Mesatchornug
NES Member
Here are the two NES threads WRT the Simkin case @Len-2A Training notedHey 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.
Decision in FRB v. Simkin?
I got a tweet to the effect that Simkin got his LTC back, but not much further detail. Comm2A hasn't updated the site yet. Any other details available?
www.northeastshooters.com
SJC Arguments tomorrow on a Non-Resident License Appeal
Tomorrow there is the oral arguments in a non resident licensing case at the SJC. The SJC fast tracked this case. See if you can spot why they would want this case. We filed an amicus in this case and will continue to monitor the state courts for cases such as these...
www.northeastshooters.com
Here's the actual decision:
FindLaw's Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts case and opinions.
FindLaw's searchable database of Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decisions since
caselaw.findlaw.com
Of particular note is this paragraph towards the end (emphasis mine).
Next, we suspect that the average Massachusetts resident may become “alarmed” on learning that someone other than a law enforcement officer is carrying concealed weapons in his or her presence. However, Simkin is not responsible for alarm caused to others by his mere carrying of concealed weapons pursuant to a license permitting him to do exactly that. Although the bureau claims that Simkin “went out of his way to show and inform certain staff members that he was ․ armed,” the record indicates otherwise. Simkin concealed his weapons until he was in the examination room and was about to disrobe, at which time he notified the medical assistant that he was carrying concealed weapons and was going to secure them, presumably so that she would not be alarmed. Further, he had disclosed the fact that he was armed immediately prior to disrobing during a previous visit to the same medical office, albeit to a different practitioner, and had received no objection to his behavior either during or after the visit.
Further, and this may be a failure of communication, but it seems like you're missing an important distinction. It's wonderful that Boston publishes their requirements - which are effective against the licenses they grant. Other towns have other definitions. They may or may not share them publicly*. Your theoretical Rehoboth resident would be held to his chief's definition, not yours. If his chief says carry to/from activities is ok, and he's on his way to/from listed activities, then he's ok.
If you have evidence that city-council has been directing the department to deny/restrict more LTCs, that seems like something @Comm2A might want to see.
* Notably, Brookline requires licensees to read their definition and sign an affidavit saying as much. They then refuse to allow said licensee to take any copy with them, including a cell-phone photograph.
This. Apparent possession of a firearm is not sufficient evidence for probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion) that the individual is in unlawful possession of a firearm. While it might be lawful to demand the LTC because it amuses you, the actual "pro-2A" position is clear - if he's not committing a crime, leave him alone.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!