-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Friend is losing his LTC
- Thread starter Skylineracer329
- Start date
Yeah the math isnt adding up in my head anyways. Methinks there may be more to this long story short.
- - - Updated - - -
Blow or go to jail? Dam Ive been doing it wrong for 26years! Get all his guns tho before they disappear into the village vortexSkylineracer329;4I68813 said:
Horrible
NES Member
I thought that the law just says "under the influence" and not intoxicated, but I could be wrong. Either way, its open to interpretation.
Any which way that shakes out, it sounds like the OP's buddy is screwed on the improper storage crap.
FrugalFannie
NES Member
how can you be possessing and storing at the same time?
cockpitbob
NES Member
To put .05 into context, the FAA has 2 rules about drinking and flying:
1) No flying within 8hrs of having even 1 drink.
2) No BAC level above .04 This was put in place for when there are no witnesses to the drink within 8hrs.
So, the FAA, which can be really strict, won't bust you for .039. That tells me .05 is pretty small potatoes.
1) No flying within 8hrs of having even 1 drink.
2) No BAC level above .04 This was put in place for when there are no witnesses to the drink within 8hrs.
So, the FAA, which can be really strict, won't bust you for .039. That tells me .05 is pretty small potatoes.
Ok so he called me and I have the full story. It's full of all sorts if poor life choices.
He crashes his car. No roll over, Nothing fell out of his trunk.
Responding trooper ran him in the system, dispatch advised the trooper of my friends LTC. Trooper asks if he has any firearms on him, my friend says he has one in the trunk.
My friend went to the hospital. Trooper met him there. Trooper asked if he wants to take "an unofficial breathalyzer test". My friend says yes and blows a 0.05.
Seems to me like he should have refused any searches an denied the breathalyzer.
He crashes his car. No roll over, Nothing fell out of his trunk.
Responding trooper ran him in the system, dispatch advised the trooper of my friends LTC. Trooper asks if he has any firearms on him, my friend says he has one in the trunk.
My friend went to the hospital. Trooper met him there. Trooper asked if he wants to take "an unofficial breathalyzer test". My friend says yes and blows a 0.05.
Seems to me like he should have refused any searches an denied the breathalyzer.
Because there were two violations......he posessed a gun while intoxicated.....meaning it was in his vehicle......if it had been locked up according to MGL transport laws I assume he would only have the intoxicated posession charge. As the gun was not locked up and LOADED ads the transport/storage violation. Thats my take anyway
ccm75
NES Member
Apples vs. Oranges - OUI and carrying while under the influence. I'm thinking it's totally based on LEO's opinion as to persons impairment...
https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter269/section10h:
Section 10H. Whoever, having in effect a license to carry firearms issued under section 131 or 131F of chapter 140, carries on his person, or has under his control in a vehicle, a loaded firearm, as defined in section 121 of said chapter 140, 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 shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter269/section10h:
Section 10H. Whoever, having in effect a license to carry firearms issued under section 131 or 131F of chapter 140, carries on his person, or has under his control in a vehicle, a loaded firearm, as defined in section 121 of said chapter 140, 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 shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Yup. Glad he didn't kill anyone with his car.
A good lawyer should be able to work around a .05 on anything but a blood test provided your friend kept his mouth shut.
What about the transport law though? Loaded rifle in the trunk?
Only chance I think is a good lawyer that will argue the admissability of the evidence based on how the officer found out about the gun in the trunk......oh.....yeah......never mind the guy admitted he told the LEO he had it never mind.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
MA has implied consent, you agree to this by having a driver's license. if they say blow, you blow or they hook you up. from there it's up to the court and there's no evidence to substantiate the claim of you being drunk. however violating the implied consent bullshit:
double added bonus: was he arrested for DUI? doesn't apply if that was not the reason for his arrest.
either way he should have shut the actual **** up about the firearm and dealt with it wherever the car got towed to.
double added bonus: was he arrested for DUI? doesn't apply if that was not the reason for his arrest.
either way he should have shut the actual **** up about the firearm and dealt with it wherever the car got towed to.
What about the transport law though? Loaded rifle in the trunk?
Only chance I think is a good lawyer that will argue the admissability of the evidence based on how the officer found out about the gun in the trunk......oh.....yeah......never mind the guy admitted he told the LEO he had it never mind.
OP didn't post that it was loaded.
It's interesting that the cop nailed him with both. Here are the relevant statutes:
Let's try some logic (Yeah, I know, logic and Massachusetts law don't go together):
If he broke 269.10H (what you refer to as "intoxicated possession," although it's actually carrying under the influence), then he had the the gun on his person or under his control in the vehicle. There are two consequences of that:
1. If the gun was under his control, then it is not "deemed stored and kept," according to 140.131L(a), so he cannot be guilty of improper storage.
2. If the gun was under his control, then he's doing what 130.131C(a) requires of him, so he cannot be guilty of improper transport either.
Now let's try it the other way.
If he is not guilty of carrying under the influence (10H), then it's mean that a loaded gun in the trunk is not considered to be under his control. Then, (according to Reyes) it's up to a jury to decide if the trunk is not good enough for the gun to be "secured in a locked container," or whether he is guilty of improper storage (131L). The government could also argue that because the car was moving, 131C comes into play, and he is guilty of breaking 131C because a loaded handgun is required to be under his control.
Last edited:
Yes.....He.....Did
"Long story short, left his gun in his trunk, loaded. Rolled his car over, trunk opens and gun falls out. Cop nailed him with intoxicated possession (0.05 BAC) and improper storage. Oops."
CRSIII
NES Member
Remember the good ole' days? When you could be drunk at the saloon and drop your peacemaker.
You got a place to crash and your gun back in the am.
Ahh, the 1850's.
You got a place to crash and your gun back in the am.
Ahh, the 1850's.
Last edited:
Not sure how it works in MA, but if the cops had it towed, they would have performed an inventory search and discovered
the firearm anyways.
- - - Updated - - -
Oooops... my mistake, I missed it two times.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
its good for everyone to hear these stories so we can be reminded how ridiculous this state is. i dont think a right minded person can ever be too cautious in this nanny state.
also storing a loaded gun in a trunk is beyond stupid, at least in MA. for like $50 one can acquire a lockbox with cable tie-down and just store mags separately then problem solved (more or less)
also storing a loaded gun in a trunk is beyond stupid, at least in MA. for like $50 one can acquire a lockbox with cable tie-down and just store mags separately then problem solved (more or less)
If it's flopping around on the ground outside the car that's sort of a problem, or it got to the point where an inventory search was done. It's not apparent what actually happened because as usual, it reads sort of like a shitty news article.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
The irony of this is if the guy had it in a lockbox inside the trunk I'm not sure it would have gotten that far; perhaps if the LEO went FR and got authority to cut the locks off, etc.
-Mike
