Friend is losing his LTC

[whacko]

If he was concerned about safety, he would have called a bus for me to get me treated for alcohol poisoning.

Not a cop bashing, just recognizing that for a lot of officers the public good is not priority one.

There are some officers that are concerned for your safety.......unfortunately there are those that are just interested in hasseling people

 

[jasons]

Errr...okay, so with morality and accountability off the table, then talking about "proof" and "evidence" presumes a crime, and all crimes have tangible victims, and nobody's really suffered here, so there's no crime, so no harm, no foul...I think got it.

Seriously, is that the point here? If not, I'm hopelessly lost...

The point is that yet another gun owner (aka "us") is in the process of getting screwed by yet another stupid gun law (laws plural in this case,) when his "crime" didn't actually have anything to do with guns. The secondary point is that some gun owners (aka "us") seem to be A-OK with that because beer. The irony seems a bit obvious.

 

[dgrafton]

This thread is very telling. It's definitely not the same NES that I joined 6+ years ago.

I've been here two years and thinking the same thing.

 

[Bonesinium]

It is ironic that there appears to be no real discernible crime involving guns here and that is what he is getting screwed over on. His actions in regards to firearms not only did not cause but could not have caused any injured or damaged party.

His actions in regards to alcohol and operating a vehicle did not cause any injury or damaged party besides himself, though I could at least see the argument they could have. But that isn't what he is being screwed over for. So my feelings on the whole driving drunk thing (which there appears to be little evidence to support anyways) are moot.

I am a bit surprised that there are gun owners on this forum who seem to think he deserves to be screwed over in regards to gun ownership based on an incident that doesn't involve guns, intent to cause harm, nor actually causing someone else harm. Why?

 

[whacko]

It is ironic that there appears to be no real discernible crime involving guns here and that is what he is getting screwed over on. His actions in regards to firearms not only did not cause but could not have caused any injured or damaged party.

His actions in regards to alcohol and operating a vehicle did not cause any injury or damaged party besides himself, though I could at least see the argument they could have. But that isn't what he is being screwed over for. So my feelings on the whole driving drunk thing (which there appears to be little evidence to support anyways) are moot.

I am a bit surprised that there are gun owners on this forum who seem to think he deserves to be screwed over in regards to gun ownership based on an incident that doesn't involve guns, intent to cause harm, nor actually causing someone else harm. Why?

Licking......the.......boots

Dats why

 

[Terminator03]

As far as I know, LenS is not an attorney. You can hide all the guns that you want out of state because a MA LTC is only valid in MA! If you think otherwise, take your MA LTC to NY, along with your favorite carry gun and see how fast you end up in Rikers Island, Attica, Elmira or any one of their other state run "hotels"! Maybe 209A is different because it triggers the federal Lautenberg prohibition. Other states do not care if your local MA COP considers you to be "unsuitable".

I know that LenS is not an attorney, but he is pretty much our resident expert on MA firearm laws. What you say is only valid if those guns are NOT purchased/registered in the state of MA as the police will come with a list of everything that they know (or believe) that you own, which is what I was referring to. To try to locate them out of state will only delay the inevitable (if they are on the list).

 

[AlwaysBeClosing]

You truly do not understand the mind freeing, cost saving, freedom supporting experience of being a libertarian do you?

Not yet, but in general I evolve slowly, plus I've only been arrested once. Obviously wasn't my fault, was just turning my life around.

Give it time...by next year I'll be posting selfies on facebook open-carrying an 80% lower AR build at a fast food chain in Worcester

After a couple years on this site, it still amazes me that more people don't stick around for the open debates, fraternity, inclusive community and healthy perspectives.

 

[jibbr71]

Funny you ask. YES!

Ask my brother.......posted here before but cliff note version:

Got a bottle on the way to go fishing
drank some vodka while fishing in his canoe (not illegal)
finished fishing
pulled onto shore
said to self.....**** this I'm going to sleep for awhile rather than take a chance on a dwi
left $1000 canoe on ground (important as this is part of his defense)
gets in truck and starts it to run heat (it was early spring and still cold)
falls asleep
cop knocks on window
rolls down window
cop smells booze
cuffed and stuffed for OUI

Yes in most states you can be arrested for operating under the influence just because the key is in the ignition.........and its BS. And yes there are NESers that think being drunk while sleeping in a truck with the key in the ignition while NOT driving should be an arrestable offense........I'll leave it at that.

On the flipside of this. a buddy of mine was leaving the bar he runs at closing. He had a couple(probably 5) "shift drinks" before he left, and thought he'd be fine. For whatever reason, he realized after 1/2 mile that he wasn't. He pulled into a gas station parking lot, left the car running(it was February), and went to sleep. When he woke up around dawn, he found a local officer's business card in the window with a note:

"Thanks for being smart and sleeping it off instead of continuing home. I noticed you here, came over to check on you and smelled the booze. I kept an eye on you while i was on shift, have a great day"

Yes there were bad decisions made by my buddy, but no harm came of it, and he has since become pretty good friends with that cop, who I know, and is one of the good guys.

 

[pastera]

On the flipside of this. a buddy of mine was leaving the bar he runs at closing. He had a couple(probably 5) "shift drinks" before he left, and thought he'd be fine. For whatever reason, he realized after 1/2 mile that he wasn't. He pulled into a gas station parking lot, left the car running(it was February), and went to sleep. When he woke up around dawn, he found a local officer's business card in the window with a note:

"Thanks for being smart and sleeping it off instead of continuing home. I noticed you here, came over to check on you and smelled the booze. I kept an eye on you while i was on shift, have a great day"

Yes there were bad decisions made by my buddy, but no harm came of it, and he has since become pretty good friends with that cop, who I know, and is one of the good guys.

Difference between community policing and JBT

 

[Len-2A Training]

Pardon my ignorance but you can get arrested for being responsible and choosing not to drive?

Second question: if the keys are in your pocket can you still get jammed up?

Sadly the answer to both is YES!

Back in the early 1980s I was FLABBERGASTED when I was told that merely being in the car, whether the front seat or rear seat, even if no keys in ignition, MGL does indeed define this as OUI!!!!!!!!!!!!

In that time-frame nobody in my PD arrested anyone for sleeping it off. Today, it is quite different. I think if you look at your car as you stumble by it they will arrest you for OUI, and I'm only being a little bit facetious here. I am very glad to no longer wear that uniform.

On the flipside of this. a buddy of mine was leaving the bar he runs at closing. He had a couple(probably 5) "shift drinks" before he left, and thought he'd be fine. For whatever reason, he realized after 1/2 mile that he wasn't. He pulled into a gas station parking lot, left the car running(it was February), and went to sleep. When he woke up around dawn, he found a local officer's business card in the window with a note:

"Thanks for being smart and sleeping it off instead of continuing home. I noticed you here, came over to check on you and smelled the booze. I kept an eye on you while i was on shift, have a great day"

Yes there were bad decisions made by my buddy, but no harm came of it, and he has since become pretty good friends with that cop, who I know, and is one of the good guys.

That's pretty much how things were back in the 1980s, not so much any more.

 

[Bonesinium]

On the flipside of this. a buddy of mine was leaving the bar he runs at closing. He had a couple(probably 5) "shift drinks" before he left, and thought he'd be fine. For whatever reason, he realized after 1/2 mile that he wasn't. He pulled into a gas station parking lot, left the car running(it was February), and went to sleep. When he woke up around dawn, he found a local officer's business card in the window with a note:

"Thanks for being smart and sleeping it off instead of continuing home. I noticed you here, came over to check on you and smelled the booze. I kept an eye on you while i was on shift, have a great day"

Yes there were bad decisions made by my buddy, but no harm came of it, and he has since become pretty good friends with that cop, who I know, and is one of the good guys.

That's awesome. There is no need to make people into criminals who do or try to do the right thing. None. Sounds like a cop to respect. Any cop who would handle that the opposite way deserves no respect from anyone ever.


Treat people with respect. Help people out rather than being a douchebag and levying charges against them because you can. What benefit is it to anyone to send people to jail, legal land, and even prison for paper crimes? It doesn't do a damn thing to keep people safe. In fact I'd argue it makes things much more less safe. It creates an animosity amongst people, hurts (or eliminates) trust, causes people to less respect others, and puts people in positions of financial loss. But of course too many police don't care about any of those things. Too many prosecutors don't care about any of those things. Too many judges don't care about any of those things. And too many legislators don't care about any of those things. Personal financial gain for immoral reasons reigns supreme. It is disgusting.

 

[Serapis]

Sadly the answer to both is YES!

Back in the early 1980s I was FLABBERGASTED when I was told that merely being in the car, whether the front seat or rear seat, even if no keys in ignition, MGL does indeed define this as OUI!!!!!!!!!!!!

In that time-frame nobody in my PD arrested anyone for sleeping it off. Today, it is quite different. I think if you look at your car as you stumble by it they will arrest you for OUI, and I'm only being a little bit facetious here. I am very glad to no longer wear that uniform.




That's pretty much how things were back in the 1980s, not so much any more.

You need to prove operation. Operation being keys in the ignition.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Len-2A Training]

You need to prove operation. Operation being keys in the ignition.

Not from what I was told by senior officers. I never did test this out. I thought it was ridiculous then and still do.

 

[groundscrapers]

I'm more concerned about the legal precedent this could set. If it's different levels for guns vs cars others will say one or the other needs to be stricter. Then what.... Caffein, nicotine?

 

[Serapis]

Not from what I was told by senior officers. I never did test this out. I thought it was ridiculous then and still do.

Well, I can tell you this is what they teach at inservice these last few years. I can also tell you this is what the courts want too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[GPP]

Well, I can tell you this is what they teach at inservice these last few years. I can also tell you this is what the courts want too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yup.

 

[Bonesinium]

I'm more concerned about the legal precedent this could set. If it's different levels for guns vs cars others will say one or the other needs to be stricter. Then what.... Caffein, nicotine?

" while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C, or the vapors of glue"

"“Depressant or stimulant substance”,

(a) a drug which contains any quantity of barbituric acid or any of the salts of barbituric acid; or any derivative of barbituric acid which the United States Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has by regulation designated as habit forming; or

(b) a drug which contains any quantity of amphetamine or any of its optical isomers; any salt of amphetamine or any salt of an optical isomer of amphetamine; or any substance which the United States Attorney General has by regulation designated as habit forming because of its stimulant effect on the central nervous system; or

(c) lysergic acid diethylamide; or

(d) any drug except marihuana which contains any quantity of a substance which the United States Attorney General has by regulation designated as having a potential for abuse because of its depressant or stimulant effect on the central nervous system or its hallucinogenic effect."

"“Narcotic drug”, any of the following, whether produced directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of vegetable origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis:

(a) Opium and opiate, and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium or opiate;

(b) Any salt, compound, isomer, derivative, or preparation thereof which is chemically equivalent or identical with any of the substances referred to in clause (a), but not including the isoquinoline alkaloids of opium;

(c) Opium poppy and poppy straw;

(d) Coca leaves and any salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of coca leaves, and any salt, compound, isomer, derivative, or preparation thereof which is chemically equivalent or identical with any of these substances, but not including decocainized coca leaves or extractions of coca leaves which do not contain cocaine or ecgonine."

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well, I can tell you this is what they teach at inservice these last few years. I can also tell you this is what the courts want too.

Please check my post wrt WHEN I am talking about. Lots of changes over the years, although I'm having a hard time accepting that something actually got better over that time-frame. For the record, I left the PD in 1996.

My PD is brutal about everything these days. Perhaps they get bonuses for writing a lot, I don't know but it certainly sounds that way.

 

[GPP]

I know that LenS is not an attorney, but he is pretty much our resident expert on MA firearm laws. What you say is only valid if those guns are NOT purchased/registered in the state of MA as the police will come with a list of everything that they know (or believe) that you own, which is what I was referring to. To try to locate them out of state will only delay the inevitable (if they are on the list).

Incorrect. The " list" Is still the big pink elephant in the room. As of just last week actually, we had one of our more over zealous, younger officers (an *******, in the parlance of our times) attempt to use "the list" to retrieve firearms from someones home in a domestic dispute incident. "The list" isnt enough PC to obtain a search warrant ( as of yet anyways) and MadameClerk that verbally smoted him ( much to the rest of our delight) advised him there is no case law in regards to this. I dont knowif that is % 100 accurate, but it was good to see this jerkoff cop get smacked down.

 

[Serapis]

Please check my post wrt WHEN I am talking about. Lots of changes over the years, although I'm having a hard time accepting that something actually got better over that time-frame. For the record, I left the PD in 1996.

My PD is brutal about everything these days. Perhaps they get bonuses for writing a lot, I don't know but it certainly sounds that way.

Roger.

Some things get better while others get worse. Sucks they all just can't get better.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Roger.

Some things get better while others get worse. Sucks they all just can't get better.

Over my 17 yrs with the department I also learned that some officers were less than clueless about some laws. I walked into a rant one day as an officer was yelling about a yellow CAMP Bus (actually a school bus but used as a camp bus during the summer) with flashing red lights stopped for children. He proudly announced that they had no right to use the flashing red lights, that the law only applied to school buses and he blew by the bus instead of stopping (in his POV). My Academy instructor for C. 90 was a Deputy Registrar (before all the mergers with MSP) and a guru on C. 90, so I called him and asked. Law is the same for school bus or camp bus, if proper lights and signage. I also asked some of our guys back then about Left on Red and nobody had any idea. I also watched a Brockton PO (not my department) pull over a car for a Left on Red (2 intersecting 1 way streets) a number of years ago.

 

[DarthRevan]

I'm fairly disgusted with all of you who this this guy should get the book thrown at him. If all he damaged was his car and his ego, then let him pay the damages and move on. No muss no fuss.
I have a pair of old boots I can donate if your local law enforcement officials aren't close enough to lick theirs.

 

[whacko]

Not yet, but in general I evolve slowly, plus I've only been arrested once. Obviously wasn't my fault, was just turning my life around.

Give it time...by next year I'll be posting selfies on facebook open-carrying an 80% lower AR build at a fast food chain in Worcester

After a couple years on this site, it still amazes me that more people don't stick around for the open debates, fraternity, inclusive community and healthy perspectives.

We can agree do disagree here. No biggie. The funniest thing you might want to know about me is I NEVER drive after drinking even one beer........cable lock all my long guns when transporting and encase my postols when transporting except for the one loaded and on my person.......have a big safe to keep my fire arms in at home (Sept the loaded one in a small access safe in the bedroom).......and have never had a negative interraction with a police officer. I do all these things because to me its common sense......none of which should be regulated or legislated by the big government.

 

[dgrafton]

You need to prove operation. Operation being keys in the ignition.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, but they don't need 'proof' to cause a big legal and money nightmare. Not everyone can afford a decent lawyer to fight bulls*** charges.

 

[Serapis]

Yeah, but they don't need 'proof' to cause a big legal and money nightmare. Not everyone can afford a decent lawyer to fight bulls*** charges.

True. Some could care less and its BS.

Getting a bad rap around the courts for incompetence can be really bad for future arrests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Martlet]

Today looks like a good day to make some criminals. Let's go, boys!

 

[namedpipes]

. . . and all crimes have tangible victims, . . .

A 22 yo prostitute that gets regular health and STD checkups and requires safe sex practices is still committing a crime. (Except in certain counties of Nevada and in Rhode Island)

A single, of age "john" that also gets regular health and STD checkups and always uses a condom, is committing a crime.

Where's that victim?

So if I'm at a house party and go out to put up my Windows if it rains I can get cuffed? . . .

Yes.

. . . and MadameClerk that verbally smoted him ( much to the rest of our delight) . . .

That's just smote: ... that verbally smote him ...

Yeah, but they don't need 'proof' to cause a big legal and money nightmare. Not everyone can afford a decent lawyer to fight bulls*** charges.

Our "justice" system is awesome in that you really can fight the system, unlike many countries where you can just kiss your life away if accused.

Of course this only applies, as you pointed out, to those that can afford the defense.

*I* think there oughta be a law that the State is required to pay in total, the cost of your defense IF you win. Whether your lawyer is Joe Pesci or that dude that got OJ off.

 

[OfficerObie59]

A 22 yo prostitute that gets regular health and STD checkups and requires safe sex practices is still committing a crime. (Except in certain counties of Nevada and in Rhode Island)

A single, of age "john" that also gets regular health and STD checkups and always uses a condom, is committing a crime.

Where's that victim?

"I don't understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal. ****ing is legal. Why isn't selling ****ing legal? You know, why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away? I can't follow the logic on that one at all! Of all the things you can do, giving someone an orgasm is hardly the worst thing in the world. In the army they give you a medal for spraying napalm on people! In civilian life you go to jail for giving someone an orgasm." - George Carlin

 

[namedpipes]

"I don't understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal. ****ing is legal. Why isn't selling ****ing legal? You know, why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away? I can't follow the logic on that one at all! Of all the things you can do, giving someone an orgasm is hardly the worst thing in the world. In the army they give you a medal for spraying napalm on people! In civilian life you go to jail for giving someone an orgasm." - George Carlin

Well, George certainly had a better way with words than I

 

[Cmaro21]

*I* think there oughta be a law that the State is required to pay in total, the cost of your defense IF you win. Whether your lawyer is Joe Pesci or that dude that got OJ off.

I am NOT for more law on principle, God knows we have enough already, but I bend on this. The burden this would place upon the State and Towns, pressuring the DA's, pressuring the local PD's and Staties to knock off the BS. I think this would force more of a constitutional muster among the JBT that are out there. Complete speculation, but if this existed, the OP's friend may not have been jammed up, along with many other victims of the BS MA laws mentioned throughout this thread.