• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Cop demands LTC

M

MauserFreak

Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
59
Likes
0
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Does a Police officer have the right to see your LTC if you are in a gun store carrying. I was talking to a guy this morning on the range and he said he was pretty much forced to show his LTC in gun store when a state police officer just happened to walk in and notice he had a bulge under his shirt. I guess the owner of the shop said he's a customer he's ok, and the officer still insisted on seeing it. I guess it got heated when the Officer put his hand on his gun demanding the to show him the LTC. at that point he showed him the License, makes you wonder if you carry everywhere what you might have happen.
 
Upon demand of a L/E Officer you must show your LTC. If you are asked if you have a license its up to you to decide to answer or not. IF you are ordered to show your LTC you must
 
(I agree, this should be in the MA law section)

Yep, you have to show it if an LEO asks to see it.

from c140 s129c:

"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"
 
What is interesting about Commonwealth v. Coutoure is that a conviction for illegal carry was reversed simply because the arresting officer got a "man seen with gun call", and did the "your papers please" routine without any evidence, other than the gun, that the man was engaging in an illegal act. The court held that asking for the LTC was improper absent any indication that the person was engaged in an illegal act, and that the cop could not simply assume the person had no LTC. Similarly, the police need a reason to pull people over - they can't just stop a car on the basis of "no cause, but we observed you engaging in an activity for which a license is required and wish to verify you have a driver's license."

The decision is at odds with the MGL cited above and hasn't really changed any procedures - but will give attorneys bargaining room at plea bargain talks, or even the possibility of avoiding a convicion, in a very limited set of cases.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
What is interesting about Commonwealth v. Coutoure is that a conviction for illegal carry was reversed [...]
The decision is at odds with the MGL cited above
Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm not sure it's at odds though, as the above MGL section goes further to say if you do not present LTC, your firearms may be confiscated. It doesn't say you will be charged with illegal carry.
 
Sounds like this guys just being a dueche and asserting his power. But, then again, it would have been a little suspicious if someone's in a gun shop w/ a gun and no license so you can kind of see his logic. If a cop asks for my LTC, I'm going to assume he's spotted my bulge, no not that bulge, the gun...and show him the license. No big whoop. [smile]
 
Why in the hell would a copy, even an especially stupid one,
go into a gun store and start rousting people anyway? Wouldn't the average cretin kind of assume everyone in the place is armed?

Really bad form. I can't imagine that happening in our shop.

Of course the more I think about it, since the information is second hand there is most likely a lot more to the story than we were told
 
The owner ought to put up a sign - "No Open Carry on Premises", and tell the cop to please check his gun at the counter or take a walk.

**Assuming (with everything that entails) that the cop was in there shopping during his lunch break and wasn't in there with a valid warrant.**
 
Since the OP didn't see or hear this happen, I'm wondering if the story got turned around from what it really was. Maybe the trooper came in to look at a gun and the shop owner asked the trooper to see his LTC before he'd let him fondle any firearms. After that get told a few times we then get a twisted version.
 
tuna said:
The owner ought to put up a sign - "No Open Carry on Premises", and tell the cop to please check his gun at the counter or take a walk.

**Assuming (with everything that entails) that the cop was in there shopping during his lunch break and wasn't in there with a valid warrant.**
Click to expand...


What would a Officer need a warrant for to be in a gun store or any store for that matter?

My guess is that there is far more to this story.....
 
Rob,

The difference between Couture and the Cite is that in Couture there was a seizure. In the OP's scenario there was no seizure. There was only an encounter.

In Commonwealth v. Couture, 407 Mass. 178 (1990), the SJC held that the fact an individual is carrying a handgun, in and of itself, does not furnish probable cause to believe that the individual is illegally carrying that gun, nor even give reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The reasoning behind this decision is that just because someone has possession of a firearm, it does not also mean that they are committing a crime. Therefore, if police desire to conduct a seizure of an individual possessing a firearm in public, they must have either:

1) a reasonable suspicion that he or she is violating the law, or
2) a reasonable belief that the subject is armed or otherwise dangerous.

NOTE ON THE INVESTIGATION: However, this will not preclude a police officer from conducting a lawful investigation. He or she can simply walk over to the subject and engage him or her in conversation relative to possessing the firearm.

In fact, in Commonwealthv. Johnson, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 336 (1994), the court stated that “the report from a known citizen that a gun is being carried in public warrants investigation by the police.” If the person at that point gives any indication that he or she is not licensed or that the officers safety is an issue, then a thorough patfrisk may be undertaken under the doctrine discussed in Commonwealth v. Fraser, 410 Mass. 541 (1991), which allows police to conduct non-seizure field interrogations. In other words, where police are in the immediate proximity of a person reasonably believed to be armed and dangerous, that person may be frisked for weapons.

Possessor Must Exhibit LTC or FID to Police on Demand per C. 140 § 129C

EDITOR’S NOTE: To date, there have been no decisions which clearly hold that a police officer may effect a seizure of an individual possessing a firearm in order to see if he or she is in compliance with the above statute. In Commonwealth v. Barros, 435 Mass.171 (2001), a concurring opinion stated that the Court has never addressed the power of an officer to stop someone in order to make a demand for a license under G. L. C. 140 § 129C. “It is, however, an intriguing suggestion, and one that would at least arguably justify a stop on the facts of this case,” stated the Court.

ENCOUNTERS PERMISSIBLE: If the above chapter and section does not automatically permit a police officer to conduct a seizure
of a person known to be merely carrying a firearm, it will definitely permit the inquiring officer to encounter the individual and request
his or her LTC or FID.
HEIGHTENED SENSE OF DANGER: Additionally, the case of Commonwealth v. Fraser, 410 Mass. 541 (1991), will permit police
to conduct a frisk of a person once the officer is in close proximity of a person reasonably believed to be armed or otherwise dangerous.
ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION DOES NOT PERMIT SEIZURE: Let us use the following analogy in helping to see why
a seizure is not permissible when making the statutory inquiry under C. 140 § 129C. If the police entered a gun shop to see if they were
appropriately licensed, would the inquiring police officer immediately grab the manager and throw him or her against the wall and make
the demand for the license? What if the police wanted to see if the bar had a liquor license? Would they “seize” the bartender and then
make the request? Obviously the answer is no to both situations. The same analogy should be used when making the demand under C.
140 § 129C. Remember what occurred in Couture? There was a seizure based on the gun, in and of itself, and then the demand—no good.
If the police followed Couture until he exited his vehicle and then made the demand, it would have been permissible.

Unable To Display License On Demand—Legal Presumption Of Being Unlicensed

Chapter 278 § 7 states that “ a defendant in a criminal prosecution, relying for his justification upon a license..[]..shall prove the same; and, until so proved, the presumption shall be that he is not so authorized.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: Therefore, where a person in public is carrying a firearm and is unable to produce evidence of license to the inquiring
police officer, probable cause will exist that C. 269 § 10 is being violated. See Commonwealth v. Prevost, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 398 (1998).

Having a LTC is Only an Affirmative Defense—Not an Element of the Crime

In Commonwealth v. Jones, 372 Mass. 403 (1977), the SJC discussed the required elements to prove a violation of c. 269 § 10(a), the unlawful carrying statute. In Jones, the Commonwealth did not present any evidence showing that the defendant did not have a license to carry. Despite this, the defendant was convicted.
 
I have found when an LEO is being less than a "public servant" I comply to the best of my ability(despite the outrage), document in writing the encounter with names, dates, and times. And then file a complaint with the offending officers department AND the States Attornys Office. I have received several written apologies from LEOs " having a stressed day"
By filing with the state, the local authorities have much harder time "sweeping it under the rug" and if there is a pattern with an individual, it gets noticed at a much higher level.
 
I have yet to have a single bad incident with an LEO - state or otherwise. Other than a cocky newbie fresh out of the academy sternly ordering me to "secure my dog" (puppy) while her head was out the window holding a pink bunny and whining with excitement over his approach, I have had nothing but positive interactions with LEO and hope I always do....
 
JohnFH said:
I have found when an LEO is being less than a "public servant" I comply to the best of my ability(despite the outrage), document in writing the encounter with names, dates, and times. And then file a complaint with the offending officers department AND the States Attornys Office. I have received several written apologies from LEOs " having a stressed day"
By filing with the state, the local authorities have much harder time "sweeping it under the rug" and if there is a pattern with an individual, it gets noticed at a much higher level.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. it makes no sense to try to resolve the situation in the field because:

A. The LEO has already proven him/herself to be unreasonable. It makes no sense to proceed with rational discussion hoping for a new outcome.

B. The LEO has greater power than you in that moment. He/She can also goad you into escalation (which tilts the balance of power further in their direction.)

Instead, treat it like a traffic stop that you plan to challenge in court and end the interaction as soon as possible.

You wouldn't argue a ticket on the side of the road, even from an LEO that had clearly broken the law in ticketing you. If for no other reason then because that LEO will go right back to the cruiser and document everything! Instead you'd quietly head to court and get it thrown out on the procedural issue you noticed at the outset.

It's the same way with this. Once the encounter is over (and your weapon is secured and you un-charged) the balance tips in your favor as you start writing letters as described by John J. Sure, your letter might not make the critical difference but if this jackhole has a pattern of acting this way, perhaps you'll help to illustrate the fact that he/she needs "correction." On the other hand, perhaps the LEO really was having an unusually bad day (no excuse but it happens to all of us) this gives him/her the same chance to genuinely apologize that anyone else might get.
 
Raoul Duke said:
I agree wholeheartedly. it makes no sense to try to resolve the situation in the field because:

A. The LEO has already proven him/herself to be unreasonable. It makes no sense to proceed with rational discussion hoping for a new outcome.

B. The LEO has greater power than you in that moment. He/She can also goad you into escalation (which tilts the balance of power further in their direction.)

Instead, treat it like a traffic stop that you plan to challenge in court and end the interaction as soon as possible.

You wouldn't argue a ticket on the side of the road, even from an LEO that had clearly broken the law in ticketing you. If for no other reason then because that LEO will go right back to the cruiser and document everything! Instead you'd quietly head to court and get it thrown out on the procedural issue you noticed at the outset.

It's the same way with this. Once the encounter is over (and your weapon is secured and you un-charged) the balance tips in your favor as you start writing letters as described by John J. Sure, your letter might not make the critical difference but if this jackhole has a pattern of acting this way, perhaps you'll help to illustrate the fact that he/she needs "correction." On the other hand, perhaps the LEO really was having an unusually bad day (no excuse but it happens to all of us) this gives him/her the same chance to genuinely apologize that anyone else might get.
Click to expand...


Ummm.....Raoul I agree with you in general terms but in the scenario the OP gave the officer did nothing wrong!! I think there must have been more to the story to make the Trooper ask for it but he had the right to do so.

He may not have been diplomatic in doing so but he was not wrong!
 
Half Cocked said:
Ummm.....Raoul I agree with you in general terms but in the scenario the OP gave the officer did nothing wrong!! I think there must have been more to the story to make the Trooper ask for it but he had the right to do so.

He may not have been diplomatic in doing so but he was not wrong!
Click to expand...


Agreed. I'd love to know "the rest of the story" on this one.
 
hmmm...well, you are right about that.

Half Cocked, I re-read the OP and you're right. According to the OP the Trooper did nothing illegal and in that case as described, I would think it expedient to show your ID and go on with your day. No harm no foul right? I guess.

I think I was trying to make a point about the foolishness of arguing the law, in the moment, with an LEO who has clearly expressed his/her understanding of the law in direct contrast to your own. In doing so, I think I forgot the details of the OP.

Nonetheless, I stand by my original point which was essentially, don't argue anything on the side of the street. If you're wrong, it will come back to smack you in the face (and you'll deserve it) and if you're right, by all means you can pursue it with vigor and with minim of exposure.[grin]
 
As stated above a LEO must demand for your license/LTC. If the officer asks for your license " May I please see your LTC" certain Miranda issues arise.

In the OP's original story I hope the Trooper at least purchased something.
 
Last edited:
HandCannoneer said:
As stated above a LEO must demand for your license/LTC. If the officer asks for your license " May I please see your LTC" certain Miranda issues arise.

In the OP's original story I hope the Trooper at least purchased something.
Click to expand...


Have you been drinking![laugh]

Your close. Miranda would not be needed if the officer stated "May I please see your LTC". being polite does not trigger Miranda. Miranda may be required depending upon the circumstances if the officer were to ask "Do you have a LTC".
 
Last edited:
If a small thing like that bothers you then you should not carry a gun. If he asked you to see your licence. You say yes, hand him the lic. he gives it back and thank you its over you go on your way.
 
Where a police officer personally observes an individual with a firearm, the
following option is available:

Demand that the person exhibit a Firearms Identification Card
(FID) or License to Carry (LTC), assuming the person is outside
the limits of their own property on residence. G.L. c. 140, § 129C.
On failure, the person may be required to surrender the firearm,
although failure is not made criminal. Com. v. Jones, 372 Mass.
403, 361 N.E.2d 1308 (1977). In Com. v. Haskell, the court
suppressed the answer to the officer’s inquiry as to whether the
defendant had a permit to possess the revolver he produced at the
officer’s request. If the officer had simply demanded to see any
license, this would have been permitted under G.L. c. 140, § 129C.
 
I know there are a few bad apples in the bunch but for the most part Cops are good people with a very difficult job. Some of them are even members of Goal the Nra and this board.

If you have a Ltc most officers know that your a law abiding citizen and must not have much more then a speeding ticket on your record or you would have never even goten it in the first place.

A big thank you to all who responded that they would like to know the entire story before making judgement.
 
JonJ said:
Where a police officer personally observes an individual with a firearm, the
following option is available:

Demand that the person exhibit a Firearms Identification Card
(FID) or License to Carry (LTC), assuming the person is outside
the limits of their own property on residence. G.L. c. 140, § 129C.
On failure, the person may be required to surrender the firearm,
although failure is not made criminal. Com. v. Jones, 372 Mass.
403, 361 N.E.2d 1308 (1977). In Com. v. Haskell, the court suppressed the answer to the officer’s inquiry as to whether the defendant had a permit to possess the revolver he produced at the officer’s request. If the officer had simply demanded to see any license, this would have been permitted under G.L. c. 140, § 129C.
Click to expand...

Exactly...asking/demanding to see the license compared to asking IF YOU HAVE A LICENSE. This is why it is difficult to navigate the law and why it is important to not monday morning quarterback.

Imagine being a police officer and getting into a fight with a drunk on the street at 2am and finding him in possession of a handgun. With adrenaline still going and the suspect still being combative you ask if he has a LTC. He says no. The charge for illegally posessing the firearm gets thrown out of court because you failed to give Miranda warnings. The same scenario but instead you say to the suspect "show me your LTC". The suspect fails to produce and the charge stands as being good.

Tough semantics to have to deal with under stress at 2am on the side of the road. It takes several judges in black robes sitting in a climate controlled building weeks to decide that the officer was wrong when the officer needs to make a split second decision.

Sorry for the rant but I thought it was a good example to indicate why people should not be so quick to fault an officer and be a Monday morning quarterback.

I will shut up now!!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

LTC Renewal Received in Natick
Replies
0
Views
151
RockStar
R
LTC references
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
paul73
paul73
LTC Received
Replies
21
Views
826
G4Y4HK
G
FFL Refuses Transfer Because Address on LTC not matching DL address
4 5 6
Replies
159
Views
4K
EddieCoyle
EddieCoyle
LTC in Natick
Replies
2
Views
394
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom