Nice work Comm2A and Attorney Trask.

I wonder, if Mr. Plouffe wins this case (and he damn well better), and remains a resident of Dighton, what will happen if he applies for an LTC once he turns 21? Would they issue it, or would they try to deny it and use his "prior revocation" as justification?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

True Velocity sues Sig Sauer, alleging stolen trade secrets
Replies
24
Views
463
drgrant
drgrant
City of Chicago sues Glock Inc. over 'facilitating' illegal gun conversions: The firearms can be turned into machine guns for as little as $20
Replies
25
Views
467
jkelly1229
J
LTC application in your town
Replies
1
Views
368
dragonballzz
D
Mall of NH shooting
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
hunt4riches
H
Biden Vows 2nd Term Gun Control, Criticizes Jefferson’s ‘Tree of Liberty’ as ‘A Bunch of Crap’
Replies
28
Views
811
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom