Man who slept with shotgun under his mattress has it confiscated when police investigate his stolen rifle

Boston Police report they are looking for an AR15 rifle stolen from the bedroom of a resident of 157 Intervale St. in Grove Hall yesterday.

Police say the resident returned home to find his front door unlocked and his TV, Xbox, Playstation, video games, camera and, oh, yeah, his rifle missing. Not taken was his Mossberg 500 shotgun, hidden under his mattress and his Beretta FS92 handgun, hidden in a drawer:

He stated that his shotgun was hidden between the mattress of his bed and his Beretta (handgun) was in his bedroom drawer. Officers seized a Beretta FS92, Mossberg 500 and assorted ammunition from the victim. The victim did have a valid FID card but was not in compliance with Massachusetts General Laws with regards to Firearm Storage.



    Free tagging: 


    This guy's a fucking idiot!

    Sorry for the subject line. But really, if you have a gun, you lock it up. If you have multiple guns, you lock them up. Can't afford a gun safe? Then you can't afford a gun.

    I'm a frequent shooter. So this type of behavior really pisses me off.

    Gun Intervale St

    By on

    Sport or deer hunting? I was thinking more on the lines of Skeet shooting or fox hunting on the North Shore.


    Gun safe

    By on

    Gun safe is cheaper than xbox360, ps3 and a bunch of games. Looks like he had his priorities all mixed up.

    frequent shooter?

    By on

    then you would know an AR15 is not a shotgun.

    Meant to Reply, Not Upvote

    By on

    Click the link. It's a 12-guage shotgun built to resemble an AR-15. It's marketed as "imported in the US by RAAC," which actually means that vile foreigners made yer guuuunz.


    Do what?

    By on

    The thief must be someone he knows. Who checks between the mattresses but not in a dresser drawer?

    First Personal Bank of Mattress

    By on

    I can totally understand checking mattresses for valuables. It is the oldest "safe" in the book!


    By on

    Yeah that's really bad decision making. If you're going to invest in firearms, at least lock them up. Now he's not only out his hardware and busted for unsafe storage, he also has a serious liability problem if someone gets shot with the gun that he didn't have properly stored. On top of that, he will likely have his license revoked over this and will never see any of his other guns again.

    If only

    By on

    He owned more guns, this robbery would never have happened. Oh, wait, that doesn't make any sense. We've got to hand this story off to an NRA spokes person who can similarly twist it, so that it seems to make sense that more weapons (sales) would have prevented this robbery.

    Legally, firearms do not have

    By on

    Legally, firearms do not have to be in a locked case. A trigger lock or gun lock is perfectly acceptable and would not have prevent his guns from being stolen (he obviously didn't even have these or his guns wouldn't be confiscated). Firearm storage laws are in place to prevent children from accessing firearms, not criminals.

    This is just victim shaming. How dare this guy allow someone to break into his locked home and steal his property?! Right??


    We've gone through this "you're blaming the victim" stuff before

    By on

    We've been through this argument before.

    It's not the criminal liability that is going to get the gun owners whose guns are stolen (unless, of course, they have failed to comply with even the minimal standards for securing weapons that are currently on the books and that constitutes a crime). Rather, it's going to be the civil liability that will come either in the form of new legislation concerning liability or common law made in the courts.

    Regarding legislation, it's just too easy from a political standpoint for this not to happen. Legislators can say "I'm not telling anyone they can't have guns, I'm saying that have to be locked up in a safe, and if they're not, you're on the hook for whatever those guns are later used for". It's an easy way for legislators to say that they've "done something" in the wake of Sandy Hook, etc., but that that "something" wasn't "taking people's guns away" and they still love and support the Second Amendment.

    Even if the legislatures (state or federal) choose not to act, all it is going to take is the right set of facts, and, most importantly, a gun owner who has significant assets. There will be a successful suit for negligence for not keeping the gun in a manner such that it is inaccessible to unauthorized persons.

    Then there is the moral aspect of this whole thing. And if that needs to be explained, well, we really don't stand a chance as a civilized society.


    The needs of the many

    By on

    The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few gun nuts. Make those nuts civilly liable!!!

    I think there should be

    By on

    I think there should be distinctions with regard to property stolen. Someone steals fishing rods, no big deal. Someone steals guns, that's a bigger deal.

    For God's sake

    By on

    the gentleman lives in Grove Hall, not Newton! Give him his frigging beretta have to ask why he owns a beretta and shotgun?

    And were there any children living or visiting his bedroom? I'm going on on a limb and guess no. What happens when someone breaks into his apartment at 2AM....oh, excuse me please while I get my pistol/shotgun out of my safe Mr. home invader.



    By on

    Now, as I was saying, who looks under a mattress for stuff to steal? Nobody, that's who.