(more) Proof that gun laws in MA are a joke

[Mark from MA]

Um WTF!!!!!

she had NO LTC and got off ALL the firearms-related charges!!!

This is nothing new or surprising.....

Umm...if you read any MA paper in the court section...getting off of firearms charges without and LTC, serial numbers scratched off, etc....is a daily occurence. The "massive" penalty is usually a 50 dollar fine, which is probably never paid.

While I'm not advocating it (drunken driving)..."Average Joe" middle class drunken driver on his first time will incur thousands in fees, loss of his license, and need to take classes.

Yes....Judges are somewhat selective in applications of penalties in this state.

 

[drgrant]

The only reason anyone (at least, any RKBA advocate) would possibly advocate for "even handed" application of the law here is because of the "maybe if everyone was effected by the crap laws then the laws would get changed" idea. Problem is this doesn't bear fruit in reality because the law would never be enforced to the extent required to induce enough pain on the voting public to get it repaired; or worse yet, even if it was, the whiners would just amend the law to cripple it slightly but still make the base of the law just as bad. They would just detune it so grandma would not end up in jail for having an heirloom.

So, given that reality, I'd rather see prosecution of these laws experience sloth and failure. The more this kind of crap fails, the better off we all are, because it sets a precedent that malum prohibitum gun laws are garbage to begin with and not worthy of enforcement. If it fails often enough frequently enough than DA's/Prosecutors will not bother bringing the charges in the future, functionally making the laws almost a nullity.

In a perfect world of course we could just repeal the stupid laws and actually be able to have a "rule of law" society where the few laws that do exist would actually mean something as a result, instead of the garbage laws we have now which only corrupt the system, and I think, to some large degree, engender contempt for it at varying levels. It used to be when someone made it to court for criminal charges there was a fairly good reason behind it. Nowadays when people get charged we're not quite sure if the guy is facing charges just because he did "something the government doesn't like" or he actually caused harm to someone....

-Mike

 

[Bill Nance]

Irrespective of individual laws, this woman was guilty of gross negligence leading to the death of her son. The jury may have well told themselves "this woman has been punished more than we can possible do", which I'm sure is true. And she was never up for "mom of the year".

However, we don't really know how good, convincing or competent the prosecution was. They clearly did not convince the jury that this woman was guilty of something for which she should have been punished.

Gross negligence? Because her son chose to become a gang-banger? That's what happened. It was his gun. He admitted it was his and that she didn't know about it. How is that directly her fault in a way that would justify a prosecution? If you think all parents, even good ones who are trying with all their might can't have kids who turn into pieces of shit, you've led a very sheltered life. It happens. This broad sounds like a real piece of work. But the laws you want for her WILL be applied to YOU. This is the danger of wanting more laws, more prosecutions, etc. Every time someone says "There ought to be a law," they always seem to forget that law will be used to prosecute THEM.

The fact that her kid is a POS doesn't necessarily mean that she was negligent. Her behavior after the fact was prosecuted and she was convicted for it. -Rightfully so. Being a crappy parent isn't a crime. And you don't want it to be. -Unless you trust social workers so much that you want them to have total control over how you raise your kids.

The world isn't perfect. Shit happens. People can be pieces of crap and still have kids.

Be careful what you ask for. Trust me, if you've ever had dealings with child welfare you'd know how much you really DON'T want them any more involved than they already are.
You're sounding a lot like the people expecting perfect security from terrorism, or want to ban guns because they are scary. Until we wake up as a country and grow a set, realizing that the world isn't fair or always safe, we're just courting tyranny.

 

[glide]

No, I'm sure he doesn't. His POINT, I suspect is that had the woman in question been middle class the result likely would have been different. The MA courts enforce the laws selectivly with more latitude granted to the underclasses.

This.

 

[rudiewhitebwoy]

I don't think anyone is really hung up on the storage law I am more pissed because I know if I was the parent in this exact same situation only I am licensed like I am they would have me locked up for life, and it seems all the adults in this situation are gonna get a pass to have more kids and be felons some more.

This +1

 

[securityboy]

I find it pretty horrifying that people on a gun board want this broad charged with a blatantly unconstitutional, not to mention ridiculous, firearms charge. Improper storage? WTF? People on a gun board in Mass. wanting ANYONE charged with that BS? That's just pathetic.

What, you're all so pissed off over your CHOICE to comply with B.S. laws that you want them enforced just so you can vicariously vent your frustration with a prosecution of a fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional law? -So much for gun rights. I guess they only count when it's your ass on the line.

Read the Fing article. The gun was her son's. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter over this. You can't control a 15-year-old. That's way past the age when you have much to say about their behavior if they're bound and determined to ignore you. Maybe she knew about the gun, maybe not. Apparently the jury didn't think she did.

The woman is a POS. She got got convicted on the totally righteous obstruction charge. The gun charges were a DA trying to score points with the anti-gun rights wackos in the PRM.

I followed this trial in the news. Assuming for a moment that the reporting before and during the trial was accurate, I believe the jury got this absolutely right. Apparently, the gun was not hers and she had no knowledge of its presence prior to the shooting. Well, at least prior knowledge was not proven. She was convicted on the charge of lying to the police when they initially investigated. Trial testimony already revealed that a teenage gang-banger son hid the gun in the home, he admitted to ownership and admitted that she did not know it was present. The gang-banger is already incarcerated for the manslaughter that happened in this case.

+1 to both of you...

I find some of the opinions on this matter from my fellow "gun nuts" to be truely amazing...this thread has been pretty eye opening, its funny how some of you really can't take the "emotion" out of an issue, and are happy to play "what if"...how could a gun owner in MA not be happy with this decision by a Jury, bottom line simplest form a woman wasn't convicted on gun charges for her son' "gun crimes"...

I don't think anyone is really hung up on the storage law I am more pissed because I know if I was the parent in this exact same situation only I am licensed like I am they would have me locked up for life...

Do you really beleive that???You honestly think if your 15 year old kid has an "illegal" gun hidden in thier room, you are going to be locked up for life (or even 10 years, the max in the storage law). Unless your kid is a huge douche and convinces the courts that its your gun and you have him hiding it...I bet you'ld end up cut loose just like this woman...

...While I'm not advocating it (drunken driving)..."Average Joe" middle class drunken driver on his first time will incur thousands in fees, loss of his license, and need to take classes...

I realize you did mention the selective nature of judges in Mass, but seriously if you know someone who got much more than a QWOF (maybe w/ "classes) on thier 1st DUI here in Mass, they are the exception...

 

[wolf223]

she failed as a mom. thats why.

if my son shot a school mate with my LAWFUL guns, my ass would be locked up w/o bail. so screw her, screw her son anyone who has sympathy.

she knew her son was a gang banger wanna be tuff guy and did nothing...

+1 to both of you...

I find some of the opinions on this matter from my fellow "gun nuts" to be truely amazing...this thread has been pretty eye opening, its funny how some of you really can't take the "emotion" out of an issue, and are happy to play "what if"...how could a gun owner in MA not be happy with this decision by a Jury, bottom line simplest form a woman wasn't convicted on gun charges for her son' "gun crimes"...

Do you really beleive that???You honestly think if your 15 year old kid has an "illegal" gun hidden in thier room, you are going to be locked up for life (or even 10 years, the max in the storage law). Unless your kid is a huge douche and convinces the courts that its your gun and you have him hiding it...I bet you'ld end up cut loose just like this woman...


I realize you did mention the selective nature of judges in Mass, but seriously if you know someone who got much more than a QWOF (maybe w/ "classes) on thier 1st DUI here in Mass, they are the exception...

 

[wolf223]

also, security boy, did the kid have a FID?

 

[securityboy]

she failed as a mom. thats why...

Seriously what does here failure as a mother have to do with the application of this law, it wasn't her gun (can't even prove she knew about it before the shooting), it therefore wasn't her who stored it improperly.

THAT is the difference between this and the "what if" of your example

if my son shot a school mate with my LAWFUL guns, my ass would be locked up w/o bail. so screw her, screw her son anyone who has sympathy.

It was her son's "illegal" gun, his improper storage of that "illegal" gun , and he was convicted as a result of that. Again regardless of your "parent of the year" status (or lack of) do you really think you will be convicted if you son shoots a school mate with his "illegal" gun that you never knew about?

also, security boy, did the kid have a FID?

I'm really not following where you are going with that???

 

[wolf223]

Seriously what does here failure as a mother have to do with the application of this law, it wasn't her gun (can't even prove she knew about it before the shooting), it therefore wasn't her who stored it improperly.

THAT is the difference between this and the "what if" of your example
It was her son's "illegal" gun, his improper storage of that "illegal" gun , and he was convicted as a result of that. Again regardless of your "parent of the year" status (or lack of) do you really think you will be convicted if you son shoots a school mate with his "illegal" gun that you never knew about?

um yes. if my son gained access to one of my guns, that are supposed to have 10# triggers, a trigger lock and / or in a safe. I WOULD BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME.

so eF this broad and pookie. i'm tired of this bleeding heart crap. seriously, they ruin neighborhoods, it should be 100% legal to shoot them on sight vs. calling po po....



but since she's "in da hood" and her son was just turning his life around, it's ok... because she didn't know that having five kids with 4 guys who wear certain colors aren't in gangs. they are going to play hoops and hold informal tournaments against rival color wearers for "honor" and "bragging rights".....

the burner? oh? i didn't know? OF COURSE she didn't know.... she smokes crack and blows dudes for crack! otherwise, she'd have an LTC and he would a "minor" FID and they'd actually COMPLY WITH THE RETARDED LAWS we do...


so i guess i need to go LE or get on welfare and start poppin out welfare babies and vote D

 

[securityboy]

um yes. if my son gained access to one of my guns, that are supposed to have 10# triggers, a trigger lock and / or in a safe. I WOULD BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME...

So I should start charging the parents when thier kids steal things???

 

[wolf223]

So I should start charging the parents when thier kids steal things???

yup. fail on a larger scale. i bet those kids you pick up were turning their lives around too.

take the kid to a foster home and shoot the parent between the eyes..

seriously, we need to stop this happy-go-lucky crap.... the gang bangers and teet suckers now have MORE rights than I do.... that's wrong.

 

[Palladin]

yup. fail on a larger scale. i bet those kids you pick up were turning their lives around too.

take the kid to a foster home and shoot
the parent between the eyes..

seriously, we need to stop this happy-go-lucky crap.... the gang bangers and teet suckers now have MORE rights than I do.... that's wrong.

Read this over again slowly. He's correct. You or I would be grabbed on a dangerousness hearing and locked up til trial. That poor prick in Salem, did three months, not charged, no recourse.
His bitch knew the score, ignored it, killed her kid and walked.
It's not about safe storage, it's about you getting grabbed vs someone from the hood, where this shit is commonplace.

 

[securityboy]

...seriously, we need to stop this happy-go-lucky crap.... the gang bangers and teet suckers now have MORE rights than I do.... that's wrong.

How is this "happy-go-lucky"???In this case the "gang banger" was convicted of manslaughter and the "teet sucker" was convicted of the crime she committed...

What "extra" right do you think they have that you don't???

 

[jcr]

I don't understand how/why the jury overlooked the testemony/recording that Gadson knew that live-in nephew McConnico was "strapped". Did the defense argue that she thought that though she knew he had a gun, he kept it out of her house? Is that believable?

How can a 7y kid find a gun, that the mother, who knew the kid was "strapped", not find the same gun? And if she had, leaving it there (because she, too, was afraid of the gang), does seem to be endangering.

 

[Half Cocked]

IANAL but it sounds like they charged the wrong person to me.
Bob

The son was charged and convicted

Maybe in the future when a legal gun owner is charged with improper storage of a firearm, Comm of Mass vs Gadson case will be cited.

Jury trials set NO precedent therefore cannot be cited.

I have to obey the laws and these scum bags should not get a break

She got no break. She was found not guilty by a Jury. That is the system working. You go to a Jury trial you are certainly not getting a break.

Read the Fing article. The gun was her son's. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter over this. You can't control a 15-year-old. That's way past the age when you have much to say about their behavior if they're bound and determined to ignore you. Maybe she knew about the gun, maybe not. Apparently the jury didn't think she did.
The woman is a POS. She got got convicted on the totally righteous obstruction charge. The gun charges were a DA trying to score points with the anti-gun rights wackos in the PRM.

This

The MA courts enforce the laws selectivly with more latitude granted to the underclasses.

This had nothing to do with the "courts" and had everything to do with a Jury.

 

[Half Cocked]

I guess if this state can't convict her on a storage violation, what's the point of having the law?

People have been acquitted of homicide before in Jury trials........... should we not have a law against that?

 

[Palladin]

The Herald got it right:

Gun laws can’t disarm negligent parenting
By Michael Graham | Thursday, August 12, 2010 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Op-Ed
Mayor Menino, who are you going to blame now?

When 8-year-old Liquarry Jefferson was shot and killed by his 7-year-old cousin, Mayor Tom Menino went to their Dorchester home and “offered support to both families,” as he told the press.

And why wouldn’t he? He certainly didn’t think it was the mother’s fault that the two boys and Liquarry’s 2-year-old half-sister were upstairs playing with a pistol - unattended - at 11 p.m.

Instead, Menino claimed the National Rifle Association was partially to blame. “Why is that gun in the house?” Menino asked. Because the NRA opposed tougher gun control laws, that’s why, he concluded.

Fast forward three years after that terrible accident. Liquarry’s mom, Lakeisha Gadson, was on trial for violating some of the gun control laws that the NRA somehow let slip through the legislative process. Gadson was charged with unlawful possession of a gun and the improper storage of same, as well as the charges of child endangerment and involuntary manslaughter.

Charged - and acquitted. The jury exonerated Gadson of any responsibility for the death of her son. (She was convicted only of misleading the police after the fact, by lying about the circumstances of the shooting).

So now what?

You wanted gun laws, Mayor Menino? You got ’em. An illegal gun was in the house. The gun was brought there by a teenager already busted for illegal gun possession. A gun was left out for little kids to play with. A mom was in the house with no idea what the kids are up to. One kid ends up dead.

You hardly need the cast of CSI-Dorchester to find the crimes here.

And to the Suffolk district attorney’s credit, they brought the case to trial. Yes, it’s true that Gadson suffered a tragic loss in the death of her son. It’s also true that his death would never have happened without her negligent - in my opinion, criminally negligent - behavior. Justice demands that she be held accountable.

Unfortunately, the job of holding her accountable was left to “a jury of her peers.” And now Gadson will go unpunished.

I’ve heard a lot of apologists for Gadson in the past 24 hours defending her by claiming the prosecutor never proved she knew her gun-toting teen brought the pistol into the house. But imagine your son had been busted for gun possession. Would he be able to get away with casually leaving another illegal gun in his underwear drawer at your house? Or would you be digging through his stuff every day to keep him in line?

It’s not the NRA’s fault that Lakeisha Gadson refused to do her most basic duties as a mom. No amount of gun control laws can change the child-endangering circumstances inside that crime scene of a home, with a mom with a record and five kids from four different fathers, all of whom were in prison at the time.

And if Suffolk County juries let defendants like Gadson walk, what possible difference can new laws make?

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1274024

 

[Bob P]

This had nothing to do with the "courts" and had everything to do with a Jury.

I know it was a jury. That makes it even worse.

The point that most of us - including Wolf, are trying to make here is NOT that this is a good law, but that the PARENT is responsible for what their kid gets up to. Look at the a$$ at the Westfield shoot - everyone gets shat on except the one person that SHOULD have been shat on - the father - because 'he suffered enough'.

The 'mother' in this case is found not guilty because 'she's suffered enough'.

REALLY? Suffering requires self-blame. I don't see a whole lot of that going on in either case. More exampels of 'it's everyone's fault but mine'.

 

[wolf223]

hi security boy..... where you at?

 

[securityboy]

...The 'mother' in this case is found not guilty because 'she's suffered enough'...

you guys read the article right? so you know she was found guilty of the obstruction charge and the son plead guilty to manslauter... The jury held her responsible for the crimes they beleived the evidence showed that she had committed... But because she is a POS you guys want to convict her of things the jury obviously felt she was not guilty of... Does that mean I support the "safe storage law", NOPE...does that mean I am some how trying to "defend" the mother, NOPE...

But serioulsy to compair the responsablity/over sight a parent has for an 8 year old vs a 15 year old, is a little silly...did your parents know everything you were doing at 15???

hi security boy..... where you at?

Did I miss something ??? Sorry if I can't play on the internet all day...

 

[TomH]

I find it pretty horrifying that people on a gun board want this broad charged with a blatantly unconstitutional, not to mention ridiculous, firearms charge. Improper storage? WTF? People on a gun board in Mass. wanting ANYONE charged with that BS? That's just pathetic.

What, you're all so pissed off over your CHOICE to comply with B.S. laws that you want them enforced just so you can vicariously vent your frustration with a prosecution of a fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional law? -So much for gun rights. I guess they only count when it's your ass on the line.

Read the Fing article. The gun was her son's. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter over this. You can't control a 15-year-old. That's way past the age when you have much to say about their behavior if they're bound and determined to ignore you. Maybe she knew about the gun, maybe not. Apparently the jury didn't think she did.

The woman is a POS. She got got convicted on the totally righteous obstruction charge. The gun charges were a DA trying to score points with the anti-gun rights wackos in the PRM.

+1000. Your complaint shouldn't be that the laws are applied unequally, it should be that they exist at all!

 

[CRSIII]

You can bet your ass my mom knew what was in my sock drawer.

And you can bet the farm I know whats in my kids sock drawer!

Who gets screwed if your kids aren't buckled up?

Who should be responsible for their kids until they are 18?

This poor excuse for a mom should go away for awhile.

5 kids, 5 fathers, (all incarcerated)

She cares about no one, but her own barnickle ridden ass.

I'd go on, but this is family show!

 

[wolf223]

it's ok. you probably see / live this more than most of us.



the moral of this story is: gun laws = fail

some people just should NOT pro-create



keep up the good work.

you guys read the article right? so you know she was found guilty of the obstruction charge and the son plead guilty to manslauter... The jury held her responsible for the crimes they beleived the evidence showed that she had committed... But because she is a POS you guys want to convict her of things the jury obviously felt she was not guilty of... Does that mean I support the "safe storage law", NOPE...does that mean I am some how trying to "defend" the mother, NOPE...

But serioulsy to compair the responsablity/over sight a parent has for an 8 year old vs a 15 year old, is a little silly...did your parents know everything you were doing at 15???



Did I miss something ??? Sorry if I can't play on the internet all day...

 

[Palladin]

You can bet your ass my mom knew what was in my sock drawer.

And you can bet the farm I know whats in my kids sock drawer!

Who gets screwed if your kids aren't buckled up?

Who should be responsible for their kids until they are 18?

This poor excuse for a mom should go away for awhile.

5 kids, 5 fathers, (all incarcerated)

She cares about no one, but her own barnickle ridden ass.

I'd go on, but this is family show!

+1

 

[n1oty]

This is probably so with most households and with most teens, but certainly not all. The trial testimony indicated that she did not know the gun was in the house. I will even grant you that such a statement may be patently false. That is not for us to decide, though. It was not the defendant's requirement to show that she did not positively know of the gun's existence in the home. It was the prosecutor's job to show that she knew of the existence prior to the shooting. Given the gang-bangers admission of ownership, his statement that she did NOT know it was in the house and HIS conviction for the manslaughter charge, I think any reasonable jury would have a hard time convicting her on anything more than they did.

You can bet your ass my mom knew what was in my sock drawer.

And you can bet the farm I know whats in my kids sock drawer!

Who gets screwed if your kids aren't buckled up?

Who should be responsible for their kids until they are 18?

This poor excuse for a mom should go away for awhile.

5 kids, 5 fathers, (all incarcerated)

She cares about no one, but her own barnickle ridden ass.

I'd go on, but this is family show!

 

[GSG]

I don't care where you live, you shouldn't allow a 15 year old have a unsecured loaded handgun in your home, especially when there are younger children present.

It sounds like you live in a nice neighborhood. All over the US, guns are left unsecured in the home without tragedies taking place. It's perfectly legal in most states. How does that saying go: "You need to gun proof your child, not child proof your gun." The failure here was the parenting.

What, like telling the owner of a building that people can't smoke in that building?

I followed this trial in the news. Assuming for a moment that the reporting before and during the trial was accurate, I believe the jury got this absolutely right.

Agreed. I think she was a negligent parent, but not over the gun issue. Make a habit out of leaving 7 & 8 year olds home all alone all the time and tragedy will find your family. More kids are killed by drownings and fires in the home than guns.

The MA courts enforce the laws selectivly with more latitude granted to the underclasses.

Not really. A career criminal who cycles through the system a few times isn't going to be bothered by a few felony cases. They live to eat, drink and be merry, and usually live by totally different rules than you or I. Your life could be ruined by an arrest, you might be humiliated or lose your job. Gang's don't run CORI's on their members, and as soon as the thug hits the street he goes right back to what he was doing.

What you're seeing isn't selective enforcement, it's selective reaction to enforcement.

also, security boy, did the kid have a FID?

Despite the confusing language of Mass. law, you can't possess a handgun with an FID.

 

[namedpipes]

. . . I don't care where you live, you shouldn't allow a 15 year old have a unsecured loaded handgun in your home, especially when there are younger children present. . . .

As a broad statement, that is absurd. That is a decision that should be made on an idividual basis by the local authority (that is the PARENTS). Not every 15 y/o is created equal (speaking of maturity here, not the inherent right to exist and strive).

. . . "maybe if everyone were affected by the crap laws then the laws would get changed" idea. Problem is this doesn't bear fruit in reality because the law would never be enforced to the extent required to induce enough pain on the voting public to get it repaired; or worse yet, even if it was, the whiners would just amend the law to cripple it slightly but still make the base of the law just as bad. They would just detune it so grandma would not end up in jail for having an heirloom.

If law enforcement started to proactively go after EVERYONE that violates any gun law, including grandma with her husband's war relic, the rape victim that used an unlicensed gun to defend herself, the soccer mom that is wearing one of those flowery casing earrings they sell at the gun shows, LEOs that keep a loaded gun in their bedroom not locked up - then I think we'd see the minority groups and everyone else start to come out of the woodwork to change things. When a store owner in a tough neighborhood KNOWS he's going away for a decade if that .38 under the counter is ever found he'll vote for some real hope and change.

In a perfect world of course we could just repeal the stupid laws and actually be able to have a "rule of law" society where the few laws that do exist would actually mean something as a result, instead of the garbage laws we have now which only corrupt the system, and I think, to some large degree, engender contempt for it at varying levels. It used to be when someone made it to court for criminal charges there was a fairly good reason behind it. Nowadays when people get charged we're not quite sure if the guy is facing charges just because he did "something the government doesn't like" or he actually caused harm to someone....

-Mike

100% This

 

[Gonzo]

I don't care where you live, you shouldn't allow a 15 year old have a unsecured loaded handgun in your home, especially when there are younger children present.

I dunno dude. For the past two days I've watched this 12 year old kid rock this AK (under the "supervision" of his mother) like he was raised in Sierra Leone. His mom has no clue about firearms, but I'd have no problem shooting next to this kid. He shoots better and handles the weapon better than a lot of adults I've seen at NES shoots.

Don't even get me started on my 10 year old nephew and how he can group better than 75% of NES'ers at 25yds.