• 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.

Friend is losing his LTC

namedpipes said:
*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.
Click to expand...

Cmaro21 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope, the states will just build that shit into budgets and pass the cost along to the taxpayer.

If you think it beneficial to the defendant, then fine. But if you think it will dissuade government action, think again. It'll merely be considered a cost of doing business.
 
I'm for making the state pay, but the first part of the money comes out of the arresting officer and prosecutor's personal paycheck. Find out then how many less arrests we have, which is what really needs to happen.
 
xtry51 said:
I'm for making the state pay, but the first part of the money comes out of the arresting officer and prosecutor's personal paycheck. Find out then how many less arrests we have, which is what really needs to happen.
Click to expand...
Then no one's rights would be protected, which is the purpose of the criminal law when properly executed.

It's like making a citizens arrest in Massachusetts. You're only protected if the person is found guilty. So no one does it.
 
OfficerObie59 said:
Then no one's rights would be protected, which is the purpose of the criminal law when properly executed.

It's like making a citizens arrest in Massachusetts. You're only protected if the person is found guilty. So no one does it.
Click to expand...

Sure they would. The system would just evolve, as it has in the past. The introduction of accountability is what keeps the system balanced and honest.
 
Let's at least try to keep this on topic please. Where to go to pay for "services" is not on topic.
 
JoeT said:
As I'm getting ready this morning. I notice the blood pressure medicine I take has a warning "This drug may impair ability to operate a vehicle, vessel or machine. Use Care"

I don't think I should carry my pistol today... or have it in my trunk
Click to expand...

I think you're being facetious, but in case you're not: I don't know of any blood pressure medicines that would land you in trouble under 260.10H. Many antidepressants are fine as well.

Many drugs of all kinds can make you drowsy, especially when you first start taking them or when you change the dose. It makes sense to be careful about driving and carrying in those situations, even if the law does not require it.

Some common sleeping meds—including zaleplon (Sonata), zolpidem (Ambien, Ivadal, Stilnoct, Stilnox), and zopiclone (Lunesta)—are controlled substances (Schedule IV). I think they are included under 94C.1(d), so you can't drive or carry.
 
OfficerObie59 said:
Then no one's rights would be protected, which is the purpose of the criminal law when properly executed.

It's like making a citizens arrest in Massachusetts. You're only protected if the person is found guilty. So no one does it.
Click to expand...

Personally I'd rather have that situation than the one we're dealing with now. The only other solution is to repeal 99% of laws that exist, which we both know isn't going to happen without a civil war.
 
namedpipes said:
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?
Click to expand...
Ok ok...I see what you did there.

No, the NES position is all crimes have: 1) a tangible victim, 2) undeniable proof, 3) objective determination of recklessness and/or intent to do harm, & 4) a criminal.

All we have there are people breaking laws. George Carlin nailed it; the 2nd oldest profession is tax collection and prostitution is illegal only when it's not taxed.
whacko said:
...The funniest thing you might want to know about me..... I do all these things because to me its common sense......none of which should be regulated or legislated by the big government.
Click to expand...
Not surprised at all - was that a picture of you in the white cap shooting in front of white lattice at an IDPA match at HSC recently? If so, then we met this season when I was checking out the sport/events. I was totally ignorant, and in real life you were friendly, approachable, tolerant and educational.

A wise man once said, "The phrase 'common sense' is a dangerous misnomer: it's seldom common, and rarely makes sense to everyone".
 
AlwaysBeClosing said:
Ok ok...I see what you did there.

No, the NES position is all crimes have: 1) a tangible victim, 2) undeniable proof, 3) objective determination of recklessness and/or intent to do harm, & 4) a criminal.

All we have there are people breaking laws. George Carlin nailed it; the 2nd oldest profession is tax collection and prostitution is illegal only when it's not taxed.

Not surprised at all - was that a picture of you in the white cap shooting in front of white lattice at an IDPA match at HSC recently? If so, then we met this season when I was checking out the sport/events. I was totally ignorant, and in real life you were friendly, approachable, tolerant and educational.

A wise man once said, "The phrase 'common sense' is a dangerous misnomer: it's seldom common, and rarely makes sense to everyone".
Click to expand...

You totally missed my point in all of that. If you really read it I'm saying I'm actually tollerant........meaning I act in a safe manner in accordance to my sense of what that that means......you know by knowing my limits......but......you can and should have the right to do what you want you know......because freedom.

To me that is the quitesential definition of tollerant.

I used to be a right wing intollerant SOB........then I started to you know......mature.
 
Last edited:
I believe the point is that in MA at least... It is illegal to consume ANY alcoholics beverages while in possession of a firearm.
 
Glockshot21 said:
Ok so correct me if im wrong

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You said it is illegal to consume alcohol while in possession of a firearm. That is not true. In MA, it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm while under the influence of alcohol. See:

https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter269/section10h

The difference between what you wrote and the law is that 1) possess != carry, 2) you omitted "loaded", 3) consume alcohol != under the influence.
 
Last edited:
M1911 said:
You said it is illegal to consume alcohol while in possession of a firearm. That is not true. In MA, it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm while under the influence of alcohol. See:

https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter269/section10h

The difference between what you wrote and the law is that 1) possess != carry, 2) you omitted "loaded, 3) consume alcohol != under the influence.
Click to expand...

Don't forget vapors of glue. So many of us gun owners are into huffing model airplane glue, don't you know.
 
namedpipes said:
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)
Click to expand...

Committing a crime in Rhode Island now. Law changed a few years ago.

And a 'john' is a felon in many states, making for a prohibited person.
 
OfficerObie59 said:
Nope, the states will just build that shit into budgets and pass the cost along to the taxpayer.

If you think it beneficial to the defendant, then fine. But if you think it will dissuade government action, think again. It'll merely be considered a cost of doing business.
Click to expand...

I have found that the most effective way to get peoples attention or get them to change their tune is through their wallet. I think you are right and they would pass the cost but eventually (again speculating) the tax payers will get fed up and "demand action" to stop whatever is causing their costs to go up. The time that would take... who knows. Right now there is nothing that would cost the state for bogus time spent in court for lawyers and fees.

Back to the OP - I hope that your friend has lawyered up, and I don't want a response to that. I think any further info is best left between you and your buddy.
 
white feather said:
+this. There is nothing better than the smell of a fine vintage (old formula) Hoppe's no 9. [grin]
White Feather
Click to expand...

I have found I lose the "nose" for hoppes after a couple of cleaning sessions........so I'll switch to mil spec CLP which has less "hit" to the nose but a slight hint of amonia in the middle and a heavy "earthy" linger. Then when I lose the nose for CLP I'll switch back to Hoppes for a good cleaning session.
 

Similar threads

Need a good 2A attorney for a friend
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
249
M1911
M1911
Neighbor Died widow gave me his guns
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
LTC Turnaround Woburn?
Replies
1
Views
166
2-4-5 Trioxin
2-4-5 Trioxin
Expiring medical marijuana card and obtaining LTC
Replies
2
Views
128
Coda
Coda
Back
Top Bottom