Contact with Law Enforcement while concealed carrying question?

Sort of a follow-on, but there has been some debate about what would most likely happen if someone with an LTC were stopped and their weapon "controlled" for the duration of the encounter, and that weapon or their spare mag holder had a pre-ban 11+ round mag in it. Are most LEOs aware a) that pre-band 10+ round mags are legal here, and b) that it is difficult to identify some of these magazines? I can carry a print-out of the MGL paragraph stating that pre-bans are legal, but there is not a definitive guide for identifying these magazines (unless there is a post-94 date stamp or whatever).
APFSDS is goin' to jail.

Don't do what a coworker did. ... Officer asks "are you carrying? ...
iDiot coworker goes "Yes I am! And with pride goes to draw it and show off his brand new Taurus 9mm ..."

As he's looking down and fiddling with his shirt to get it all the way out, he realizes both the officer and the officers partner have already draw. He says "Oh, sh***t" and stopped. I already had my hands up and took two steps back. ...
7d30cf5fa811c525e54aa0e3a37154cc.jpg

In regards to the MA LTC restrictions.... even with the new SCOTUS ruling, things will take some time to adjust themselves out. Especially here.

So, yes, if your LTC has restrictions, you're still bound by the restrictions.
Until and unless the state "adjusts itself",
gun owners have to ask themselves whether they want to be
the plaintiff in a well-funded suit to have the law thrown out by a Federal court.

Until and unless the state "adjusts itself",
police have to ask themselves whether they want to be
the last cop to charge someone with a victimless crime;
a case that is going to land in Federal court.

The average Karen or Ken isn't looking for people "printing" or carrying. The average gun owner probably isn't either. NES members are always in Condition Yellow and scanning for potential threats so are far more alert than mere citizens.

Ask Broccoli about that.
Spot the NESer:
41652072-%E7%95%B0%E3%81%AA%E3%82%8B%E3%82%AB%E3%83%AA%E3%83%95%E3%83%A9%E3%83%AF%E3%83%BC-%E3%83%96%E3%83%AD%E3%83%83%E3%82%B3%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E7%B7%91%E9%BB%84%E8%89%B2%E3%81%A8%E7%B4%AB.jpg

@Broccoli Iglesias
 
In regards to the MA LTC restrictions.... even with the new SCOTUS ruling, things will take some time to adjust themselves out. Especially here.

So, yes, if your LTC has restrictions, you're still bound by the restrictions.

Also, there is a difference between asking and demanding.
No, it does not have restrictions, period
As a permit holder you have met every objective condition for licensing and therefore any further limitation is outside the legal bounds of the 2A.
However, the jack booted thugs of this state will still apply generous levels of tyranny until a greater force is applied to them in opposition

So if a person has restrictions listed they should tread lightly until their COP updates the license or the state is forced to acknowledge the current legal standing of their position.

This is a place where I would love to see a multitude of officers simultaneously be bankrupted by a piercing of qualified immunity in a civil rights suit.
 
This is a place where I would love to see a multitude of officers simultaneously be bankrupted by a piercing of qualified immunity in a civil rights suit.
That would be pretty cool.

It would fall second, in my mind, to seeing that "multitude of officers" simultaneously remind their employers they had sworn to "bear true faith and allegiance to the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and [...] the constitution thereof;" that they "would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all;'" and that continuing to enforce restrictions in the light of the recent decision would be a great injustice.

But that would require those officers to love their neighbors - and Liberty - more than they fear their superior officers.

So, sure, I suppose I'd settle for watching a bunch of Fudds who claim to support the right to keep and bear arms finding themselves on the wrong side of a § 1983 suit.
 
Back
Top Bottom