Law Enforcement Advisory Group Encourages Illegal Searches

[Chevy 2 65]

John Sofis Scheft= communist POS

 

[Chevy 2 65]

My father believed that the police, although necessary, were incredibly dangerous, and needed to be avoided at all costs. I'm now holding a similar opinion. They are not your friends, and allowing them into your life in any way is like choosing to spend time around a deadly snake, spider or crocodile.

This ^^^^^^^ 100%.

 

[Dave @ Villen Tactical]

People can be stupid if they do not think things out in advance. The proper response when faced with a seizure order is not "you can't come in and take my guns" but "I will bring them to the doorstep unloaded and cased and present myself in an unarmed and non-threatening manner at all times."

Rob, I’m going to disagree. If the police are at your doorstep with some legal reason to take your guns if you let them in, telling them “no” will prevent them from searching. Confirming you have guns by telling them you’ll bring them in unloaded, allows them to establish probable cause you have guns in violation of why they are there. They now have probable cause guns are inside. (It’s a reasonable inference that most people keep their guns in their home.) They will remove all people from the house, secure it and apply for a warrant.

Dave

 

[Mark from ?]

So, what are you supposed to do if you get a surrender order?

Turn them in or give them at the doorstep. That is clear in the law. There is a difference between voluntarily turning them in or surrendering them, and the cops going into your house without a warrant and taking them.

Not sure what you don't understand.....

I suppose you could get an FFL to your house ASAP and transfer them to him/her. But unlikely if the cops are at the door....and want them.

 

[Mark from ?]

Rob, I’m going to disagree. If the police are at your doorstep with some legal reason to take your guns if you let them in, telling them “no” will prevent them from searching. Confirming you have guns by telling them you’ll bring them in unloaded, allows them to establish probable cause you have guns in violation of why they are there. They now have probable cause guns are inside. (It’s a reasonable inference that most people keep their guns in their home.) They will remove all people from the house, secure it and apply for a warrant.

Dave

I say they will just go in and take them without a warrant if they are Jackboots.

Your not getting them back either way, with no permit......they are going to either their PD station or the bonded warehouse. Your then going to have to get an FFL there ASAP or forget it.

 

[Reptile]

Turn them in or give them at the doorstep. That is clear in the law. There is a difference between voluntarily turning them in or surrendering them, and the cops going into your house without a warrant and taking them.

Not sure what you don't understand.....

I suppose you could get an FFL to your house ASAP and transfer them to him/her. But unlikely if the cops are at the door....and want them.

If I have time to turn them in myself at the police station- I have time to take them to my ski chalet in NH.

Would that get me in a deeper mess?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I suppose you could get an FFL to your house ASAP and transfer them to him/her. But unlikely if the cops are at the door....and want them.

Not once the surrender order is issued. You may only have them transferred to a MA licensed dealer (FFL is not the requirement, state license dealer is) after the police seizure.

The only extra "right" in MA triggered by an FFL, rather than a MA dealer's license, is the right/legal ability to possess a suppressor if you have an 07 w/SOT.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob, I’m going to disagree. If the police are at your doorstep with some legal reason to take your guns if you let them in, telling them “no” will prevent them from searching. Confirming you have guns by telling them you’ll bring them in unloaded, allows them to establish probable cause you have guns in violation of why they are there. They now have probable cause guns are inside. (It’s a reasonable inference that most people keep their guns in their home.) They will remove all people from the house, secure it and apply for a warrant.

Dave

So are you saying that declining a search without a warrant allows the police to enter without a warrant to remove everyone from the house?

I have no doubt the police can do that. If anything else springs from the warrant (like noticing something else they can charge you with), your attorney will be able to challenge the warrant IF it is clearly established that you offered immediate compliance with the surrender order.

A argument the PD will make, that some courts may agree with, is "He is already known to be a dangerous person by nature of the fact that there is a surrender order, officer safety required that we enter to take the guns".

None of your rights are enforceable if you cannot afford legal counsel.

 

[rogersmithiii]

So are you saying that declining a search without a warrant allows the police to enter without a warrant to remove everyone from the house?

I have no doubt the police can do that. If anything else springs from the warrant (like noticing something else they can charge you with), your attorney will be able to challenge the warrant IF it is clearly established that you offered immediate compliance with the surrender order.

A argument the PD will make, that some courts may agree with, is "He is already known to be a dangerous person by nature of the fact that there is a surrender order, officer safety required that we enter to take the guns".

None of your rights are enforceable if you cannot afford legal counsel.

Don’t answer the door and don’t make noise?

 

[Dave @ Villen Tactical]

So are you saying that declining a search without a warrant allows the police to enter without a warrant to remove everyone from the house?

Potentially, yes. What I’m saying is that if the police are at your doorstep for a legal reason (surrender order) and they develop probable cause of a crime inside while at your doorstep, and they believe that not securing the home can result in destruction or removal of evidence, they have the legal right to enter the home. They can can remove all persons from the home at that time. Additionally they are allowed to enter the home to ensure noone else is in the home hiding. They are allowed to look in any place that can reasonably hide a person. Once secured they can apply for a warrant.

So potentially, the police can legally remove people from a home after they have been denied entry and before a warrant is obtained.

Dave

 

[Mark from ?]

If I have time to turn them in myself at the police station- I have time to take them to my ski chalet in NH.

Would that get me in a deeper mess?

If you have a ski chalet in NH that you could use for residency and are buying and registering guns in MA your an idiot.

 

[DPR]

If I have time to turn them in myself at the police station- I have time to take them to my ski chalet in NH.

Would that get me in a deeper mess?

How many guns could a Ruckus hold if a Ruckus could hold guns?

 

[jason6]

The new surrender law under Chapter 135 is abundantly clear that law enforcement has no authority to enter a citizen’s home and conduct a search of the premises.

Chapter 140, Section 129D(a) “… the person whose application was so revoked, suspended or denied shall, without delay, deliver or surrender to the licensing authority where the person resides all firearms or ammunition which are registered to the person or that the person then possesses…”

There is nothing in Section 129D that even suggests that law enforcement has any authority to conduct a search without a warrant. However, Scheft is encouraging police to threaten the citizen with a trumped-up charge of felony possession of firearms if they are not allowed to conduct the unlawful search. It also states that police should “secure the scene” while obtaining a warrant. Likely, this means the citizen will be removed from the premises and held until the warrant is obtained and the search of the premises is conducted.

These types of tactics are completely Jim Crow-esque. Do what we say, or we will load you up with whatever criminal charges we can think of. One obvious result, other than the destruction of a potentially innocent citizen, is the permanent denial of Second Amendment rights.

I don't know about this... These new laws are terrible enough that I don't think it's entirely helpful for GOAL to do this grandstanding over what appears to me to be a poorly worded sentence written by this guy, Scheft..

“Best practice. Inform the suspect that: (1) the continued possession of firearms violates his duty to surrender them immediately; (2) the possession of firearms without the now suspended license is a crime; and (3) if police have to get a warrant to enter to seize the firearms, he will be charged with 269, § 10(i), and the firearms will be seized as evidence of that crime. After receiving this information, the suspect will be more inclined to consent to police entry and the seizure of guns, licenses, and ammunition. If not, secure the scene and obtain a warrant.”

There I fixed it. The whole section from this "bulletin"makes perfect sense now.

Scheft specifically writes in this stupid bulletin, that there is no right to enter the house. The case law Scheft cites (from 2017/2019 by the way, not the new laws) pertain to the police going to this guy Adams' house and demanding the weapons and Adams refusing.

• At the same time, once police notify the license holder, legal authority still needed to enter his home to seize the guns. In Comm. v. Adams, 482 Mass. 514 (2019), Adams’ suspension was based on a report from the Department of Children and Families (DCF) that he injured his wife in front of their son. This serious misconduct rendered Adams unsuitable to possess firearms.
  
  Police officers came to Adams’ house and properly demanded that he surrender his firearms, ammunition, and license immediately. He refused to do so, and could have been charged under 269, § 10(i).3
  
  However, Adams’ refusal to allow police to enter his home was a separate constitutional issue. Police lacked consent to enter, but did not face exigent circumstances because Adams and his wife could have been ordered out while police secured the home and applied for a search warrant. Entry into Adams’ home without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances resulted in suppression of the seized firearms.

From the case text:

"In May 2017, the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his home on the ground that police unlawfully had entered without a warrant. A different District Court judge allowed the motion after an evidentiary hearing. The judge found that no exception to the warrant requirement authorized the police to enter the defendant's home, forcibly open his gun safe, and confiscate his firearms and ammunition. As a result of the suppression order, the Commonwealth dismissed the charge of failure to surrender a firearm."

"Here, the defendant refused to allow police to enter his home. A District Court judge properly found that the officers were required to obtain a search warrant prior to seizing the firearms, because the Commonwealth was unable to establish consent or another exception to the warrant requirement. See Commonwealth v. Rogers, 444 Mass. 234, 236-237, 827 N.E.2d 669 (2005). In such circumstances, if they deem it necessary, police may secure the premises from the outside while they await the issuance of a search warrant. See Commonwealth v. Yesilciman, 406 Mass. 736, 743, 550 N.E.2d 378 (1990). See also Commonwealth v. Blake, 413 Mass. 823, 829, 604 N.E.2d 1289 (1992) (securing dwelling, on basis of probable cause to search for evidence of crime, includes ability to prevent anyone from entering dwelling and potentially accessing evidence to be seized)."


Scheft is reciting and summarizing what the courts have already found. He's not making this stuff up himself.... He even cites the case law he's using to show everyone exactly where he's pulling it from.

 

[StevieP]

tyrants gonna tyranny

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If you have a ski chalet in NH that you could use for residency and are buying and registering guns in MA your an idiot.

Failure to surrender guns under your control will likely be considered a refusal to surrender by the MA courts.

Scheft is reciting and summarizing what the courts have already found. He's not making this stuff up himself.... He even cites the case law he's using to show everyone exactly where he's pulling it from.

True, but he is doing what lawyers do - presenting only the part of the truth to suite the needs and agenda of his client.

He does not tell the police to say "We have no authority to enter your house. If you surrender the guns to us, without us entering your home, everything will be fine. If you do not surrender your guns, we will apply for a search warrant and if any are found charge you with failure to surrender". He basically tells the policy to treat a refusal to grant entry as a refusal to surrender which, depending on the circumstands, may not be the case.

Bonus points for "Officer, before we talk, can you please make sure your body cam is on?".

An advantage of asserting your rights to produce the guns for surrender (if the policy do not choose to violate the law) is it buys you time to put them in cases, rather than have them tossed in the police vehicles unprotected. You might even have time to remove your Tricicon, Aimpoint, US Optic and Nightforce optics.

One person I know of that received a seizure was on good terms with the police and he was treated properly. But,his response was something like "Are you going to send more cars or do you plan on making multiple trips with one vehicle?". (he eventually got his guns back, and this was before the days of bonded warehouses)

 

[jason6]

It's true that Sheft's book does not teach bedside manner...

I'm just saying that nothing in that section Scheft wrote about surrendering firearms, says anything about coercing warrantless entry. Except perhaps those 3 words at the very end of the section, which appear without really any explanation or context at all.

Conversely there's a whole section explaining against warrantless entry.

Sort of seems like the tail is wagging the dog here....

and also, how does GOAL think this is similar to Jim Crow laws? Oof...

Failure to surrender guns under your control will likely be considered a refusal to surrender by the MA courts.

Scheft cites the case law for this in that "bulletin"...

1. The holder of an LTC or FID must immediately surrender guns and ammunition upon notice of suspension or revocation. The holder must turn over all firearms and ammunition that they own or possess to the LA, and report that surrender through the Electronic Firearms Registration System (EFRS) — a new electronic database bing developed by DCJIS.
   • Possession during an appeal is not permitted. 140, § 129D(a).
   • The knowing refusal to surrender a revoked license, firearms, and ammunition is a crime under 269, § 10(i). Comm. v. Donnelly, 2024 WL 4182583 (Appeals Court): In April, the Springfield Police revoked Jeffery Donnelly’s LTC. Records showed he possessed 26 firearms. In May, Detective Shink followed up with a call to Donnelly’s cell phone. Donnelly told Shink that he would not surrender his firearms or license. Donnelly also said that he would transfer his guns to Vermont. Twenty minutes later, during another call, Donnelly told Sergeant Rodgurski that he felt he was not required to surrender his firearms because they were already in Vermont.

Case text:

Sufficiency of the evidence. The defendant's claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt also fails. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, see Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979), the jury could have reasonably found that the defendant knew he was required to surrender his license and firearms to the Springfield police department. Deputy Chief Kent testified that he signed a “suspension notice” regarding the defendant's license to carry a firearm on April 12, 2021.5 Sergeant Podgurski testified that he spoke with the defendant on the telephone on May 7, 2021, and informed him that he had to surrender his license and firearms and, if he did not comply, a warrant would be issued. According to the Sergeant, the defendant replied that he would not surrender his license or firearms and claimed that he was not required to do so. The Sergeant also related that the defendant provided conflicting information about the location of the firearms, and he testified that when he pressed the defendant for an answer, the defendant said the firearms had been transferred to Vermont but would not provide an address or otherwise specify their whereabouts. Ultimately, the defendant surrendered his license after he was ordered by the court to do so, and the firearms were retrieved by Springfield police officers in Vermont.

The defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient because 1) he was not notified in writing of the fact that his license had been suspended or revoked, 2) at the time his license was revoked it had already expired, and 3) he had transferred his firearms to Vermont and therefore, in his view, any refusal to surrender them to the police in Massachusetts did not constitute a criminal offense. The problem with the defendant's argument is that none of the points he raises diminish the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's evidence. Rather, they provide a rationale or excuse for the defendant's conduct. The testimony of the two officers, Deputy Chief Kent and Sergeant Podgurski, established that the defendant knew his license had been suspended and, was informed that he was required to surrender the license and the firearms in his possession, and that he refused to comply. Nothing more was required for the Commonwealth to meet its burden of proving the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[chris_1001]

It's true that Sheft's book does not teach bedside manner...

I'm just saying that nothing in that section Scheft wrote about surrendering firearms, says anything about coercing warrantless entry. Except perhaps those 3 words at the very end of the section, which appear without really any explanation or context at all.

Conversely there's a whole section explaining against warrantless entry.

Sort of seems like the tail is wagging the dog here....

and also, how does GOAL think this is similar to Jim Crow laws? Oof...


Scheft cites the case law for this in that "bulletin"...

1. The holder of an LTC or FID must immediately surrender guns and ammunition upon notice of suspension or revocation. The holder must turn over all firearms and ammunition that they own or possess to the LA, and report that surrender through the Electronic Firearms Registration System (EFRS) — a new electronic database bing developed by DCJIS.
   • Possession during an appeal is not permitted. 140, § 129D(a).
   • The knowing refusal to surrender a revoked license, firearms, and ammunition is a crime under 269, § 10(i). Comm. v. Donnelly, 2024 WL 4182583 (Appeals Court): In April, the Springfield Police revoked Jeffery Donnelly’s LTC. Records showed he possessed 26 firearms. In May, Detective Shink followed up with a call to Donnelly’s cell phone. Donnelly told Shink that he would not surrender his firearms or license. Donnelly also said that he would transfer his guns to Vermont. Twenty minutes later, during another call, Donnelly told Sergeant Rodgurski that he felt he was not required to surrender his firearms because they were already in Vermont.

Case text:

Sufficiency of the evidence. The defendant's claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction beyond a reasonable doubt also fails. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, see Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979), the jury could have reasonably found that the defendant knew he was required to surrender his license and firearms to the Springfield police department. Deputy Chief Kent testified that he signed a “suspension notice” regarding the defendant's license to carry a firearm on April 12, 2021.5 Sergeant Podgurski testified that he spoke with the defendant on the telephone on May 7, 2021, and informed him that he had to surrender his license and firearms and, if he did not comply, a warrant would be issued. According to the Sergeant, the defendant replied that he would not surrender his license or firearms and claimed that he was not required to do so. The Sergeant also related that the defendant provided conflicting information about the location of the firearms, and he testified that when he pressed the defendant for an answer, the defendant said the firearms had been transferred to Vermont but would not provide an address or otherwise specify their whereabouts. Ultimately, the defendant surrendered his license after he was ordered by the court to do so, and the firearms were retrieved by Springfield police officers in Vermont.

The defendant argues that the evidence is insufficient because 1) he was not notified in writing of the fact that his license had been suspended or revoked, 2) at the time his license was revoked it had already expired, and 3) he had transferred his firearms to Vermont and therefore, in his view, any refusal to surrender them to the police in Massachusetts did not constitute a criminal offense. The problem with the defendant's argument is that none of the points he raises diminish the sufficiency of the Commonwealth's evidence. Rather, they provide a rationale or excuse for the defendant's conduct. The testimony of the two officers, Deputy Chief Kent and Sergeant Podgurski, established that the defendant knew his license had been suspended and, was informed that he was required to surrender the license and the firearms in his possession, and that he refused to comply. Nothing more was required for the Commonwealth to meet its burden of proving the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

What if you qualify as a dual resident?

As in legitimately have property (that you stay at) in say Vermont and the reason for suspension was not against VT laws.

Just curious.

And just because… “registration leads to confiscation”.

 

[Reptile]

Failure to surrender guns under your control will likely be considered a refusal to surrender by the MA courts.



True, but he is doing what lawyers do - presenting only the part of the truth to suite the needs and agenda of his client.

He does not tell the police to say "We have no authority to enter your house. If you surrender the guns to us, without us entering your home, everything will be fine. If you do not surrender your guns, we will apply for a search warrant and if any are found charge you with failure to surrender". He basically tells the policy to treat a refusal to grant entry as a refusal to surrender which, depending on the circumstands, may not be the case.

Bonus points for "Officer, before we talk, can you please make sure your body cam is on?".

An advantage of asserting your rights to produce the guns for surrender (if the policy do not choose to violate the law) is it buys you time to put them in cases, rather than have them tossed in the police vehicles unprotected. You might even have time to remove your Tricicon, Aimpoint, US Optic and Nightforce optics.

One person I know of that received a seizure was on good terms with the police and he was treated properly. But,his response was something like "Are you going to send more cars or do you plan on making multiple trips with one vehicle?". (he eventually got his guns back, and this was before the days of bonded warehouses)

I guess they want me to go out and dig up 2 dozen underground caches of buried guns in 4 different states, too.

How do I explain that without perjuring myself?

What if I loose the GPS coordinates?

Where does it end?

 

[Mark from ?]

Failure to surrender guns under your control will likely be considered a refusal to surrender by the MA courts.

Under my example......your a NH resident who bought guns in NH, store them in NH and has no LTC in MA. Which i still say is the best plan because they can't revoke something you don't have.

You just happen to have a house in MA like a lot of us do from out of state, but we are not residents and don't store guns there. (technically)

MA courts do what now?