It would have done nothing in this case, The guy had no record, he
legally purchased a pretty mundane shotgun and he bought it a while
ago. The cops are saying he was not even on their radar. The newspaper
never pursued charges against the guy. The harassment charge did not
raise any red flags according to him but he did seem pretty nervous
about it.
So, like Harry says, "do nothing".
I am not suggesting a registration of all firearms to their owners is
going to prevent every nutcase from shooting someone. However, it may
help in terms of keeping track of who has what and what happens to the
guns if they get rid of them.
Actually, in this case, the guy *was* on the radar screen because of the
harassment case and his lawsuit. It's in the court records.
One of the questions on the form you fill out for a permit or renewal in
Massachusetts is:
“Have you ever *appeared* in any criminal court as a defendant for any
criminal offense or criminal traffic offense (excluding non-criminal
traffic offenses)?”
Note "appeared". Even the police department website points
this out. It doesn't say "arrested" or found guilty. It says "appeared".
You could have had the charges dismissed or found not guilty however
you are required to answer honestly and they check. An "appearance" may
not cause you to not get the permit or renewal however not answering
the question honestly *will* according the the Police Department
instructions.
There are plenty of plea deals where you do not have a conviction and
you do not appear in court. (probation before judgement)
It is common with minor offenses or cases where they may not have a
very strong case but they know the person will deal to avoid a record.
I would be curious about Ramos because the 4 star cop on TV made it
sound like the harassment was no big deal.
Another ...
Threaded Mode
