Weapons seizure uncovered Holyoke family’s love affair with illegally obtained firearms —Stephanie Barry | firstname.lastname@example.org, Weapons seizure uncovered Holyoke family’s love affair with illegally obtained firearms, masslive, (last visited Aug. 6, 2023)
It is a shitty picture of some lovely old weapons. I haven’t even attempted to identify any of them.
The box of stripper clips in the foreground is nice, the pile of magazines in the sink is interesting. I would be happy to take all of those off his hands.
I’ll spare you the search, the Uzi they are referring to is a semi-auto version. There are no NFA items in the collection.
As always, the reporter is trying to induce a panic. Was this a large collection? Yes. If this was in a free state, the actual collection would not have been an issue. In MA, it is unlikely that they had registered all those firearms. Much less the magazines and ammo.
—United States v. Augusto, No. 3:22-cr-30048, slip op. at 3 (District Court, D. Massachusetts)
English is tricky. Were there hundreds of firearms? Were there hundreds of magazines? Were there hundreds of rounds of ammunition? Or did they just lump them all together to get scary numbers? The statement made in the court filing was that there were
more than a dozen semi-automatic rifles … in one of the bathrooms …—Sentencing Memorandum – #16 in United States v. Augusto (D. Mass., 3:22-cr-30048), No. 3:22-cr-30048
The state is attempting to make it sound horrible, they are attacking this man for not having all of his guns in safes.
… obsessively collected firearms to the point that they could not store them safely.—id.
—id. at 6
I didn’t know there was a “not for money” clause in the don’t buy guns for others.
This man is going to lose his Second Amendment protected rights because the government is infringing on his father’s Second Amendment protected rights.
I didn’t find what the father was convicted of doing that made him a prohibited person. It is pretty obvious that he has not been doing evil in a long time.
I’m watching the §922(g) cases wind their way to the Supreme Court. I believe that the court is going to spank the government hard. In Heller, in the dicta, they indicated that §922(g) was presumed to be constitutional. They didn’t clarify that “presumed” means, “We didn’t look at it. That is a question for another day.”
There is no historical regulation nor tradition of stripping The People of their right to keep and bear arms because they are not virtuous people. That is what §922(g) does.
This is just an example of how there are intended consequences.
Of note, I’ve not seen a single story come across my feeds of a person being convicted of straw purchases that was a bad person.
Maybe that’s because they are either getting a sweetheart deal OR they are getting so stitched up that they didn’t stack the federal gun crime on top.