Contact with Law Enforcement while concealed carrying question?

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
9,365
Likes
8,066
Not sure how 80% in a grocery store are possible with a NH gun ownership rate of 41% of the population. The rate of people that are actually carrying is even lower than the ownership rate.
Montana and Wyoming who have the highest ownership rate in the US (66%) come closer but again the number of people actually carrying is lower.
The study said 46% and that number was based on NFA registered firearms. So 46% of NH residents have an SBR, SBS, AOW, or MG. Yes, the 80% is my number, but the number who own/carry is going to be a lot more than those that register an NFA firearm.

I didn't look into Wyoming and don't know the laws there, so whatever you say.
 

MaverickNH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
5,296
Likes
3,800
Location
SoNH
Dispatch: 9-1-1 what's your emergency?
Karen: there is a man with a gun in a holster at the grocery store
Dispatch: and what do you expect us to do
Karen: come down here and arrest the man with the gun
Dispatch: Ma'am, you're in New Hampshire, 80% of the people standing around you right now are carrying a gun, there are 200 people in the store, we are not coming down there and arresting 160 people who are doing nothing wrong. If you make us come down there we are arresting YOU.


OP, move north, enjoy the freedom, and stop worrying.
Yeah, when Kelly Ayotte was NH AG her office sent out letter to all the state PDs reminding them that OC/CCW was not probable cause to interview a citizen if not otherwise engaging in behavior warranting such action. This, after a case when MHT PD were called about a man with a gun at Barnes & Noble - they surrounded him, while he was browsing books, “controlled” his gun, etc…. Might have been a Free Stater, as I recall, so it got more press that it might have otherwise.

In MA, with a Non-RES LTC ALP around 2008, I got a traffic-stop in Southie - a trap where the stop sign was 30ft from the corner after it was misplaced during construction - and the BPD cop who ran my plates/registration let me off, reminding me my LTC wasn’t good in Boston.
 

doolz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 21, 2022
Messages
15
Likes
12
Location
MA
Typically, and in most cases, when anyone calls 9-1-1 and says "I think someone in the store has a firearm on their hip," it necessitates a certain response from law enforcement.

I've experienced this call a multitude of times. 99.9% of the time, if it is a law abiding citizen, there isn't typically any issue when they're approached and asked to keep their hands visible and cooperate and let the process go from there. Once everything checks out, they go on their way.

That <0.01% who are either the ones illegally carrying or law abiding citizens who just like to get a rise out of cops, this response is a bit different.
 
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
5,972
Likes
2,260
Location
Western Ma
I printed in a pizza shop in Ludlow and a deputy sheriff ask what I was carrying. I told him a Sig 229 Legion. That was it. no request to see a permit or anything.

Honestly, I was more shocked to see a deputy sheriff around in unifor. There are not many around that I ever see. Perhaps a Hamden county sheriff explorer once a year…if that.
 

42!

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
9,365
Likes
8,066
Typically, and in most cases, when anyone calls 9-1-1 and says "I think someone in the store has a firearm on their hip," it necessitates a certain response from law enforcement.

I've experienced this call a multitude of times. 99.9% of the time, if it is a law abiding citizen, there isn't typically any issue when they're approached and asked to keep their hands visible and cooperate and let the process go from there. Once everything checks out, they go on their way.

That <0.01% who are either the ones illegally carrying or law abiding citizens who just like to get a rise out of cops, this response is a bit different.
Maybe in MA, up here the cops don’t care unless you got it out and are actually doing something wrong.
 

NotUniqueEnough

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
222
Likes
86
Location
SouthShore MA
I was on my way to the range one day and stopped at local convince store for some drinks and a snack. bent over to grab a bag of M&M's. when I stood up the statie behind me tapped me on the shoulder and told me to put it away. (my shirt rode up a bit and exposed the grips). I said I have my LTC his response was "bad guys don't buy expensive holsters"
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,079
Likes
8,649
Location
Taunton
Typically, and in most cases, when anyone calls 9-1-1 and says "I think someone in the store has a firearm on their hip," it necessitates a certain response from law enforcement.

I've experienced this call a multitude of times. 99.9% of the time, if it is a law abiding citizen, there isn't typically any issue when they're approached and asked to keep their hands visible and cooperate and let the process go from there. Once everything checks out, they go on their way.

That <0.01% who are either the ones illegally carrying or law abiding citizens who just like to get a rise out of cops, this response is a bit different.
Why does it need to even get to the "keep your hands visible and cooperate ' stage?
A person doing nothing wrong should be able to tell a government official who witnessed no illegal action to f*** off when approached with the the only result being a expedient execution of f***ing off maneuvers by said officials
 

Keop

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
126
Likes
70
Location
Andover
Thanks for all the responses! They were fun to read and/or informative. Telling the guy that "his junk was hanging out" was a good one :p
 

doolz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 21, 2022
Messages
15
Likes
12
Location
MA
Why does it need to even get to the "keep your hands visible and cooperate ' stage?
A person doing nothing wrong should be able to tell a government official who witnessed no illegal action to f*** off when approached with the the only result being a expedient execution of f***ing off maneuvers by said officials

I'm with you. But in the great state of Massachusetts, this is how it happens. I've had numerous calls that come in as "person with a gun" and, almost all the time, the call info will state something to the extent of "someone thinks a person in the store has a gun..."

This day in age, at least where I am, that prompts a response because, in that off chance that it is a "legit" call, you have to respond in a certain way.

No do-gooder is going to a) ask a law abiding citizen if they are carrying and b) call 911 and not say "I think a person has a gun..."

Also, in MA, especially in Boston, concealed LTCs are rare, so when calls like that come in, the response is a certain way.

At the end of the day, once everything checks out, everyone goes on their way. You can thank elected officials for that.
 

whatluck

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
14,763
Likes
19,183
Location
Bluegrass
one time I was in line at the starbucks in braintree, had a Sig 226 under a hoodie. Cop came up behind me tapped me on the butt of the gun and said quietly, 'just so you know i can see that', to which I replied, 'sorry, thanks' and that was that. A good holster and belt are crucial. Unless you live in a free state. People around here ride around on harleys with no helmets and an AR on the back or in a saddle bag, pickup trucks with gun racks (not legally required to keep guns locked up or unloaded in a vehicle in KY) young kids walking down my street with 410s and 22s hunting critters, sweet old ladies with shiny chrome smith revolvers when they open their purse at the coffee shop. Come to a free state. You'll be much happier.
 

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,079
Likes
8,649
Location
Taunton
I'm with you. But in the great state of Massachusetts, this is how it happens. I've had numerous calls that come in as "person with a gun" and, almost all the time, the call info will state something to the extent of "someone thinks a person in the store has a gun..."

This day in age, at least where I am, that prompts a response because, in that off chance that it is a "legit" call, you have to respond in a certain way.

No do-gooder is going to a) ask a law abiding citizen if they are carrying and b) call 911 and not say "I think a person has a gun..."

Also, in MA, especially in Boston, concealed LTCs are rare, so when calls like that come in, the response is a certain way.

At the end of the day, once everything checks out, everyone goes on their way. You can thank elected officials for that.
Understand that it may be your job but that doesn't excuse the attitude of let me molest your rights and I won't flex state power over you.
Show up
Assess
If nothing is immediately wrong clear the call
If something shady is going on, then deal out the show me your hands and LTC check. If an LTC is involved and there's enough shady to set off the Spidey sense then a good shape up conversation is in order.

I despise the idea that a good person is automatically suspect and put under physical threat (as soon as an officer states show me your hands there's an implicit threat). And all that because of an unconfirmed phone call from someone who knows they won't face any consequences for their third party abuse of another.
 

doolz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 21, 2022
Messages
15
Likes
12
Location
MA
Understand that it may be your job but that doesn't excuse the attitude of let me molest your rights and I won't flex state power over you.
Show up
Assess
If nothing is immediately wrong clear the call
If something shady is going on, then deal out the show me your hands and LTC check. If an LTC is involved and there's enough shady to set off the Spidey sense then a good shape up conversation is in order.

I despise the idea that a good person is automatically suspect and put under physical threat (as soon as an officer states show me your hands there's an implicit threat). And all that because of an unconfirmed phone call from someone who knows they won't face any consequences for their third party abuse of another.

Let's do some clearing up on some points here...

1) As stated, this is Massachusetts I'm referring to. And more specifically, Boston. To the best of my knowledge, in the past 1-2 years, after the pandemic opened up and things started moving again, all LTC requests for Boston were granted with restrictions unless you had any of the parameters that would deny you a license. I don't believe anyone outside of law enforcement or military have been approved for unrestricted and large capacity.

2) I work in Boston and have had numerous calls as it pertains to situations such as this:
- Someone calls 911 because they are out and about and observe someone whom they believe to have a firearm on them because it is "printing."

3) There's realistically two ways this gets taken care of:
3A) Dispatch gets details from the caller and determines that there is no "active threat," i.e. no shots fired and the person is not displaying the firearm. This case will usually come in as a person to investigate and, upon arriving on the scene, if the description of the person suspected to be carrying a firearm isn't provided, contact with the caller is attempted to ascertain who the person in question is. If established, and no immedate threat is occurring, the mood is more subtle and straight forward as approaching the individual and conversing something to the extent of: "... This is the reason we are here and speaking with you. Do you have a firearm on you? If you do, do you mind keeping your hands where I can see them while I secure your firearm and check to make sure you can legally be carrying this..."

3B) Dispatch gets details from the caller and determines that the call goes out as a more serious natured call and that there is a "person with a gun." Again, this all comes down to the caller and what is relayed to dispatch. We respond in a certain way based on the information given until we can sort things out on the scene. Either way, if someone calls about someone with a gun, that person who was called on we will inquire about.

4) Massachusetts is an immensely liberal state as a whole, and is, for the most part, anti-2A. There are a larger number of people who are against 2A than for 2A in this state.

5) "Understand that it may be your job but that doesn't excuse the attitude of let me molest your rights and I won't flex state power over you.
Show up
Assess
If nothing is immediately wrong clear the call
If something shady is going on, then deal out the show me your hands and LTC check. If an LTC is involved and there's enough shady to set off the Spidey sense then a good shape up conversation is in order."

At the end of the day, myself and whoever I may be with are going home the same way we went to work. I am not infringing on anyone's Constitutional Rights. I am a law abiding citizen as much as I am Pro-2A. But I also know the law. If you have a Massachusetts LTC with restrictions (ie. target and hunting only), you CANNOT conceal carry in Massachusetts! Period. That is technically Unlawful Possession and is a long road down the court road. If you are visiting Massachusetts and have an out-of-state LTC, know the honoring before coming. Massachuestts, again, being as anti-2A as a whole as it is, doesn't honor many other states LTC's.

6) "I despise the idea that a good person is automatically suspect and put under physical threat (as soon as an officer states show me your hands there's an implicit threat). And all that because of an unconfirmed phone call from someone who knows they won't face any consequences for their third party abuse of another."

If at any point I was quoted as saying "show me your hands," then I apologize for the misinterpretation, but I believe I said something to the extent of "keep hands visible," and there are a thousand ways to make that point, such as "do you mind keeping your hands out of your pockets until we can clear this up?" First, ask. If the request isn't granted, then command. That's how it goes. Just because you're a good person doesn't mean there aren't bonehead people out there just looking to get a rise out of a police response. The term SWATTING is unfortunately overtly real and happens way too much. But when someone calls 911, you can't just blow the call away, regardless if it's a nonsense call.
 
Last edited:

pastera

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Nov 17, 2011
Messages
8,079
Likes
8,649
Location
Taunton
Let's do some clearing up on some points here...

1) As stated, this is Massachusetts I'm referring to. And more specifically, Boston. To the best of my knowledge, in the past 1-2 years, after the pandemic opened up and things started moving again, all LTC requests for Boston were granted with restrictions unless you had any of the parameters that would deny you a license. I don't believe anyone outside of law enforcement or military have been approved for unrestricted and large capacity.

2) I work in Boston and have had numerous calls as it pertains to situations such as this:
- Someone calls 911 because they are out and about and observe someone whom they believe to have a firearm on them because it is "printing."

3) There's realistically two ways this gets taken care of:
3A) Dispatch gets details from the caller and determines that there is no "active threat," i.e. no shots fired and the person is not displaying the firearm. This case will usually come in as a person to investigate and, upon arriving on the scene, if the description of the person suspected to be carrying a firearm isn't provided, contact with the caller is attempted to ascertain who the person in question is. If established, and no immedate threat is occurring, the mood is more subtle and straight forward as approaching the individual and conversing something to the extent of: "... This is the reason we are here and speaking with you. Do you have a firearm on you? If you do, do you mind keeping your hands where I can see them while I secure your firearm and check to make sure you can legally be carrying this..."

3B) Dispatch gets details from the caller and determines that the call goes out as a more serious natured call and that there is a "person with a gun." Again, this all comes down to the caller and what is relayed to dispatch. We respond in a certain way based on the information given until we can sort things out on the scene. Either way, if someone calls about someone with a gun, that person who was called on we will inquire about.

4) Massachusetts is an immensely liberal state as a whole, and is, for the most part, anti-2A. There are a larger number of people who are against 2A than for 2A in this state.

5) "Understand that it may be your job but that doesn't excuse the attitude of let me molest your rights and I won't flex state power over you.
Show up
Assess
If nothing is immediately wrong clear the call
If something shady is going on, then deal out the show me your hands and LTC check. If an LTC is involved and there's enough shady to set off the Spidey sense then a good shape up conversation is in order."

At the end of the day, myself and whoever I may be with are going home the same way we went to work. I am not infringing on anyone's Constitutional Rights. I am a law abiding citizen as much as I am Pro-2A. But I also know the law. If you have a Massachusetts LTC with restrictions (ie. target and hunting only), you CANNOT conceal carry in Massachusetts! Period. That is technically Unlawful Possession and is a long road down the court road. If you are visiting Massachusetts and have an out-of-state LTC, know the honoring before coming. Massachuestts, again, being as anti-2A as a whole as it is, doesn't honor many other states LTC's.

6) "I despise the idea that a good person is automatically suspect and put under physical threat (as soon as an officer states show me your hands there's an implicit threat). And all that because of an unconfirmed phone call from someone who knows they won't face any consequences for their third party abuse of another."

If at any point I was quoted as saying "show me your hands," then I apologize for the misinterpretation, but I believe I said something to the extent of "keep hands visible," and there are a thousand ways to make that point, such as "do you mind keeping your hands out of your pockets until we can clear this up?" First, ask. If the request isn't granted, then command. That's how it goes. Just because you're a good person doesn't mean there aren't bonehead people out there just looking to get a rise out of a police response. The term SWATTING is unfortunately overtly real and happens way too much. But when someone calls 911, you can't just blow the call away, regardless if it's a nonsense call.
You do know that there are 351 different towns and the majority of them issue unrestricted. There are also plenty of unrestricted non-resident licenses issued.
Everyone of those unrestricted licenses allows completely legal carry in Boston.

You started out good then went straight to the I'm going home deal so your rights don't apply when l say so.

Keep your hands visible is an implicit threat coming from law enforcement.
You next state that part of your routine is to disarm then check for LTC.

The tone and content of your statement shows that your default position is that a person doesn't have the inalienable right of self defense and the act of peacefully going about one's business while armed is cause for alarm and interrogation.
That attitude is incompatible with the words of the operative clause of the 2A.
One cannot both support the 2A and hold a basic operating assumption contrary to it.
There is a SJC case covering the subject of a legally armed person not commiting illegal act simply because the act of carry causef alarm in another person. Unfortunately I can't immediately remember the case and research on a phone is difficult at best.
 

doolz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 21, 2022
Messages
15
Likes
12
Location
MA
You do know that there are 351 different towns and the majority of them issue unrestricted. There are also plenty of unrestricted non-resident licenses issued.
Everyone of those unrestricted licenses allows completely legal carry in Boston.

You started out good then went straight to the I'm going home deal so your rights don't apply when l say so.

Keep your hands visible is an implicit threat coming from law enforcement.
You next state that part of your routine is to disarm then check for LTC.

The tone and content of your statement shows that your default position is that a person doesn't have the inalienable right of self defense and the act of peacefully going about one's business while armed is cause for alarm and interrogation.
That attitude is incompatible with the words of the operative clause of the 2A.
One cannot both support the 2A and hold a basic operating assumption contrary to it.
There is a SJC case covering the subject of a legally armed person not commiting illegal act simply because the act of carry causef alarm in another person. Unfortunately I can't immediately remember the case and research on a phone is difficult at best.

There's obviously a disconnect here... and that's fine.

First, yes, I do know that there are multiple issuing agencies for LTCs in Massachusetts. An MA LTC is an MA LTC... Restrictions are restrictions. You either have them or you don't. If you don't then you're all good. If you have restrictions, then obviously you fall under certain parameters that you have to abide by based on the issuing agency. Don't know where you were going with that one.

Second, your responses to my responses are subjective. I'm giving experienced real-life and potential real-life scenarios that the OP (Keop) had asked in his original post:
"If a person is printing and law enforcement is called what can law enforcement legally do? I would assume that they would ask if you are armed and if you're licensed but would they disarm you first? Are they legally able to inspect your firearm, ammo, magazines, etc. if you provide a valid LTC?"

To answer what OP had asked, the answer is "yes," if a person is printing, and law enforcement is called, the responding officer(s) have the legal grounds to conduct a threshold inquiry on the person in question. The typical response varies from department to department based on training and experience, but the constitutional law remains the same. You are the subject of a 911 call in regards to possessing a firearm. I gave a few different scenarios and how responses vary:

I'll try to use two more "clearer" examples...

A) You, pastera, possess a valid, unrestricted MA LTC with no capacity restrictions. While at a supermarket in Downtown Crossing, some concerned citizen notices a "bulge" on your waist and it becomes more worrisome to them that you may be carrying a firearm. This concerned citizen decides to call 911 and states "... I'm at the supermarket and I think this person has a firearm on them. They have an object sitting on their waist that is poking through their shirt and it looks like it could be a firearm.... No, I haven't seen it and they haven't taken it out but I think it is a firearm can you send officers to make sure this is okay"

At that point, dispatch will put out the call. Depending on the interaction between the call taker and the caller, this information is relayed and it is what we have to go on.

We respond and locate you somewhere in the store matching the description given by the 911 caller. At this point, a threshold inquiry begins and casual conversation occurs. No firearm displayed. No problems.

Me: "Hello sir, we received a 911 call that someone was concerned you may have a firearm on you, specifically on your waist. You match the description given by the caller and I can see a bit of printing. Do you have a firearm on you?"
You: "Yes, I do."
Me: "Can you provide me your LTC and we can get this squared away?"
You: "Yes, I can, it is in my pocket."
Me: "You can remove that for me, but just for the duration of this interaction, please refrain from having your hands around that area where your firearm is until we can clarify validity of your license."
You: "Absolutely, not a problem at all."

Another officer speaks with the 911 caller to confirm the call and I'll conduct a check on the LTC. Once everything comes back as it should, I return your LTC and everyone goes on their way. The caller is informed privately of the information and if they have a problem with you legally carrying a firearm, they can choose to avoid you if they feel uncomfortable or take their business elsewhere.

B) You, pastera, possess a valid, unrestricted MA LTC with no capacity restrictions. While at a supermarket in Downtown Crossing, some concerned citizen notices a "bulge" on your waist and it becomes more worrisome to them that you may be carrying a firearm. This concerned citizen decides to call 911 and states "... I'm at the supermarket and this guy has a gun on his waist, I can see it poking through his shirt." (provides description and has a more rapid and stressed tone). No other information is given.
This is a bit more of a different call than Scenario A. Dispatch will obviously send this out in a more immediate stance than the other scenario.

This scenario plays out exactly the same as Scenario A. Period. Conversation is key.

However, if, by chance, you decide to become irate, unruly, and refuse to cooperate when officers have enough probable cause (911 call, exact description, visible "printing" on waist consistent with concealing an item) to conduct an inquiry, then based on the totality of the circumstances and the "nature of the call," we may conduct a pat frisk for safety. Then, the variables are multiple as to what can happen after that.

At the end of the day, safety is paramount. I know in my previous post I stated " "... This is the reason we are here and speaking with you. Do you have a firearm on you? If you do, do you mind keeping your hands where I can see them while I secure your firearm and check to make sure you can legally be carrying this..." By no means is this the absolute response. This is a potential response based on the current climate of the situation at hand.

If there was misunderstanding there, I hope that can clear some of it up.
 

jct61765

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
3,162
Likes
3,174
Location
Alabama
Understand that it may be your job but that doesn't excuse the attitude of let me molest your rights and I won't flex state power over you.
Show up
Assess
If nothing is immediately wrong clear the call
If something shady is going on, then deal out the show me your hands and LTC check. If an LTC is involved and there's enough shady to set off the Spidey sense then a good shape up conversation is in order.

I despise the idea that a good person is automatically suspect and put under physical threat (as soon as an officer states show me your hands there's an implicit threat). And all that because of an unconfirmed phone call from someone who knows they won't face any consequences for their third party abuse of another.
You choose to live in a state that abuse's your rights. You know this, we all know this. This is what Massachusetts does. You can complain all you want on our forum. It's not going to change what the police do in your state. I'm not going to tell you if you don't like it, move. I don't know your situation. You may despise what the police do in your state, but it's not going to change.
 

In God We Trust

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
13,375
Likes
11,126
Location
Emmond's Field in the Two Rivers
one time I was in line at the starbucks in braintree, had a Sig 226 under a hoodie. Cop came up behind me tapped me on the butt of the gun and said quietly, 'just so you know i can see that', to which I replied, 'sorry, thanks' and that was that. A good holster and belt are crucial. Unless you live in a free state. People around here ride around on harleys with no helmets and an AR on the back or in a saddle bag, pickup trucks with gun racks (not legally required to keep guns locked up or unloaded in a vehicle in KY) young kids walking down my street with 410s and 22s hunting critters, sweet old ladies with shiny chrome smith revolvers when they open their purse at the coffee shop. Come to a free state. You'll be much happier.
Every free state is only one election away from no longer being free. Don’t get me wrong, when I move, it will be to a free state, but climate and cost of living are at the top of my wish list.
 

Asaltweapon

NES Member
Rating - 100%
56   0   0
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
22,048
Likes
18,247
Location
Northern Maine
I printed in a pizza shop in Ludlow and a deputy sheriff ask what I was carrying. I told him a Sig 229 Legion. That was it. no request to see a permit or anything.

Honestly, I was more shocked to see a deputy sheriff around in unifor. There are not many around that I ever see. Perhaps a Hamden county sheriff explorer once a year…if that.
A prisoner transporter asked on carrying? Do they even have that power in MA? Yes, I’m well aware they would love that ego trip with all their fancy boats and trucks. 😂
 

Keop

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
126
Likes
70
Location
Andover
Thanks Doolz for the real world perspective from LE and to others for the links to legal rulings, etc. It has been informative.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
54,782
Likes
15,425
Location
NH
@doolz To clarify a few points, from a retired suburban Mass police officer.

Simkin is the case someone referred to but didn't recall the name. It may pay to read up on that one as the SJC ruling fits the scenario that is being discussed here.

Also, the issue of carrying outside of a restriction is Not a criminal offense, it can be subject to revocation/suspension only.

And there is no "standard definition" of what a restriction means. Boston PD makes it crystal clear, but some towns have told LTC-holders that it is okay for them to CCW to and from the restriction event and even in some cases to stop and shop/eat on the way to or from. That's one of the problems with restrictions, they mean whatever the issuing officer says that they mean (351 different interpretations possible).
 

doolz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 21, 2022
Messages
15
Likes
12
Location
MA
@doolz To clarify a few points, from a retired suburban Mass police officer.

Simkin is the case someone referred to but didn't recall the name. It may pay to read up on that one as the SJC ruling fits the scenario that is being discussed here.

Also, the issue of carrying outside of a restriction is Not a criminal offense, it can be subject to revocation/suspension only.

And there is no "standard definition" of what a restriction means. Boston PD makes it crystal clear, but some towns have told LTC-holders that it is okay for them to CCW to and from the restriction event and even in some cases to stop and shop/eat on the way to or from. That's one of the problems with restrictions, they mean whatever the issuing officer says that they mean (351 different interpretations possible).

Hey Len,

You are correct. I had mush brain at 1:30am trying to get a response off to that person...

Sieze, snap, summons is the protocol for carrying outside of restrictions.

In my encounters with persons involving LTC's, I've only seen "None," "Target & Hunting," and "Employment." While there is no "standard definition" of what a restriction means, it is on the license itself and is provided to the licensee upon receipt of their license.

I don't know how up to date this is, but the City of Boston posted the LTC restrictions HERE

We've all been trained and been drilled on municipal and constitutional law. Some cities and towns have different protocols for handling LTCs. The reality is, that, specifically in Boston, city council has been more and more adamant about refusing to allow unrestricted licenses as to prevent more persons from legally carrying. That's just the way it is here. It stinks and I personally don't like it.

Also, discretion is very important. While someone from Rehoboth may have a "Target & Hunting" restriction and is concealed carrying in Boston, they are technically, even though towns may bend a bit, carrying outside of their restrictions, which is illegal. However, if the interaction is cordial and cooperative, the difference of the sieze, snap, summons, and "go lock it in your car" are very real.
 

556USER

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
1,348
Likes
1,990
Location
Northshore MA
A few weeks back when I was at my place in western Maine the wife and myself when to Marden's to see what they had for cheap that day. While I was in the hardware area there was a 35ish guy open carrying. He was looking at paint brushes if I recall correctly. Seemed perfectly normal to me. NOBODY gave a crap. I told my wife later that I need to get the fu..k out of the sh..thole that is Massachusetts. NOBODY should be hassled or even questioned when carrying unless they begin to do something dangerous with the firearm. This "show me your papers"crap is the problem not the carrying. Makes me wonder who would want to be a cop in a state where enforcing oppressive and unconstitutional laws is a requirement? Are the perks and pensions so good that one stoops to taking the 30 pieces of silver to betray ones fellow citizens?
 

doolz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jun 21, 2022
Messages
15
Likes
12
Location
MA
A few weeks back when I was at my place in western Maine the wife and myself when to Marden's to see what they had for cheap that day. While I was in the hardware area there was a 35ish guy open carrying. He was looking at paint brushes if I recall correctly. Seemed perfectly normal to me. NOBODY gave a crap. I told my wife later that I need to get the fu..k out of the sh..thole that is Massachusetts. NOBODY should be hassled or even questioned when carrying unless they begin to do something dangerous with the firearm. This "show me your papers"crap is the problem not the carrying. Makes me wonder who would want to be a cop in a state where enforcing oppressive and unconstitutional laws is a requirement? Are the perks and pensions so good that one stoops to taking the 30 pieces of silver to betray ones fellow citizens?

As I mentioned in my previous post, 99.9% of the time, encounters with law abiding carrying citizens are rare, and usually never have any issue involved at all. Unfortunately, the laws here are the laws here. Not saying I agree with them, but they are what they are.

As for the perks and pensions in relation to the currency you pertained to, no. Absolutely not. We're underpaid, understaffed, and overworked. The sad reality, like most of what happens in this country, is that 99.9% of cops take the job because they want to make a difference. I've always wanted to be a cop and it's run in my family. That being said, I do the job for the right reasons. I'm not out there looking for people who are lawfully carrying but may be printing. I don't walk around and approach people and say "Show me your papers!" That's insane and any cop who does that should be evaluated. This whole scenario was an extreme case as an example given to the OP's question in relation to Massachusetts, specifically Boston.

Now, that 0.01% of people who are not law abiding citizens are the ones we are more concerned with. And, that 0.01% of cops who are bad cops are the bad apples in the tree and paint the negative picture for all of us. Plain and simple as said before by JCT61765, Massachusetts IS NOT a "free state." And it is very strict as it pertains to firearm laws. You cannot carry legally unless you're licensed (or working in specific professions). Period. This comes down to elected officials and outsourced liberals who have taken over and are cemented in their Anti-2A rhetoric.
 

Mtn_Guy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
67   0   0
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
2,913
Likes
7,944
Location
a little bit east of Worcester, MA
@doolz welcome to NES [wave] Noticing on your profile you recently joined.

Secondly, thanks for taking the time to offer a coherent discussion on the subject. While it may be easy for anyone to read too much into an online post and for some to jump to assumptions about “…’cause LE…” you offered additional explanation to @pastera in earlier posts.

Very much appreciated. 🇺🇸
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
1,464
Likes
2,317
In Pennsylvania the police are required to assume all firearms are legal. They may not approach you or inquire about a firearm unless you are doing something else illegal.
I can't find it but I read about a case in MA where the officer asked a driver IF he had a LTC vs asking for a LTC and that was a issue
 

one-eyed Jack

Manufacturer
Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
14,714
Likes
27,699
Location
Eastern Mass and southern NH
One hot summer I had a pair of "rather large" sun glasses that wouldn't fit into my T shirt pockets , so I put a holster on my belt and carried the glasses in it. I got nothing but stares from everyone including cops wherever I went. When the cops got close for a good look, I would stare at their holsters till they backed off. Jack.
 

556USER

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
1,348
Likes
1,990
Location
Northshore MA
As I mentioned in my previous post, 99.9% of the time, encounters with law abiding carrying citizens are rare, and usually never have any issue involved at all. Unfortunately, the laws here are the laws here. Not saying I agree with them, but they are what they are.

As for the perks and pensions in relation to the currency you pertained to, no. Absolutely not. We're underpaid, understaffed, and overworked. The sad reality, like most of what happens in this country, is that 99.9% of cops take the job because they want to make a difference. I've always wanted to be a cop and it's run in my family. That being said, I do the job for the right reasons. I'm not out there looking for people who are lawfully carrying but may be printing. I don't walk around and approach people and say "Show me your papers!" That's insane and any cop who does that should be evaluated. This whole scenario was an extreme case as an example given to the OP's question in relation to Massachusetts, specifically Boston.

Now, that 0.01% of people who are not law abiding citizens are the ones we are more concerned with. And, that 0.01% of cops who are bad cops are the bad apples in the tree and paint the negative picture for all of us. Plain and simple as said before by JCT61765, Massachusetts IS NOT a "free state." And it is very strict as it pertains to firearm laws. You cannot carry legally unless you're licensed (or working in specific professions). Period. This comes down to elected officials and outsourced liberals who have taken over and are cemented in their Anti-2A rhetoric.
You come across as one of the better ones. My comment about "show me your papers" was in the context of an officer that has been called out about a person with a gun. It is my opinion that if the officer finds that the person's behavior is not out of line then they should not be asked for an LTC. Note: that's my opinion. Yes, I know full well that the "laws" in this state emanate from our wonderful liberal politicians. Having said that none of those laws would mean much if the police were hesitant to enforce them with gusto. Aiding and abetting the crazy constitution trampling liberals is sad at best. As stated in my first sentence I doubt that you enjoy enforcing those types of laws and that is better than nothing. I have had many good encounters with police in recent times and no bad ones.
 

LTCRN

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
2,317
Likes
1,122
Location
Southeastern, MA
There's obviously a disconnect here... and that's fine.

First, yes, I do know that there are multiple issuing agencies for LTCs in Massachusetts. An MA LTC is an MA LTC... Restrictions are restrictions. You either have them or you don't. If you don't then you're all good. If you have restrictions, then obviously you fall under certain parameters that you have to abide by based on the issuing agency. Don't know where you were going with that one.

Second, your responses to my responses are subjective. I'm giving experienced real-life and potential real-life scenarios that the OP (Keop) had asked in his original post:
"If a person is printing and law enforcement is called what can law enforcement legally do? I would assume that they would ask if you are armed and if you're licensed but would they disarm you first? Are they legally able to inspect your firearm, ammo, magazines, etc. if you provide a valid LTC?"

To answer what OP had asked, the answer is "yes," if a person is printing, and law enforcement is called, the responding officer(s) have the legal grounds to conduct a threshold inquiry on the person in question. The typical response varies from department to department based on training and experience, but the constitutional law remains the same. You are the subject of a 911 call in regards to possessing a firearm. I gave a few different scenarios and how responses vary:

I'll try to use two more "clearer" examples...

A) You, pastera, possess a valid, unrestricted MA LTC with no capacity restrictions. While at a supermarket in Downtown Crossing, some concerned citizen notices a "bulge" on your waist and it becomes more worrisome to them that you may be carrying a firearm. This concerned citizen decides to call 911 and states "... I'm at the supermarket and I think this person has a firearm on them. They have an object sitting on their waist that is poking through their shirt and it looks like it could be a firearm.... No, I haven't seen it and they haven't taken it out but I think it is a firearm can you send officers to make sure this is okay"

At that point, dispatch will put out the call. Depending on the interaction between the call taker and the caller, this information is relayed and it is what we have to go on.

We respond and locate you somewhere in the store matching the description given by the 911 caller. At this point, a threshold inquiry begins and casual conversation occurs. No firearm displayed. No problems.

Me: "Hello sir, we received a 911 call that someone was concerned you may have a firearm on you, specifically on your waist. You match the description given by the caller and I can see a bit of printing. Do you have a firearm on you?"
You: "Yes, I do."
Me: "Can you provide me your LTC and we can get this squared away?"
You: "Yes, I can, it is in my pocket."
Me: "You can remove that for me, but just for the duration of this interaction, please refrain from having your hands around that area where your firearm is until we can clarify validity of your license."
You: "Absolutely, not a problem at all."

Another officer speaks with the 911 caller to confirm the call and I'll conduct a check on the LTC. Once everything comes back as it should, I return your LTC and everyone goes on their way. The caller is informed privately of the information and if they have a problem with you legally carrying a firearm, they can choose to avoid you if they feel uncomfortable or take their business elsewhere.

B) You, pastera, possess a valid, unrestricted MA LTC with no capacity restrictions. While at a supermarket in Downtown Crossing, some concerned citizen notices a "bulge" on your waist and it becomes more worrisome to them that you may be carrying a firearm. This concerned citizen decides to call 911 and states "... I'm at the supermarket and this guy has a gun on his waist, I can see it poking through his shirt." (provides description and has a more rapid and stressed tone). No other information is given.
This is a bit more of a different call than Scenario A. Dispatch will obviously send this out in a more immediate stance than the other scenario.

This scenario plays out exactly the same as Scenario A. Period. Conversation is key.

However, if, by chance, you decide to become irate, unruly, and refuse to cooperate when officers have enough probable cause (911 call, exact description, visible "printing" on waist consistent with concealing an item) to conduct an inquiry, then based on the totality of the circumstances and the "nature of the call," we may conduct a pat frisk for safety. Then, the variables are multiple as to what can happen after that.

At the end of the day, safety is paramount. I know in my previous post I stated " "... This is the reason we are here and speaking with you. Do you have a firearm on you? If you do, do you mind keeping your hands where I can see them while I secure your firearm and check to make sure you can legally be carrying this..." By no means is this the absolute response. This is a potential response based on the current climate of the situation at hand.

If there was misunderstanding there, I hope that can clear some of it up.
The dispatcher is the problem! The dispatcher should have asked the caller, "Why are you concerned, what are they doing"? If the answer is, "Because he or she has a gun on them!" The dispatcher should inform the sheep on the line that, "Guns are legal in MA and unless you suspect the person is going to commit a crime, you should continue on and mind your own f'n business and stop tying up an emergency line!" No further action on behalf of the dispatcher is necessary. No crime has been committed, no crime is being suspected of being committed, there is no need for police interaction. This is where the problems occur, bad information is obtained and bad information is relayed!
 
Top Bottom