Carrying my PERMIT.. when?

[sweetjeep]

Hey folks. I am not even sure how to search for this answer with out getting too many unrelated answers.

But the question is fairly easy. And I ask this from a legal standpoint, not from the "is it a good idea" standpoint.

When do I need to have my -permit- card with me? Is the answer to the law "whenever I have a firearm" on/with/near me?
I ask the question in this regard: I do certain activities that occasionally it's convienent to have a gun, but not a wallet (hiking for example).

Make believe I am out hiking during hunting season (it happens) and a friendly green suited guy stops me for a chat and notices the gun (I said -make believe- that he's friendly ) and chooses to ask for a permit. Am I required to have one assuming I am off my property?


Thanks!

 

[dannyac]

I would all the time i never leave home with out both gun and LTC ID

 

[ColdDayInHell]

I believe the MGL clearly states that you need to have the proper license on you while carrying. I always do just in case anything ever does happen.

 

[sweetjeep]

I believe the MGL clearly states that you need to have the proper license on you while carrying. I always do just in case anything ever does happen.

That's sort of as I understand it, but I can't find the words that say so.

 

[terraformer]

I believe the MGL clearly states that you need to have the proper license on you while carrying. I always do just in case anything ever does happen.

No, it doesn't say this at all. It says something very specific and it's not that it needs to be on your person.

To the OP, there is case law that says if you are found with a gun and no LTC, you can be arrested and prosecuted. In order to not be convicted, you need to raise a credible claim you had an LTC (not the other way around) and you may still face a jury if the ADA is sufficiently large enough tool.

You would be an idiot to intentionally not have it with you while in possession of a firearm off your property. This is one of those circumstances where despite what the law requires, you are better off just going along with what is a prudent course of action.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

I believe there is also case law that holder must produce ltc on demand in Ma. Not ID, just LTC. I can't remember case.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I believe there is also case law that holder must produce ltc on demand in Ma. Not ID, just LTC. I can't remember case.

There is also case law that mere display of a firearm, absent any indication of illegal activity, it not a valid reason for an officer to demand an LTC (Commonwealth v. Couture), however, in practice, this decision has not really changed any procedures.

 

[terraformer]

I believe there is also case law that holder must produce ltc on demand in Ma. Not ID, just LTC. I can't remember case.

It's sort of like that but not. It's really that an officer can demand to see it (as opposed to asking) and the arrest thereafter is legit if no LTC was produced. It's got a whole host of 4A and 5A issues associated with that given §269 § 10H but in general, being required to produce a license is not considered testimonial for purposes of the 5A and being required to produce it isn't a search either (or so the theory goes).

- - - Updated - - -

There is also case law that mere display of a firearm, absent any indication of illegal activity, it not a valid reason for an officer to demand an LTC (Commonwealth v. Couture), however, in practice, this decision has not really changed any procedures.

Two different courts. The case he mentions is a CA1 case. Couture is a SJC decision. Typically the SJC is far more protective of the 4A and 5A than the federal courts. That's what pissed me off about the guy who took that case leading to the federal decision. He did it thinking the federal courts were better for this and he should have known better. He was a frickn' lawyer.

PS: We would have to ask the real lawyers but it could turn out that Couture overrides the CA1 decision. I am not sure about that, at least with regards to state courts, but I can tell you that in federal courts (ie; those facing federal charges) the CA1 decision is the law of the land. This would only effect at most a small narrow group of people targeted by joint federal/state task forces where the state guy can stop someone for an LTC check and provide the excuse to search for the feds. I am not sure how this would play but it's possible this game could allow feds to keep the fruits of a search in this circumstance.

 

[KenK]

What he said.."is it a good idea" The LTC is so small compared to the firearm. It doesn't make sense to go around with some sort of ID incase you get hurt. The LTC would cover both for ID as well as take care of some officer that gets inquisitive !!!
Not sure on the Legal part
BUT...No matter what the law is the officer may have his own interpretation!!

I would all the time i never leave home with out both gun and LTC ID

 

[Deleted member 12999]

There is also case law that mere display of a firearm, absent any indication of illegal activity, it not a valid reason for an officer to demand an LTC (Commonwealth v. Couture), however, in practice, this decision has not really changed any procedures.

There is also case law that mere display of a firearm, absent any indication of illegal activity, it not a valid reason for an officer to demand an LTC (Commonwealth v. Couture), however, in practice, this decision has not really changed any procedures.

I just read the case, and it did not specifically address demand of license as the problem, because they didn't until after search. It seemed more to prevent the state from categorizing the m/v stop as a Terry Stop, and tossed everything as fruit of poisonous tree? Would it have been different if they asked for license first? Who knows.

 

[Serapis]

You may not ask for it but you can demand it.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

Any person who, while not being within the limits of his own property or residence, or such person whose property or residence is under lawful search, and who is not exempt under this section, shall on demand of a police officer or other law enforcement officer, exhibit his license to carry firearms, or his firearm identification card or receipt for fee paid for such card, or, after January first, nineteen hundred and seventy, exhibit a valid hunting license issued to him which shall bear the number officially inscribed of such license to carry or card if any. Upon failure to do so such person may be required to surrender to such officer said firearm, rifle or shotgun which shall be taken into custody as under the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-nine D, except that such firearm, rifle or shotgun shall be returned forthwith upon presentation within thirty days of said license to carry firearms, firearm identification card or receipt for fee paid for such card or hunting license as hereinbefore described. Any person subject to the conditions of this paragraph may, even though no firearm, rifle or shotgun was surrendered, be required to produce within thirty days said license to carry firearms, firearm identification card or receipt for fee paid for such card, or said hunting license, failing which the conditions of section one hundred and twenty-nine D will apply. Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from being prosecuted for any violation of this chapter.

Before anyone starts calling me a sheep, apologist, subject, etc... I'm just posting this stuff to answer the OPs question. Our state is FUBAR in regards to licensing.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section129C

Case regarding 5th amd Miranda Rights relative to LTC:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1334535.html

 

[ColdDayInHell]

So I only need my LTC when demanded from the LEO then. Good info, thanks for posting this. I don't even want to imagine a circumstance where I'd have to surrender my LTC.

 

[SkydiveGuy]

More importantly, since I have to be 21 years old to have an LTC.... can I use it as an ID to purchase beer since its issued by the state?

 

[ColdDayInHell]

More importantly, since I have to be 21 years old to have an LTC.... can I use it as an ID to purchase beer since its issued by the state?

You know, my girl once tried to use her RFID at Kappy's when she forgot her license while out with her friend. They denied her and she couldn't understand that they would deny it even with fingerprints on the back. Of course it's private property and their rules so I guess she lost. I should have told her then that she and MA had a long dark road ahead.

 

[terraformer]

Before anyone starts calling me a sheep, apologist, subject, etc... I'm just posting this stuff to answer the OPs question. Our state is FUBAR in regards to licensing.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section129C

Case regarding 5th amd Miranda Rights relative to LTC:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1334535.html

You will note that statute only requires the firearm to be surrendered. That's not what happens in reality. You will also note that the case you linked to dealt with pre 1998 laws. The event took place in 1994. That said, I am not sure much changes in this case post 1998 (it's almost like the decision was written with post 1998 laws in mind...) but it would be wrong not to point that out because in 1998, an FID was all that was needed to possess a gun in public, just not carry it. I think the idea was that FID holders would be found carrying without an LTC, but yet would have a valid FID card. As of 1998, an FID is not sufficient to raise an exemption to 269 § 10.

 

[terraformer]

BTW: OP, the requirement to technically not run afoul of MA law is simply to have "in effect a license to carry firearms for any purpose". In effect being the operative phrase. Hence why Haskell, Jones and other cases are sort of absurd on how they allow an LTC holder to be treated by a LEO. I will also note that every single case dealing with this issue has been a criminal case brought by people without an LTC/FID. Bad cases make bad law. I assure you, if you don't have it on you, you will be arrested and you can be tried (see Comm. v. Jones) in a trial before you will be found innocent.

No person having in effect a license to carry firearms for any purpose, issued under section one hundred and thirty-one or section one hundred and thirty-one F of chapter one hundred and forty shall be deemed to be in violation of this section.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

BTW: OP, the requirement to technically not run afoul of MA law is simply to have "in effect a license to carry firearms for any purpose". In effect being the operative phrase. Hence why Haskell, Jones and other cases are sort of absurd on how they allow an LTC holder to be treated by a LEO. I will also note that every single case dealing with this issue has been a criminal case brought by people without an LTC/FID. Bad cases make bad law. I assure you, if you don't have it on you, you will be arrested and you can be tried (see Comm. v. Jones) in a trial before you will be found innocent.

The only problem is that a LTC # isn't in a database that a dispatcher can look up... AFAIK. (If it's your licensing town, thats a different story) The big bro database is outpacing my ability to learn new information, so take what I say with grain of salt. Even if an officer on the stop had the dispatcher call your town to look up license, you may not get confirmation, WORSE, the chief may see the call entry... and we know what happens with discretionary licensing. Simple answer. Carry it. It's like a condom. Kind of to help you out when you're getting ****ed. See what I did thar?

 

[terraformer]

The only problem is that a LTC # isn't in a database that a dispatcher can look up... AFAIK. (If it's your licensing town, thats a different story) The big bro database is outpacing my ability to learn new information, so take what I say with grain of salt. Even if an officer on the stop had the dispatcher call your town to look up license, you may not get confirmation, WORSE, the chief may see the call entry... and we know what happens with discretionary licensing. Simple answer. Carry it. It's like a condom. Kind of to help you out when you're getting ****ed. See what I did thar?

I agree 100%. It's stupid not to have it on you. And my understanding is that MIRCS is available to all towns (so long as you have the hardware/software in the cruiser), so you may be in a town which doesn't have the proper hardware/software. My town just got it in the cruisers (w/ a DHS grant...) and the quote in the paper was (paraphrased) "now my officers can roll up on a home and know if dangerous weapons are in the home" and I am not paraphrasing the "know" part. I expected more from my CLEO but apparently it's too much to ask for intelligence in a supervisory role these days.

 

[Rick Roma]

There is also case law that mere display of a firearm, absent any indication of illegal activity, it not a valid reason for an officer to demand an LTC (Commonwealth v. Couture), however, in practice, this decision has not really changed any procedures.

The officer who recently stopped me for "openly carrying" pepper spray clearly is not familiar with this case law.

 

[terraformer]

The officer who recently stopped me for "openly carrying" pepper spray clearly is not familiar with this case law.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

I agree 100%. It's stupid not to have it on you. And my understanding is that MIRCS is available to all towns (so long as you have the hardware/software in the cruiser), so you may be in a town which doesn't have the proper software. My town just got it and the quote in the paper was (paraphrased) "now my officers can roll up on a home and know if dangerous weapons are in the home" and I am not paraphrasing the "know" part. I expected more from my CLEO but apparently it's too much to ask for intelligence in a supervisory role these days.

It's been a while since I was techno-geek in dispatch, but I thought (just a gut feeling) that MIRCS is a bit different in terms of computers. I know that in my town, only one officer has access to it, and it's tied to one specific computer. Dispatch can only pull 'local' info that was put directly into the system by officer. They can't sort out an out of town issue without calling.

 

[sweetjeep]

Frankly, I sincerely doubt the issue would arise. Though I still wonder certain things and they often chew at my brain. It APPEARS that Terraformer's post of the (an) actual statute might appear to be the answer. Maybe? It appears as such. I plan to not force the issue, but that didn't mean I wasn't curious. For sake of this post I'll assume that TF posted the entire text of the law and that's not referring to something else specifically.

5-0. That's interesting. Even moreso because as it's the cheap piece of plastic that it is, it can be easily faked.

 

[terraformer]

It's been a while since I was techno-geek in dispatch, but I thought (just a gut feeling) that MIRCS is a bit different in terms of computers. I know that in my town, only one officer has access to it, and it's tied to one specific computer. Dispatch can only pull 'local' info that was put directly into the system by officer. They can't sort out an out of town issue without calling.

That's interesting. It may very well be true that the info is not accessible. But that has to be a policy driven decision and one I would be highly interested in knowing more about...
Not asking, just making a joke about what we do at comm2a.

 

[StevieP]

Good God. Just bring the thing with you. There are a thousand reasons to have it and only laziness in the reason not to column. You've spent more time and effort discussing it, than you would have spent taking it out and putting it back into your wallet for every one of your hikes combined.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

 

[Taka]

Why not get a small ID case or business card holder. Put a few $20s in it and your ID and drivers license and carry that with you.
If you aren't concerned about the weight of the gun, then an once or 2 of wallet and ID won't make a difference.

 

[MisterHappy]

More importantly, since I have to be 21 years old to have an LTC.... can I use it as an ID to purchase beer since its issued by the state?

no.

Mass drivers license, RMV-issued Liquor ID, Military ID, or Passport are the only ones that are acceptable. Even an out-of state license is not "acceptable" (see the link), though many places accept them ( like at a wedding reception).

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter138/Section34B

If a liquor licensee accepts anything else, then they can get jammed up.

 

[dcmdon]

To the OP.

I've got a couple of asides since your legal question has been well answered by terraformer, Rob and 50.

1) Unless you are wearing a Speedo or going naked, there's no reason not to bring it. do what I do. Stick some cash, your LTC, and a credit card in the front pocket of your pants. You won't even know its there.


2) I am a MA resident LTC holder, but I do not yet have my MA drivers license. While traveling recently to San Francisco, I realized I only had my LTC on me, not my drivers license. The guy at logan doing the airport security THEATER had no clue what it was, but waved me by anyway. The guy at SFO on the return flight, didn't miss a step, he just confirmed the photo on the ID was me.

Since my LTC is my only government issued ID with my MA address on it, I've used it to:

1) open bank accounts
2) get a Costco Amex
3) Register to vote

Its fun to use because it challenges people's assumptions. They want a drivers license. But not everyone has a drivers license.

If you really want to screw with people, carry your passport. it is the ultimate form of government ID, but it does not have your address on it. I love that. Nobody can refuse a passport, but again it doesn't have an address.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Its fun to use because it challenges people's assumptions. They want a drivers license. But not everyone has a drivers license.

If you really want to screw with people, carry your passport. it is the ultimate form of government ID, but it does not have your address on it. I love that. Nobody can refuse a passport, but again it doesn't have an address.

One might think . . .

But I witnessed a clerk and supervisor in a very large retail store refuse a US Passport as ID for a person who was attempting to use Amex Travelers Checks to pay for some goods. They claimed it wasn't a "valid ID"! Obviously they didn't get out much.

I've also heard stories of US Passports being refused by various gov't entities but those are only rumors to me.

I'm big on "avoiding conflict" so I advocate carrying a DL if you are driving, carrying the appropriate LTC/PP/CCW if in possession of firearms, at all times.

 

[M1911]

Good God. Just bring the thing with you. There are a thousand reasons to have it and only laziness in the reason not to column. You've spent more time and effort discussing it, than you would have spent taking it out and putting it back into your wallet for every one of your hikes combined.

This.