A rather strange story appeared in the Boston Globe on Thursday. Thomas K Morse, a Newton resident checked into the W hotel in Boston carrying big bags and a guitar case and requested a room on an upper floor. A member of the hotel staff spotted something that led him to believe that there were guns in the guitar case.
The hotel alerted authorities and Boston Police and federal agent arrived but they didn’t have probable cause to search the room. They knocked on the door and spoke to Mr. Morse and spotted two large duffel bags. They asked if he had a guitar with them and Morse denied it.
The hotel cancelled his stay and Morse left the hotel without any bags. Once gone, police searched the room and found an AR-15 rifle with a mounted scope, a semi-automatic rifle, and a loaded .45 caliber handgun, as well as two large-capacity magazines and more than 50 rounds of ammunition. Based on the arsenal in the hotel room, authorities issued an arrest warrant and he was picked up Monday in the North End.
He has pled not guilty but he is being held without bail, pending a dangerousness hearing. His lawyer argued that while Morse has a 22-page criminal history, none of those cases involve charges of violence. Morse also faces illegal drug possession charges stemming from an arrest in Newton in May 2020.
This happens more frequently than is reported publicly, although it does not necessarily mean someone is planning a Las Vegas style massacre. Nevertheless, it should cause serious concern for law enforcement.
That is, of course, the first thing on anybody’s mind. Dallas1963 also comes to mind.
@Jane H, I find it particularly distressing because the W Hotel is so close to Emerson College, the Theater District, the Josiah Quincy School, the State Transportation Building, and the Boston Common.
The real question should be how does a Newton resident with 2 prior convictions get his hands on an AR-15 rifle and high-capacity magazines? Over the past 10 months I have heard way too often that proposing gun violence prevention initiatives in Newton is unnecessary, or “hysteria”, or worse – being used as a political dog whistle, in such a safe city. This is a terrifying example that nowhere is safe from the threat gun violence.
My question is why did Mayor Fuller block the Red Cross Emergency Response Training Program that was endorsed by police and fire?
@Jackson Joe – I don’t know enough about that issue to answer your questions, but I would like to point out that training for a RESPONSE to gun violence is not the same as gun violence PREVENTION. If we focused more on prevention, we would not need to train so heavily for a response. I was very happy to see the steps Mayor Fuller is taking, in consultation with national gun prevention groups, to prevent gun violence in Newton and the surrounding cities, but I would urge her to do more – increase screening of applicants for a Newton gun license, more stringent requirements for gun and ammo storage in the city and make ERPO education mandatory by schools and health care providers.
Wow, violent criminals in Newton. Maybe we do need police to keep us safe, not just rainbows and unicorns.
oh, he was just probably going hunting…..uuuuggggghhhhhh
@Kate PW
The answer to your question- how does the individual with 2 prior convictions (presumably violent) get his hands on an AR-15 and ammo is by purchasing the weapon out of state and bringing it here.
And for everyone paying attention, the US Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen. Fascinating as always to listen to arguments before SCOTUS.
@Lisa – the question was rhetorical. I posed it to point out how deficient our local
and state laws are at preventing gun violence. While the CC did an admirable job passing constitutionally defensible zoning of firearms sales in Newton, nothing protects us from an incident like this. Assuming Morse did not have a Newton firearms permit, someone at least could have used an ERPO but few people know that option exists. If Morse DID have a Newton license, then it exemplifies how insufficient our permitting process is.
@Kate PW – what is an ERPO?
@lisap, I did not like the way that SCOTUS hearing on the NY gun law went. If the six conservative justices strike down the NY law which requires that gunowners show a particularized need to carry a gun in order to get a permit, the laws of many other states, including Massachusetts, could be attacked on similar grounds.
An ERPO is an Extreme Risk Protection Order, aka “Red Flag Law”.
Information about the MA version can be found here:
https://www.mass.gov/extreme-risk-protection-orders
@Garry Miller – thanks for the information.
@Ted – I would say if SCOTUS strikes down NY’s law then Massachusetts is most certain to follow. Mass. requires applicants to state the reason why they want a license to carry and they are issued by the local police departments – the chief of police I believe. Whether one is approved for a license – well, that’s discretionary. I’ve heard that there are police departments that deny everyone and others that will only give them out to lawyers (great huh? No.) To quote one of my favorite film lines…I have a bad feeling about this…
Kate- I’m for much stronger gun control that you are but that has nothing to do with Emergency Response training which could be helpful in the case of any emergency in including fire, hurricane, earthquake, tornado, bombing as well as gun violence. Neighboring communities are much better prepared than ours and we may be dependent on Brookline to help us if there ever is a major event. Again this program was supported by Newton fire and police
@lisap, agreed. In fact, I have a really bad feeling about this.
Massachusetts has the toughest gun laws in the country and also the lowest gun violence rate. It would be a shame if SCOTUS threw that all out the window, but I would agree that it seems we are headed that way.
@Meredith thank you for demonstrating the need for ERPO education. Many victims of gun violence have forewarning that they are targets, but do not know about this resource to remove firearms from the home of a dangerous person. NGVPC is hoping that Newton will make ERPO education mandatory in certain places and for certain vulnerable populations. This will become especially important if MA’s most protective gun laws are eroded by SCOTUS.
There are federal and state laws that prevent anyone convicted of a felony of owning a gun. In MA, the law is much stricter, and permits are granted at the discretion of town police chief where a person lives.
https://www.everettpolicema.com/documents/firearms_documents/Mass%20Firearms%20Disqualifiers%20Clarification.pdf
This guy if he had a long arrest record would never get a permit in MA and almost certainly was federally prohibited from owning firearms, he must have bought the guns illegally. In other words, he almost certainly broke the law to obtain his weapons.
@Gary, Massachusetts is the 22nd WORST state for gun murders because criminals don’t follow the law, “tough” or not, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state#Murders
This person was already FEDERALLY prohibited from owning a firearm, so more state laws wouldn’t change anything for him. Also, the Supreme Court case being heard would NOT make him legally eligible for firearm ownership.
What failed us is enforcement and court sentencing, which he’ll probably be back home in Newton in a couple weeks. Despite his lawyer’s claim, he does have a least one past charge of armed robbery and yet he was still not in prison. That’s Massachusetts for you: tough laws; easy sentencing. If you don’t believe me, just ask Mike Dukakis and Willie Horton.
Moreover, the man that illegally sold his handgun that Tsarnaev used to kill Officer Collier after the Marathon bombing received only a SIX MONTH prison sentence. Criminals get a slap on the wrist here. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boston-bombing-gun/six-months-prison-for-man-linked-to-gun-boston-bombers-used-to-kill-cop-idUSKCN1062JM
@Henry – you are correct that he could not obtain a permit with felony convictions, yet he was clearly able to purchase high capacity weapons. It is terrifyingly easy to buy a weapon illegally.
It is also possible that he owned these weapons prior to a felony conviction. Because individual firearms don’t need to be registered, there would be no way for law enforcement to know what weapons needed to be surrendered. Many felons are able to hold on to their weapons illegally or simply legally transfer them to a friend or family member.
There are so many holes in our already weak gun laws…and it’s only going to get worse under the current SCOTUS. IMO, our best option is to pass local laws through zoning, education, programs and services and public safety that 1) address the root causes of gun violence 2) discourage gun ownership and encourage safer gun storage and 3) empower law enforcement to enforce existing laws.
@David M
Armed robbery is a federal crime prosecuted in federal court. It’s not prosecuted in state court and neither Mike Dukakis nor Willie Horton’s case have anything to do with sentencing of that crime in federal court. And if you click on the link you posted, that too is a case in Federal Court – not the same as state court.
And see a big part of the issue with federal sentencing related to the sentencing guidelines which have been found, in hindsight, to disproportionately impact people of color. Congress and President Clinton enacted what turned out to be a draconian sentencing scheme where drug offenses received preposterously disparate sentences based on the form of the product (crack cocaine vs cocaine). Federal courts and Congress have been struggling to try to undo the mess created by the sentencing guidelines for years… but I digress.
So to reiterate – Federal Court crimes are codified in the United States Code and those are for example drug trafficking, human trafficking, armed robbery, bank robbery, kidnapping, using a weapon of mass destruction (bomb), tax fraud. Obviously there’s a long list.
State crimes we can generalize and say are crimes against person (homicide, rape and sexual assault, assault and battery, harassment, stalking) and property (burglary, breaking & entering etc) as well as crimes against good order (public drunkenness, driving while intoxicated, disturbing the peace.
One area where federal jurisdiction covers all flavors of crime is on federal property so if you find yourself drinking on the National Seashore stopped by a federal officer you could find yourself charged in the US District Court with dui or public intoxication.
@Kate PW
I don’t believe the Mass legislature will have much will to enact any further gun laws with a major case now under consideration by SCOTUS. Once the court rules on what parameters pass constitutional scrutiny versus what is unconstitutional, the legislature will have to review firearms laws here and bring them into line or face swift litigation that will have the laws declared unconstitutional. The path isn’t hard to predict. The SJC (Supreme Judicial Court) is not going to defy Supreme Court precedent.
Lisa P., I totally agree that Federal sentencing can be as weak as Massachusetts is on criminals and you raise an excellent point that Willie Horton was federally sentenced to life without parole, and yet Massachusetts released him for a weekend furlough, which ultimately resulted in him assaulting, raping, and murdering. It is amazing that the Commonwealth can even undermine a felony life sentence!
@Lisa P – exactly. This is why local laws are so important. A perfect example is the zoning law that passed in May. Without being a ban, it effectively prevents a firearms store in Newton. There are more measures that the city government can take to increase enforcement of state laws as well. In this case the issue was not a lack of legislation, but lack of enforcement. This can be improved on the local level.
@Kate wrote, “Without being a ban, it effectively prevents a firearms store in Newton.”
If the ordinance has the same effect as a ban, then it is a violation of the state and federal Constitution. I agree that the City has the ability to wield its power to deny a relatively small group of residents their civil liberties, since most people lack the resources to challenge the City, but it is an amoral process and abuse of government power. Right now, in other parts of our country, there are state and local governments passing laws that “effectively prevent” groups of people from voting–but they don’t call it a ban. So is that okay too? Of course not. Their mob rule mentality is no different than Newton’s stance on gun stores. Reminds me of the saying, “then they came for me—and there was no one left.”
@David M,
I think you must have Willie Horton confused with another case. Horton was not convicted in Federal Court, he was convicted in Massachusetts and sentenced to life without parole. At that time there was a furlough program believed to incentivize good behavior by inmates and he was allowed out on furlough, skipped town and committed more horrible crimes. The furlough program effectively ended along with parole for crimes that carry a life sentence with the possibility of parole (generally 2nd degree murder).
Federal inmates typically serve their sentences in federal facilities. There have been occasions where individuals are held awaiting trial in federal court at Mass. facilities (Middleton and Souza) under agreement with the Federal Bureau of Prisons. If held post conviction their release date is NOT determined by the Mass. Dept. of Corrections but by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Hopefully this helps. It can be confusing to keep in mind that we have an entire federal judicial system with jurisdiction over particular offenses and crimes, and then each state has its own judicial system.
David M.
The quote you are thinking of is as follows:
“First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me”
It’s a quote from Martin Niemöller. Niemöller was an anti-Communist and supported Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. But when, after he came to power, Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. In 1937 he was arrested and eventually confined in Sachsenhausen and Dachau. He was released in 1945 by the Allies. He continued his career in Germany as a clergyman and as a leading voice of penance and reconciliation for the German people after World War II. (this is all from Wikipedia)
While I understand the need to describe a slippery slope when we start restricting people rights, maybe the reference to a poem that is featured in most of the Holocaust memorials around the world (including in DC and in Jerusalem) wasn’t the best metaphor to use. While I appreciate the power of Godwin’s law on the internet, there seems to be an obvious difference in degree between inactions leading to genocide (the poem) and the implementation of gun sale restrictions (your issue). I’d appreciate it if you don’t connect the two, as it lessens the first (I’m sure that was not your intention). Thank you.