“[N]obody in Massachusetts government or law enforcement seems to give a damn that the law is being repeatedly broken to victimize gun owners and illegally take their property. Nor do the Feds,” an email from Lawrence Mirsky claimed. It was sent for that reason, and because friends of Mirsky suggested Gun Rights Examiner might be a venue from which others could be prodded into investigating his documented allegations.
Receiving such unsolicited requests to investigate personal complaints is a fairly common occurrence for this column, and one that is normally dismissed — the tales are usually so one-sided and subjective, and verifying stories, and the credibility of those telling them, are typically beyond the time, resources and abilities of a one-man operation. Still, this one was intriguing, because it sounded real, and because validating documentation was attached.
“The local police have been running a racket where they sell guns that under the law they are supposed to be holding in safekeeping, often lying to the owners about the law, claiming that they are confiscated, and then refusing to compensate those who realize they have been wronged because they know the cost of legal action is prohibitive,” Mirsky elaborated. “In effect they have turned ‘safekeeping’ into ‘confiscation’ and have been targeting gun owners using any justification as it is very profitable.
“Because of that, the Quincy police have been targeting gun owners for years, using the chief’s ability to suspend a license to carry over just about anything he pleases, as well as the all too easy to get restraining order from an unhappy spouse or girlfriend,” Mirsky continued.
So what was Mirsky’s personal beef?
“The current chief continues the practice as it was under his watch that $11,000 of my property disappeared from the police lockup in 2009 without explanation until I finally obtained the attached documents confirming what I already knew,” he claimed. “They sold them without legal right to do so, and pocketed the money.”
One of the attachments Mirsky included was a complaint he filed on April 23 with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security alleging RICO and civil rights violations, as well as corruption in the Quincy Police Department.
“When firearms are seized due to a license revocation, the owner is given one year to transfer the property into the hands of one who is permitted under law to possess them,” Mirsky explained in his cover letter. “When mine were seized, their firearms officer even joked about more money for their slush fund.
“As you can see from the sales slips, the Quincy police are pocketing thousands of dollars at a time by illegally depriving gun owners of their property and selling it off at a fraction of its value, and this practice has been ignored by state authorities for years, even though the proceeds of any sales are supposed to go to the state treasury, and they are not,” Mirsky told Gun Rights Examiner.
Still, readers are no doubt wondering why his guns were seized in the first place. Why should law-abiding gun owners care about someone who did something to get his guns taken away?
After going through a legal ordeal following a harassment charge by a female neighbor, which she has since testified was largely fueled by falsehoods the police told her that scared her, including that police also disclosed to her that Mirsky had a license to carry for all lawful purposes, the charges against him were dismissed after a probationary period. It should be noted that the complainant has also testified that Mirsky never threatened her, never acted inappropriately, never touched her, and never showed any romantic interest in her. In fact she was also unable to report that she ever even argued with Mirsky.
The initial gravitas of the claim against Mirsky was simply that he was too friendly towards this individual he regularly encountered, who suspected he might have ill intent, and therefore brought him to the attention of the police. From that point on, Mirsky could not leave his home without this neighbor claiming his appearance was to menace her, with the police all too eager to act, even though she could not report that he ever made a face or even a threatening gesture towards her.
As a result of their actions fueling the action against him, Mirsky is now suing the police. Of significance: He is not a prohibited person and has a current valid Firearms Identification Card, albeit he says “They won’t let me have a License to Carry after what happened, because in Massachusetts you don’t have to be found guilty to revoke your pistol license or decline to issue.
“Still, even if I was prohibited, your property is still yours and you have the right to transfer it under the law,” he added.
Correspondence with Mirsky is ongoing, and he has forwarded numerous additional corroborating documents which will be the subject of future reports, and which will be made available to serious journalists and bloggers interested in investigating and reporting on this story.
The latest GUNS Magazine “Rights Watch” column is now online. Click here to read “Dodging a Bullet.”
If you’re a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won’t find in the mainstream media, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (Dan) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.”