Most charges dropped in Manchester gun case

[Admin]

AVOIDS JAIL TIME???????????????????????????????????

Only in Massachusetts. Mike there is no way I would pass up a plea deal knowing if I went to trail in MA my fate would be determined by a jury who hate guns and want to give illegals free money and housing.

 

[Admin]

"He also has one week to surrender or provide proof of sale of the two firearms that are still missing, Kimball Monahan added."

Gees... First a question... How did they know there were, "missing" firearms?

I bet every one of you have every receipt for a sale of all your guns going back to 1968. Right?

Awesome isn't it?

 

[Len-2A Training]

He got screwed plain and simple. Let's review:

- Spent 3 months in jail,
- Has to undergo INVOLUNTARY mental health treatment (with no proof of need), thus DQ'g him from ever getting another LTC (even though it would be unlikely as hell in MA anyway) for many years after "treatment",
- Confiscation of his property,
- Huge legal bills,
- Still will be viewed by many chiefs as a "dangerous person" and CWOF will still be held against him,
- Sounds like nothing he did or had was truly illegal,
- He's forced (under threat of a long jail term) to prove what he doesn't have.

I'd say that this is a "win" ONLY for the DA . . . but I'd guess this judge would have convicted him of "felony jay-walking" if that was the only thing he could trump up on him. [Hey Scriv, I know that jay-walking isn't a felony, just trying to point out how ridiculous this is by use of hyperbole.]

And there you have MA style <in>justice!

 

[EC1]

From the Herald (emphasis added):

"SALEM — A Manchester-by-the-Sea man police say told them he was preparing for Armageddon when they found a cache of weapons in his home has had his case continued without a finding.

A Salem Superior Court judge ruled Wednesday that charges against Gregory Girard of discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling and illegal possession of silencers will be continued without a finding for four years if he complies with certain conditions.

Those conditions include treatment by a psychiatrist and the surrender of the weapons seized in the February raid. Police found about 20 guns, body armor, camouflage clothing, and stockpiles of nonperishable food and medicine at the home. Police later determined that the guns were legally registered.

Girard’s lawyer has said all the items were legal."

 

[jasons]

However, a state police lab later concluded the devices were indeed silencers, Kimball Monahan said.

Awesome. So anything that could make a gunshot a bit quieter is a silencer even if that's not the actual intent of the device? Soda bottles? Bed pillows?

 

[Scrivener]

- Has to undergo INVOLUNTARY mental health treatment (with no proof of need), thus DQ'g him from ever getting another LTC (even though it would be unlikely as hell in MA anyway) for many years after "treatment",

FALSE.

Mental health (or alcohol or other drug addiction) treatment does NOT "DQ'g him from ever getting another LTC."

First, only IN-PATIENT treatment for mental health issues is inquired about (See Question #8). Addiction treatment of any sort is inquired into by Question #9.

A "Yes" answer to either of those is still NOT a statutory disqualifier. Provision of an affidavit by the applicant's physician attesting to the applicant's cure removes the impediment.

LenS will now claim that he was aware of all the above and was speaking in "practical" or "functional" terms, the lack of statutory disqualification being no impediment to a discretionary denial.

However, I have prepared and submitted such affidavits for successful applicants and seen many others accepted.

I've also seen improperly prepared apps use mere letters, which were rightly rejected.

 

[SteelShooter]

Girard was arrested Feb. 9 after his estranged wife accused him of preparing for martial law with an arsenal of weapons in their home.

I have been looking for this in the MGL's but haven't been able to find the law this violated.

 

[Bob P]

This guy got screwed, pure and simple. There was not one SHRED of evidence that this man was in ANY way a danger to the community. Yah, he was a little weird, that isn't a crime. His soon-to-be-ex-wife screwed him over, most likely as a ploy to get everything in the divorce. Yah he was a dumb-ass keeping silencers in MA but that hardly makes him a danger to the community.

 

[Mike S]

Scriv, is there any precedent in MA in regards to being arrested for having "silencers"?

What is the typical penalty for discharging within 500?

Does anyone know if there is any way to find out what in fact these "silencers" really are?

 

[Len-2A Training]

FALSE.

Mental health (or alcohol or other drug addiction) treatment does NOT "DQ'g him from ever getting another LTC."

First, only IN-PATIENT treatment for mental health issues is inquired about (See Question #8). Addiction treatment of any sort is inquired into by Question #9.

A "Yes" answer to either of those is still NOT a statutory disqualifier. Provision of an affidavit by the applicant's physician attesting to the applicant's cure removes the impediment.

LenS will now claim that he was aware of all the above and was speaking in "practical" or "functional" terms, the lack of statutory disqualification being no impediment to a discretionary denial.

However, I have prepared and submitted such affidavits for successful applicants and seen many others accepted.

I've also seen improperly prepared apps use mere letters, which were rightly rejected.

Mea culpa!

Scriv is correct, there is no "waiting period" after treatment for mental health issues, a Dr's letter is sufficient after his 4 years (CWOF terms) is up. I did confuse this with the 5 year after treatment requirement for alcohol/drug treatment. So my mistake.

Scriv, I did say that it would DQ him for a very long time (read the rest of my sentence that you quoted) and thus is not a permanent legal Disqualifier (to me four years for a non-crime is a "very long time", YMMV). Yes, from a practical point of view, I seriously doubt that any chief in MA would issue him a LTC at any time in the future.

My reading of strictly what was posted here leads me to believe that his treatment will certainly be mandated as "in-patient" . . . after all they have to justify that "dangerousness" ruling and thus if they "let him loose on the street" to come in for out-patient treatment, it would make it look like this guy is not truly "dangerous" and was thus illegally incarcerated for three months.

I wonder if the DA will go for the third pound of flesh and turn over the "silencers" to BATFE for federal prosecution. Since it's a separate crime, no double jeopardy if they do that.

 

[glostamon]

"We strenuously requested jail time for the offenses due to the serious nature of the events as well as (Blodgett) was very troubled by the presence of the two silencers and felt it merited a jail sentence," Kimball Monahan said.

However bail is approved daily for drunks who commit domestic violence & vehicular homicide.
Drug dealers & sex offenders walk freely on bail...many suffer from mental illness.

..and a questionable firearm accessory(legal in numerous states), seized by an illegal search & seizure gets you incarcerated for 3 months w/o bail.


ETA ; "No sane person owns a suppressor..atleast in the commiewealth"

 

[Scrivener]

Scriv is correct, there is no "waiting period" after treatment for mental health issues, a Dr's letter is sufficient after his 4 years (CWOF terms) is up.

WRONG!

AGAIN, "a dr's letter" is NOT 'sufficient." I said "affidavit" for a reason - grasp the concept.

Scriv, I did say that it would DQ him for a very long time (read the rest of my sentence that you quoted) and thus is not a permanent legal Disqualifier ....

NO; what you said was: "thus DQ'g him from ever getting another LTC ."

Those of us who actually understand the definition of "ever" understand it being a permanent disqualifier as you used the word.

 

[terraformer]

WRONG!

AGAIN, "a dr's letter" is NOT 'sufficient." I said "affidavit" for a reason - grasp the concept.



NO; what you said was: "thus DQ'g him from ever getting another LTC ."

Those of us who actually understand the definition of "ever" understand it being a permanent disqualifier as you used the word.

Your debate on the word "ever" with Len aside , one thing that is really interesting about this is this guy, at the end of 4 years, will not be a prohibited person either here in MA or in any other state in the nation. For a guy who was held under a dangerousness label, to be able to walk away without a conviction is amazing and to not be a prohibited person shows how effd up this legal system is. His lawyer did a great job getting this over with without a trial. I know it isn't the result we wanted to see, but that was a crap shoot anyhow given the judge and any potential jury. The DA and the CLEO should still be bitch smacked by bad karma for eternity and lose their jobs, but at the end of the day, this guy actually walked away with most of his rights intact. That is impressive given the supposed facts of the case. He never had to plead guilty, etc.

 

[namedpipes]

Either A) they were suppressors and they "gave it away" in return for Girard promising not to sue their panties off and going free on the suppressor charge was worth it to him, or...

B) They weren't suppressors but they (the prosecution) are willing to commit perjury to coerce Girard into accepting a deal even though he was innocent of all charges.

I'm thinking B...

Left unsaid in the article is: anything negative he says about the prosecution, the judge, the government etc could be seen as evidence that he is insane and he would NEVER see the light of day again. Also left unsaid is: his business is ruined, his employment prospects are dismal and he'll be under "psych" care. That probably puts him on disability or welfare and dependent on the government that systematically destroyed his life. Anybody see a brighter future for him?

I bet the agreement includes a promise not to sue.

All of the above is IMO and not based on research or inside info.

I have prepared and submitted such affidavits for successful applicants and seen many others accepted.

I've also seen improperly prepared apps use mere letters, which were rightly rejected.

I'm curious about the success rate of this. I suspect it is "possible but not likely" although I'd love to see you reply "very good".

 

[terraformer]

They don't need to perjure themselves.

any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm

With this definition anything can be a silencer. The ATF has gone and expanded the federal definition too.

 

[MisterHappy]

OK...who's up for writing a Press Release about this?....Remembering the enthusiastic coverage at the start, I'm sure that our local media outlets will be more than happy give equal coverage to the successful conclusion of the incedent.....

 

[terraformer]

OK...who's up for writing a Press Release about this?....Remembering the enthusiastic coverage at the start, I'm sure that our local media outlets will be more than happy give equal coverage to the successful conclusion of the incedent.....

It would be really interesting to see them ask the CLEO/Judge/DA why if this guy was so dangerous they let him walk with a CWOF...

 

[SteelShooter]

OK...who's up for writing a Press Release about this?....Remembering the enthusiastic coverage at the start, I'm sure that our local media outlets will be more than happy give equal coverage to the successful conclusion of the incedent.....

When your phone doesn't ring, you'll know it's them

 

[theGringo]

This kind of thing could happen to any one of us, in this state. This guy's circumstances are unique to him, but any one of us could run easily afoul of the vague laws of the Commonwealth. If the government wants to get you, the can and they will. And the press will make any small issue, like a live .22 round stuck in your shoe, seem like an insidious plot.

We have compromised on gun laws for too long. We reap what we've sewn.

I'm so disgusted.

 

[namedpipes]

We have compromised on gun laws for too long. We reap what we've sewn.

I'm so disgusted.

I think it would be more: We reap what we have not prevented others from sowing.

But I get your meaning and I share your disgust.

 

[SteelShooter]

Just heard our DHS head Napolitano say

"We don't necessarily want to predict Armageddon."
President Barack Obama's administration "wants to be prepared for any eventuality," she said.

Now this is in relation to the oil spill, but how is this different than what this guy said? Is she going to be given a mental evaluation (I know she should)? Sounds like this guy was doing the same thing our government does.

 

[Marcus in the Darkus]

Is there a written agreement between Girard and the DA in regard to the CWOF? If so, is that document available to the public? I'd like to see a copy of it.

 

[terraformer]

Is there a written agreement between Girard and the DA in regard to the CWOF? If so, is that document available to the public? I'd like to see a copy of it.

There should something and it should be available.

 

[Half Cocked]

It would be really interesting to see them ask the CLEO/Judge/DA why if this guy was so dangerous they let him walk with a CWOF...

The DA requested Jail time. My guess is that it was an unagreed upon plea between the DA and defense council and the judge made the final decision and gave the CWOF as it is a standard disposition by judges for most everyone in this state who has no prior record....

 

[drgrant]

The DA requested Jail time. My guess is that it was an unagreed upon plea between the DA and defense council and the judge made the final decision and gave the CWOF as it is a standard disposition by judges for most everyone in this state who has no prior record....

So the SOP is to taint someones record rather than issuing a dismissal? That's wonderful.

-Mike

 

[Half Cocked]

So the SOP is to taint someones record rather than issuing a dismissal? That's wonderful.

-Mike

Why would the judge just outright dismiss the silencer charge? The items were deemed to be silencers by the lab. The defendant was found to be in possession of them. They are illegal. Would you have rather the judge give him jail time?

 

[drgrant]

Would you have rather the judge give him jail time?

No, I'd rather see the whole thing dismissed. It sounds to me like he only copped for the plea because he's sick of sitting in jail.

Bad crap is at play here- its OK for him to cop a plea and get out, but if he brings the case to trial he still has to sit in jail, with no possibility of bail?

Obviously the DA knows their case is garbage, otherwise they wouldn't have given him the option.

-Mike

 

[Half Cocked]

No, I'd rather see the whole thing dismissed. It sounds to me like he only copped for the plea because he's sick of sitting in jail.

Mike... he possessed two items that were determined by the crime lab to be silencers which are illegal. He possessed them. Possessory offenses
are difficult to defend. What is your defense? Someone planted them there? Your only option in a possessory case is to make a 4A argument as to the search. If that is lost the only other option is to plea.

Obviously the DA knows their case is garbage, otherwise they wouldn't have given him the option.

-Mike

I don't believe the DA had a choice. I believe that the defense wanted to plea the case out to avoid a trial. The DA asked for jail time and the judge gave the CWOF.

 

[n1oty]

We understand that the judge decided on the CWOF. Whether this guy ACTUALLY possessed silencers is not really the concern here. I'm still not completely convinced that this guy even had silencers based on the fact that the MSP crime lab has been screwed up for years and has a proven track record for being wrong. I'd be more confident that they were in fact silencers if this was examined by an independent lab. Be that as it may, the real issue here is that this guy was held under the dangerousness statute for a REGULATORY crime. There is no evidence that he ever threatened harm to anyone. Mike's point about copping a plea to FINALLY get out of jail is a valid one. Every other charge in this case evaporated while this guy languished in jail. And for what??? At the end of the day, we had a valuable jail cell occupied by someone who has not harmed or threatened harm to anybody. This cell could have been occupied by someone with a proven track record of danger.

 

[gene]

We understand that the judge decided on the CWOF. Whether this guy ACTUALLY possessed silencers is not really the concern here. I'm still not completely convinced that this guy even had silencers based on the fact that the MSP crime lab has been screwed up for years and has a proven track record for being wrong. I'd be more confident that they were in fact silencers if this was examined by an independent lab

Agreed!