Just in on New BostonPD vs MFLR

Krajenka is a fool. I doubt it will happen, but he should lose his job, on the grounds that he has shown blatant ignorance and disregard for the laws which he is supposed to enforce.
 
Judge tosses gun range owner's challenge of firearms seizure
Print
Email
Mobile
Share on Facebook
ShareThis
Reader comments

By PAT GROSSMITH
New Hampshire Union Leader Staff
5 minutes ago

NASHUA – James L. McLoud, owner of the Manchester Firing Line Range, lost his legal battle to get back nine rifles seized by the New Boston police chief executing a temporary restraining order against a New Boston man.

Hillsborough County Superior Judge Gillian Abramson dismissed the case this morning, saying the court had no authority to rule on the matter and that jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Goffstown District Court, Family Division, according to Hillsborough County Attorney Robert M.Walsh.

"The judge properly found the Family Division had authority over this matter and over the guns," Walsh said. "This was an attempt to do an end-run around Judge (Paul H. ) Lawrence's authority and the Goffstown Family Division and Judge Abramson would not allow it."

Police Chief Christopher L. Krajenka said he was elated by the judge's ruling which he considers the right decision.

"I did my job," he said. "There are still some people with very hard fellings about what has occurred. This was a case of domestic violence and it was turned into a guns rights issue. It was about protecting a victim of domestic violence and that's all it had to do with, at least from the department's view."

The weapons were owned by Michael Murphy of New Boston. On Oct. 1, he consigned 22 firearms to the firing range. Some of the weapons were sold and Murphy took back more which were allegedly sold to his friends, Walsh said. Nine rifles were left on consignment at the firing range.

Murphy was involved in a domestic violence case with his estranged wife who was granted a temporary restraining order barring him from possessing any firearms. The order has since been made permanent, Walsh said.

On Jan. 27, Krajenka went to the Manchester firing range and, acting on the temporary domestic violence order issued out of the Goffstown court, seized the nine rifles McLoud still had in his possession.

Krajenka said he was portrayed by some people as a rogue cop when, in fact, he had consulted with the county attorney's office.

McLoud maintained the weapons posed no threat because Murphy had to pass a criminal background check before he could regain possession of the guns - something McLoud said was impossible for Murphy because of the temporary domestic violence restraining order.

McLoud said he plans to refile with Goffstown District Court.

"I'm not done yet. It's far from over," he said. "It's a property rights issue with me. My case has never been heard on its merits, in Goffstown or today. I'm going to have my day in court and this is going to cost New Boston a lot of money before this is through.

"I own those guns and they took those on a domestic violence petition. That's my inventory at that point. I had an ATF special agent in the room ready to testify and she (the judge) wouldn't even hear us. We plan on forcing (Goffstown District Court) Judge Lawrence to make a decision."

Walsh said New Boston police will keep the nine rifles as long as the court order barring Murphy from possessing firearms is in effect.
Click to expand...


I'm that MFLR will win in the end.
 
McLoud said he plans to refile with Goffstown District Court.

"I'm not done yet. It's far from over," he said. "It's a property rights issue with me. My case has never been heard on its merits, in Goffstown or today. I'm going to have my day in court and this is going to cost New Boston a lot of money before this is through.

"I own those guns and they took those on a domestic violence petition. That's my inventory at that point. I had an ATF special agent in the room ready to testify and she (the judge) wouldn't even hear us. We plan on forcing (Goffstown District Court) Judge Lawrence to make a decision."
Click to expand...

We are from the .gov we are help...
 
One person put it best in the comments. A lot of us bitch and moan about activist judges, but when a judge refuses to do that we get upset. In the judicial system you just don't file where you want to, you have to work up the chain as it were.
 
I love how the turd Krajenka tries to smear gun owners by referring to it as a "gun rights issue". No, you a**h***, you stole guns from a gun shop... this isn't an RKBA issue, it's an issue of abusing the power of the state to steal property from them which is not yours to take!

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
I love how the turd Krajenka tries to smear gun owners by referring to it as a "gun rights issue". No, you a**h***, you stole guns from a gun shop... this isn't an RKBA issue, it's an issue of abusing the power of the state to steal property from them which is not yours to take!

-Mike
Click to expand...

It certainly shows you how he feels about common folk having guns though [hmmm]
 
Bill Katt said:
It certainly shows you how he feels about common folk having guns though [hmmm]
Click to expand...

I don't think guns necessarily had anything to do with it. It was the CoP insisting MFLR "respec mah authoritay." This is a simple case of a bureaucrat with delusions of grandeur who insists the plebes do what they're told and is mystified that anyone would object to what is little more than common armed robbery.

Then again, maybe we're the delusional ones for thinking we actually still have rights the state recognizes.
 
Bill Katt said:
That too. I was referring to how he twisted this into an RKBA thing.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking.
More people will take his side if he makes this about the RKBA than if it is seen as a seizure of property issue.
By that I mean, there are more people willing to fight against our RKBA, than there are people willing to fight against our protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures".
 
This has got to be costing MFLR some serious cash (as well as the cash he has laid out for the new facilities). Anyone start a collection cup thing? I know he refused before but I would like to donate a lil something. Lots of lil somethings add up. As I am sure his legal bills will add up soon.
 
A donation of $10 from every member on this board would substantially assist Jim in his fight against this abhorrent display of tyranny by the police and judicial system being displayed here. The cost of a few cups of coffee for most and will go a long way towards fighting the continuous, long uphill battle being waged by people who think they can trample peoples rights without consequences.

I will personally be sending twenty times this much to help a friend whom I consider one of the most fair, honest and forthright people in the gun business that I've ever had the pleasure of doing business with.

Thanks Jim and keep up the good fight........YOU are right and they are as wrong as they could possibly be in this matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
drgrant said:
I love how the turd Krajenka tries to smear gun owners by referring to it as a "gun rights issue". No, you a**h***, you stole guns from a gun shop... this isn't an RKBA issue, it's an issue of abusing the power of the state to steal property from them which is not yours to take!
Click to expand...
That's right. While federal firearms law does have to do with the facts of the case, the case is essentially a state contracts and state/federal constitutional property law issue. It's also a state case about the specific statute empowering the judge to issue the order, and the extent of the order. It's a few simple issues in a complicated jumble.
 
With his blatantly disingenuous claim that it's merely "a firearms rights" thing, the chief is attempting to deflect attention from his abuse of power and derogation of due process.

By portraying his actions as Protecting The Public, particularly from those dangerous "firearms rights" fanatics, he sucks up to the soccer moms and other suburbanites who "just want to feeeel SAAAAAAAAAAFE!"

We've all met that kind.
 
What if this happened instead:

Police take guns into their possession- gun shop takes guns from police (like a bonded warehouse in Mass).

Would that have been legal in NH?

I think in Mass that if a person gets their guns taken by the police- a FFL can take the guns.

Is that true?
 
Yes, FFLs are considered a safe location to keep guns confiscated under a 209A. That's one of the reasons this is a huge property rights issue. The police had no right to take these guns into their possession, especially considering they had been in MFLR's bound book for months before the 209A was even issued.
 
The facts state that the guns were at the MFLR at the time of the restraining order being issued.

This is an outrage!!!

Where is the NRA???!!!
 
Reptile said:
Where is the NRA???!!!
Click to expand...

Busy designing belt buckles, hats and wallets:

busy.jpg




Timber said:
i find your ideas intriguing, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean, but I'll take it as a compliment. [grin]
 

Similar threads

Shooting is just fun
Replies
21
Views
437
tinhorn
tinhorn
New MA Non-Resident LTC Renewal In-Person Requirements?
Replies
3
Views
164
GL2020
GL2020
For those who question the strength of M2A1 vs M2A2 ammo cans, here's an interesting article on the subject.
Replies
12
Views
412
Uzi2
U
New member
2 3
Replies
64
Views
1K
Canndo
Canndo
Flying domestically with declared firearm on JetBlue and Delta in 2024
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
gruby254
gruby254
Back
Top Bottom