20 year old stopped with backpack with 2 oz of weed and a gun

Darksideblues42 said:
Just read this. Left with a couple questions.

20 year old, pulled over for speeding, has a backpack full of weed and a stolen S&W handgun.

The charges are interesting to me.


  1. Possession of a Firearm without FID Card;
  2. Improper Storage of a Firearm;
  3. Possession of Ammunition without FID Card;
  4. Receiving Stolen Property -$1200;
  5. Possession of a Class D Drug with Intent to Distribute;
  6. Marked Lanes Violation; and
  7. Fail to Signal.
I am under the impression that based on how Massachusetts defines a firearm, one cannot possess a firearm on an FID, so isn't this charge meaningless?

Is a Shield really worth $1200?




mspnews.org

Troopers Arrest Man with Stolen Gun, Drugs

Just before 11 p.m. on Sunday Trooper Nathan Robitaille, assigned to State Police-Middleboro, was on patrol traveling on Dean Street in Taunton. As he was passing through the intersection of Honora…
mspnews.org
Click to expand...
Depends.. did someone stipple the grip.. put an apex in wrong and file out some slide ports... then try and sell it on nes
 
TTA89 said:
Not only that, but how did the cop end up searching your backpack on a supposed lane change violation? What did they make up for probable cause there?
Click to expand...

My understanding of protocol on a situation like this is that if the officer believes the vehicle operator has recently smoked weed, and is not just merely in possession of the legally allowed amount, then the person is currently under the influence and that's a no-no.

From a Libertarian standpoint this kid really didn't do anything wrong. ;)
 
daekken said:
Hey, it's a CUSTOM Shield, with an Apex trigger, hand-done hot glue gun stippling, American flag cerakote job, molon labe engraving, and most importantly a Punisher striker plate cover.

That quadruples the value alone.
Click to expand...

LOL. I had to look again to see if that was true. You had me!

alan226 said:
2 ounces is "a backpack full of weed"?

You are allowed to possess up to 10 ounces (in your home) of recreational MJ if I am not mistaken
Click to expand...

1. Not in his home.
2. Under 21.
3. This is the media. It's not about the weed (well, usually), it's about HE'S GOT A GUN!!!!!
4. F the Man about MJ. Honestly. The # of vehicles I drive behind that you can get a contact high from these days is staggering. If they get into an accident that is MJ related, chop their right foot off. Otherwise, let it freaking go. They go fonking bunkers about something that's been going on for decades and now is just a LITTLE more visible.
 
Emacs said:
Was the Covid screening voluntary or coerced?
Click to expand...
[rolleyes]
"Covid screening" ::= "Someone aimed an IR gun at his forehead".

Emacs said:
What happens to a detainee who refuses this medical procedure?
Click to expand...
[rolleyes]
They fall back to Plan B: they aim an IR gun at their forehead.


Back when ear canal IR thermometers had just been invented,
pediatricians loved them; because even children throwing a tantrum
were incapable of clenching their ears closed...
[rofl]
 
Darksideblues42 said:
Just read this. Left with a couple questions.

20 year old, pulled over for speeding, has a backpack full of weed and a stolen S&W handgun.

The charges are interesting to me.


  1. Possession of a Firearm without FID Card;
  2. Improper Storage of a Firearm;
  3. Possession of Ammunition without FID Card;
  4. Receiving Stolen Property -$1200;
  5. Possession of a Class D Drug with Intent to Distribute;
  6. Marked Lanes Violation; and
  7. Fail to Signal.
I am under the impression that based on how Massachusetts defines a firearm, one cannot possess a firearm on an FID, so isn't this charge meaningless?

Is a Shield really worth $1200?




mspnews.org

Troopers Arrest Man with Stolen Gun, Drugs

Just before 11 p.m. on Sunday Trooper Nathan Robitaille, assigned to State Police-Middleboro, was on patrol traveling on Dean Street in Taunton. As he was passing through the intersection of Honora…
mspnews.org
Click to expand...


They grab as many charges as they can and then sees what sticks to the ceiling.
 
The black magazine doesn’t appear to be a shield mag, maybe older 59/69 series smith???
 
AHM said:
If a traffic cop might have a reasonable suspicion that you are armed and dangerous,
then under Terry v. Ohio,
they're entitled to search to ensure that you don't have weapons at hand
(or to secure them if you do).

If you have weapons in any place that the cop is allowed to search,
it's a bad bet to depend on arguing that such a place is out of your control.
You're not entitled to One Free Lunge at a weapon.
Click to expand...
That's not remotely what Terry v. Ohio says, but current police training says that anytime an officer has a hunch, they can search everything.

In this case, the fool gave permission to search. That negates any 4A arguments he might otherwise have.

Back to Terry: Terry says that if an officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that someone has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and is both currently armed and dangerous, the officer may detain the person and pat down outer clothing to feel for a weapon. No reaching into pockets. No feeling for drugs. No searching anywhere else.

That's what Terry says. In practice, police search whatever they want and get a pass on 4A violations.
 
KBCraig said:
In this case, the fool gave permission to search. That negates any 4A arguments he might otherwise have.
Click to expand...
That police report has him running his mouth like a Chris Rock video.

KBCraig said:
Back to Terry: Terry says that if an officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that someone has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and is both currently armed and dangerous, the officer may detain the person and pat down outer clothing to feel for a weapon. No reaching into pockets. No feeling for drugs. No searching anywhere else.
Click to expand...
1. A traffic stop supplies the RAS for a crime.
The cop stopped you because he saw you violate the law.

2. The threshold for a Terry frisk is that the cop has an RAS
that the suspect is armed and dangerous. That's easy to claim.

(Note that a gun owner who waves around an LTC,
supplies the RAS that they're armed; all the cop needs to supply
is the RAS that they're dangerous).

3. Normally someone getting frisked is first ordered out of the car.
I totally agree that at which point
any weapons concealed in the passenger compartment
aren't within reach, and there's no justification to look for them
for officer safety.

One of these days a cop will claim RAS of armed and dangerous,
and "frisk" a suspect still in the car, just so they can search things within reach,
"so everybody can go home safe".

Not what happened this time, but never say never.
(It's the vehicular version of the old trick of
detaining someone inside their house,
and then moving them from room to room like a chess piece,
searching all the drawers, etc. within reach "for teh safety",
but really in search of other contraband).
 
He shoulda told the cops "Gun? What gun? That's my pipe..."

 
That's either 2nd Generation x69 or an early 6904/06 magazine. Those go for a good amount in MA because they are definitely "pre ban."

xjma99 said:
The black magazine doesn’t appear to be a shield mag, maybe older 59/69 series smith???
Click to expand...

On another part of the matter. I seem to recall that there was a case out of Brockton some years back where the SJC dismissed a carrying without a LTC conviction because the officer asked the suspect if he had a LTC. The SJC said that was prejudicial because the officer assumed that the suspect didn't. They further went on to say that it should be treated like a MV stop where the officer simply asks for license and registration, with the assumption being that the driver is legally licensed.

I forget the case, but I remember it was covered in a class I took shortly after the decision was handed down.

Any of the lawyers here recall that or did I dream it?
 
Garys said:
... I seem to recall that there was a case out of Brockton some years back where the SJC dismissed a carrying without a LTC conviction because the officer asked the suspect if he had a LTC. The SJC said that was prejudicial because the officer assumed that the suspect didn't. They further went on to say that it should be treated like a MV stop where the officer simply asks for license and registration, with the assumption being that the driver is legally licensed.

I forget the case, but I remember it was covered in a class I took shortly after the decision was handed down.
Click to expand...
Commonwealth v. Haskell.
  1. Discussion with @GPP on Jun 10, 2016
  2. Discussion with @Boris and @cb1 on Apr 29, 2019
Garys said:
Any of the lawyers here recall that or did I dream it?
Click to expand...
Caveat:
"My license to practice law in Massachusetts is the same as Elizabeth Warren's."
 
Last edited:
Garys said:
That's either 2nd Generation x69 or an early 6904/06 magazine. Those go for a good amount in MA because they are definitely "pre ban."



On another part of the matter. I seem to recall that there was a case out of Brockton some years back where the SJC dismissed a carrying without a LTC conviction because the officer asked the suspect if he had a LTC. The SJC said that was prejudicial because the officer assumed that the suspect didn't. They further went on to say that it should be treated like a MV stop where the officer simply asks for license and registration, with the assumption being that the driver is legally licensed.

I forget the case, but I remember it was covered in a class I took shortly after the decision was handed down.

Any of the lawyers here recall that or did I dream it?
Click to expand...
I just compared a 5906 mag to a 9mm shield mag. Length, pretty damn close, let’s call it the same. Width (front to back), let’s call it the same....I’m no busting out the calipers here, but within spec. Thickness, not even close. 5906 mag has different angle going from double to single, of course, and the 5906 mags I have look pretty damn close to the obviously not a shield mag in the pic. I’ll defer to your S&w expertise on it being a 69 series mag. Still, likely pretty tough to get that into a shield!!!

That mag looks like two of my mec-gar, definitely not pre-ban 5906 mags. The older ones I have are shiny stainless....
 
Garys said:
From my memory, the case didn't involve a MV stop, but was based on a 9-1-1 call that X was carrying a concealed weapon illegally outside of a convenience store.
Click to expand...
(Not trying to make a nonexistence proof here, but)
personally I've never noticed some NESer trot out some other case
that has subtle nuance about "do you have a license?" vs. "show me your license!".

Among many other things,
it would be slightly newsworthy if some case after Haskell used Haskell.
And it would be especially interesting
if you're thinking of some predecessor case that Haskell builds on top of,
or better yet some successor case that builds atop Haskell.
 

Similar threads

Over 3,000 sheriffs demand Biden BLOCK the sale of big gun ammunition and primer manufacturer to a foreign buyer with ties to Russia and China
Replies
3
Views
160
OnTheRoad
OnTheRoad
Federal Judge Finds Pennsylvania Law Barring 18-20 Year-Olds from Concealed Carry Unconstitutional
Replies
0
Views
69
Reptile
Reptile
Police Seek 24-Year-Old Who Allegedly Opened Fire with Automatic Weapon Near School
Replies
16
Views
449
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
85-year-old Idaho woman hailed as 'hero' in fatal shooting of home invasion suspect
Replies
7
Views
136
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
House with gun range and Go Kart track
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
wmassregulators
W
Back
Top Bottom