Update: felony charges

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So then you're saying people should be convicted for uncommon laws they didn't know about.

Uncommon? Huh?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

Uncommon? Huh?

It's the only state in the nation that has such a law. I'd say that's pretty uncommon.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's the only state in the nation that has such a law. I'd say that's pretty uncommon.

But not uncommon for people who live in MA?

I don't think it's unreasonable to familiarize yourself with laws you know could have an effect on your life.

Drug laws. Driving laws. Gun laws. If you run a business, then business laws, hiring and firing laws, etc.

Despite being brought up around guns and most of my family owning them, I don't have one, so I don't concern myself with the laws surrounding the storage and transportation or sale, etc.. but if I owned one I'd certainly make sure I kept up to date on them so as not to put myself at risk of being in violation and potentially facing legal troubles.

There's certainly room to fault anyone for not keeping informed about the laws despite it being a stupid law, that kind of personal responsibility is a conservative principle I'm sure ballz himself gets behind in many other cases.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

who said he had to memorize every law, and that's a fallacious argument because then people could be found not guilty on most criminal charges because they didn't know the specific law

He's a politically active person interested in gun laws, in one of the most gun-control advocating states in the country, and for over a decade while he certainly was aware gun laws were being increased and decreased, never bothered to even briefly check with a police officer, local sheriff, friendly lawyer, whatever, if there was anything different about the gun laws as he read them over 10 years ago as preparation for buying a handgun

as far as I know ballz has only lived here for 3 years. as far as i know when he registered his guns in Mass, the law requiring a gun safe was not yet in effect.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

But not uncommon for people who live in MA?

He moved there for school as far as I know. His family is all back home. If I went away to school for a few years and brought my guns and the laws changed it would be very likely I wouldn't find out. I don't read local papers and I don't watch much TV. Even if they made a hoopla over it for a day or two on the news, odds are I'd never know and it would rarely come back up again.

I'm just putting myself in his shoes and can see I could very easily make the same mistake. I have my gun permit now, I don't own a firearm, but I do own a safe to store them for when I do purchase. For personal reasons I choose to have a safe, but I can see how it could be an honest mistake that shouldn't result in a criminal record and loss of his security clearance/employment.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So then you're saying people should be convicted for uncommon laws they didn't know about. They're not responsible for knowing all the laws, but they're responsible if they break one.


You seem to have a lot of personal information on Ballz... Is there something we should know about you two?

This is all information that appears in this thread, but from OT I know he was active in gun law threads

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He moved there for school as far as I know. His family is all back home. If I went away to school for a few years and brought my guns and the laws changed it would be very likely I wouldn't find out. I don't read local papers and I don't watch much TV. Even if they made a hoopla over it for a day or two on the news, odds are I'd never know and it would rarely come back up again.

That's entirely possible, but that doesn't negate the personal responsibility to make sure you're adequately informed.

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm just putting myself in his shoes and can see I could very easily make the same mistake. I have my gun permit now, I don't own a firearm, but I do own a safe to store them for when I do purchase. For personal reasons I choose to have a safe, but I can see how it could be an honest mistake that shouldn't result in a criminal record and loss of his security clearance/employment.

Yeah, I can see how it'd be easy to make the same mistake as well, most people don't spend a ton of time in their lives looking up laws or consulting with lawyers or some officials about stuff like this.

I disagree with the law, even if the intention behind it is a good one (and I think the intention behind it is a good one - to make it harder for criminals to get access to guns), and I think given his lack of criminal history, status as an upstanding member of the scientific community, etc, he's not the type of person they really want to prosecute for something like this either.

But it raises another interesting question, should someone's status get them preferential treatment when it comes to being prosecuted or not being prosecuted?

There's certainly an outcry over the special treatment Paris Hilton and other celebrities have gotten because of their status

[Thorgrim]

According to what was said, he registered the gun over a decade ago, because the gun law went into effect a decade ago

If he left for YEARS and then came back, that's all the more reason for him to check the status of laws he had familiarized himself with in the past to see if they had changed...seriously a 30 second phone conversation with the local police station when he "moved back" or whatever and he'd have known of any changes...for all we know their were public broadcasts and radio ads everywhere aimed at gun owners a decade ago when I guess he wasn't in the state...

If I left my state for several years and came back, you'd be sure I'd check out if any traffic laws changed

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

According to what was said, he registered the gun over a decade ago, because the gun law went into effect a decade ago

If he left for YEARS and then came back, that's all the more reason for him to check the status of laws he had familiarized himself with in the past to see if they had changed...seriously a 30 second phone conversation with the local police station when he "moved back" or whatever and he'd have known of any changes...for all we know their were public broadcasts and radio ads everywhere aimed at gun owners a decade ago when I guess he wasn't in the state...

If I left my state for several years and came back, you'd be sure I'd check out if any traffic laws changed

um. as far as i know again (ballz, correct me on this one) but he has only lived in mass once. he's from florida, went to post grad in Tennessee, and now does his postdoc work here in Mass.

as far as registering goes, didn't he have to register his gun again in Mass when he moved here 3 years ago? i would think so, but i'm not a gun owner, so i don't know.

as far as I know that law went into effect AFTER he moved to Mass.

ballz, some clarification would be helpful.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

um. as far as i know again (ballz, correct me on this one) but he has only lived in mass once. he's from florida, went to post grad in Tennessee, and now does his postdoc work here in Mass.

as far as registering goes, didn't he have to register his gun again in Mass when he moved here 3 years ago? i would think so, but i'm not a gun owner, so i don't know.

as far as I know that law went into effect AFTER he moved to Mass.

ballz, some clarification would be helpful.

The information I posted early is fact:

MASSACHUSETTS 1998 LEGISLATIVE SERVICE

...

Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store...

I'd give you a link but without a LexisNexis account you'd be unable to retrieve it, that sort of information isn't online so you'd have to hit your local legal library

[ballz2wallz]

Yeah that's the right law

M.G.L. - Chapter 140, Section 131l

but I don't know when it was made. It certainly wasn't over a decade ago.

But yes, I've only lived here 2.25 yrs.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yeah that's the right law

M.G.L. - Chapter 140, Section 131l

but I don't know when it was made. It certainly wasn't over a decade ago.

But yes, I've only lived here 2.25 yrs.

If you want to look on the bright side, and say "not a decade, only over 9 years ago" thats fine

But to go beyond that and say:

The 1998 Legislative Session in MA which wrote this down as one of it's SIGNED and ENFORCEABLE laws...was "mistaken"

There's no way anyone is going to believe that, and if anyone here doubts me, find someone with a WestLaw or LexisNexis Account

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

who said he had to memorize every law, and that's a fallacious argument because then people could be found not guilty on most criminal charges because they didn't know the specific law

He's a politically active person interested in gun laws, in one of the most gun-control advocating states in the country, and for over a decade while he certainly was aware gun laws were being increased and decreased, never bothered to even briefly check with a police officer, local sheriff, friendly lawyer, whatever, if there was anything different about the gun laws as he read them over 10 years ago as preparation for buying a handgun

lol thats good stuff there

[motivez]

Originally Posted by hsmith

lol thats good stuff there

I'm not sure what this post means

Sounds like you're suggesting that a person has no responsibility to make sure they're following the law though. Seems to be a complete 180 from normal libertarian thought on such matters.

Who knew it was so flexible?

[thomez]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm not sure what this post means

Sounds like you're suggesting that a person has no responsibility to make sure they're following the law though.

I'm not real sure how "lol thats good stuff there" suggests that a person has no responsibility to make sure they're following the law

[motivez]

Well, like I said, I'm not real sure what it meant, and when such vague, pointless comments are made all one can do is guess

Seems like he's laughing at the idea, perhaps he'd be willing to clarify.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by motivez

Well, like I said, I'm not real sure what it meant, and when such vague, pointless comments are made all one can do is guess

Seems like he's laughing at the idea, perhaps he'd be willing to clarify.

If you aren't real sure maybe such a huge guess, implication and partisan bash is not the best way to deal with it.

[motivez]

He's pretty obviously laughing at the idea, so I wouldn't classify it as a "huge guess" obviously, but I can't be absolutely sure of his intent (one rarely can, though)

What do you think, though? Don't you feel like gun owners, car drivers, etc, have a responsibility to be aware of the laws governing their actions?

[thomez]

It is obviously a good idea to know and follow the law, under most circumstances.