Prolific writer Peter Manso, author of, among other books, biographies of Norman Mailer and Marlon Brando, has been indicted on a dozen firearms charges by a Massachusetts grand jury and faces years in prison.
Did he brandish a gun in public? Threaten a neighbor with a drive-by shooting?
No, the guns were all stored, quite securely, in his locked and alarmed home. In fact, police discovered the weapons only when they responded to a burglar alarm while the writer was away. Either the guns were in plain view -- evidence that Manso expected no legal trouble for their possession -- or else, as Manso's attorney alleges, "Truro police searched Manso's house illegally while responding to the alarm." (The Times of London reports they were "in a cupboard.")
The mindboggling criminal charges for mere possession of inanimate objects are reported by the Boston Globe as follows:
Manso was indicted on charges of illegally possessing a large capacity weapon (a Colt AR-15 assault rifle), four counts of illegally possessing loading devices for that weapon, three counts of illegally possessing firearms, one count of illegally possessing ammunition, and three counts of improperly storing a firearm, according to a spokeswoman for Plymouth prosecutors.
The most serious charge, illegally possessing the assault rifle, carries a minimum sentence of 2 1/2 years in prison and a maximum of 10 years in prison. No date has been set for Manso's next court hearing.
The main problem seems to be that Manso's Firearms Identification Card expired after the passage of new legislation in 1998 -- previously, FIDs lasted a lifetime; now they expire every six years. The new law has caused endless problems in the Bay State, since authorities have not been very effective about informing gun owners of the change. As the Globe reports, "In July 2002, a State House committee found that thousands of Massachusetts residents were probably unaware that they needed to renew fire identification cards."
The "assault rifle" is a separate issue, since that's just outright illegal in Massachusetts. Still, Manso is in good company in its possession. In Can Gun Control Work?, James B. Jacobs, Director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice at New York University, reported that Boston's assault weapons ban has enjoyed a rousing compliance rate of about 1%. Challenged by a law that seems purely arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive (banned assault weapons are mechanically indistinguishable from many perfectly legal firearms), large numbers of Americans simply shrug their shoulders and symbolically tell legislators to go fish.
Of course, heavy-handed law enforcement is nothing new to Massachusetts. When I went to college there in the 1980s (Clark University in Worcester, if you must know), the string of ominous billboards along the highway as you crossed the border was a running joke: Speed Limit Strictly Enforced, Possession and Use of Radar Detectors Illegal, Gun Laws Strictly Enforced ... "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here" would have been a fitting final warning, followed by a roadblock and a vigorous strip-search.
But a potential decade in prison for merely possessing a mechanical device is more than a joke: it's a deprivation of a man's freedom for doing nothing that caused any harm to people or property.
Manso claims that he's been maliciously targeted by the police because of his controversial work on a new book that casts a skeptical look at the work of local authorities in investigating the murder of a writer named Christa Worthington. I don't know whether there's any truth to his claim, but the sort of technical charges he faces lend themselves to such abuse. The more intricate and technical the law becomes, the harder it is to understand, respect and abide by. It's irresistably tempting for many people to ignore the law's sillier restrictions, and all too easy to unwittingly fall behind in paperwork -- at the cost of years behind bars if a local official wants to be by-the-book about such things.
And, of course, offending local officials then comes to carry a hefty penalty in terms of selective enforcement of arcane law.
Strictly speaking, the recent Heller decision should have made these charges impossible. By finally recognizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, the Supreme Court ostensibly put the right to bear arms on the same footing as the right to free speech -- and you can't require people to get a license to speak their minds, nor can you ban high-capacity printing presses. But we're still exploring the full implications of that decision, and Heller was worded loosely enough that it may permit restrictions of the sort that we would never permit to be applied to any other individual right.
So Peter Manso faces a potential life sentence (he's 67) for doing no harm to anybody by violating laws that few respect and even fewer understand and thereby making himself vulnerable to officials who may be out to get him.
In a free country, that's not how the law is supposed to work.
Gun Owners Action League: Massachusetts Firearms Law Reference Chart
Comments
Right on, J.D. This is a victimless "crime" as Manso didn't hurt or threaten anyone. Well, maybe there's one victim... Manso is one due to the "Worst in the Nation" gun laws in Massachusetts. I would love to be put on his jury.
Looks like yet another trip to the U.S. Supreme Court should be happening soon with this case.
I hope it happens SOON, to stop Congress from trying to pass another UnConstitutional cosmetic 'assault weapons' ban.
It appears that Mr. Manso has run afoul of those anti-American, anti-freedom, and ridiculous gun laws that Mitt Romney signed into permanent law as governor. Am I right? If so, I'd love to hear Mr. Romney's comments on this.
Let me say I TOTALLY support Mrs. Sarah Palin. As a Jewess in the US, may I remind everyone that America wasn’t won with a registerd gun? And that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk? That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!
The Manso case might be an excellent test case to bring to the U.S. Supreme Court to see if a state can license a specifically enumerated right protected by the Constitution. Here we have a mentally-competent, law-abiding adult American citizen charged with non-violent possession of ordinary firearms in his own home, firearms which were, it seems, perfectly legal when he obtained them.
It also might force journalists to more seriously consider their feelings about the Second Amendment, when the person charged is one of their own.
Regarding the statement that "the Supreme Court ostensibly put the right to bear arms on the same footing as the right to free speech" - there is overwhelming historical evidence that the Founders intended for them to be put on exactly the same footing. The first Amendment rights were phrased so as to prevent infringement in the earlier versions of the amendments. In fact, the exact same language was applied to most of them by the First House of Representatives as was applied to the Second Amendment itself - "shall not be infrigned".
The details of American history are very clear about this. However, those details are largely unknown today. I urge people to study the Founders' own views regarding the Bill of Rights.
You're mistaken when you say, "In a FREE [empahsis added] country, ..." We no longer live in a FREE country and haven't for quite sometime. It's quite refreshing to see on the internet the great numbers of citizens who have FINALLY began to realize that. It's past time for a citizen's revolution to take back our country and make it Free once again. Peacefully if effective, by force if not. I'm just waiting on the rest of you to get it straight in your heads and determine to take action. We need to pressure our elected, so-called "representatives" to such an extent that they can't sleep at night until they roll back the unconstitutional legislation they've passed in the past and restore ALL inaleineable rights and privileges to mankind as well as those enshrined in our Constitution which is treated by our corrupt judiciary as nothing more than an inconveinent hindrance to THEIR idea of justice. Justice and truth hold no sway in the judicial system today. They're more interested in demonstrated humility and submission to their power and position and justice and truth is of no import.
It's disgusting and I hope to see them all pay before the sun sets on my life.
May God bless America and may he save us from the socialism prevalent in America today.
John , Don't expect to be on that jury, the jury members are carefully screened, NO one with legal knowledge is allowed, and No one with conservative views either, and when a cop is EVER put on trial??? the DA always makes sure there is a preponderence of retired cops in the jury pool. Also don't I remember a judge putting a juror in jail for voteing "not guilty"? And--one of Klinton's judges saying "we'll try him as many times as necessary, until we get a conviction!! (freemen trials) With Obama, comes back the Klinton reign of terror, remember--- Waco, Colombine, Murrah building, Flight 800, Randy Weaver, Russel Scott--------------
Massachsetts hasn't been free since electing Ted "lifeguard" Kennedy to the US Senate.
Preemptive laws that punish mere property possession rather criminal use, especially property that is legal in almost every other state, are repressive, undemocratic and cancerous to a purportedly free society.
If the police are looking for an intruder as the result of a break-in alarm, why are they searching the man's cupboards? What, no doughnuts laying around on the counter?
What a positively idiotic state.
Boy, did you all miss the point. This had nothing to do with over bearing gun laws
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!