Friend is losing his LTC

Win said:
How many drinks is .05%?
Click to expand...

Depends on a person's body weight (more accurately how much blood they have in them.) If you're a skinny super model it's probably like a glass of wine. If you're a big bubba, probably 2 or 3 beers.

Either way it's probably not even a "buzz" for most people.
 
I have a good friend who is a D.A. and her advice is always the same. Don't talk to the cops. It makes it a lot harder for them (the lawyers) to do their jobs when we don't give them any info or ammo against us when arrested. She says most people incriminate themselves just by "talking" to the police. Her advice - "If you think I'm guilty of something, then arrest me for it." And then STFU!
 
Well.... It's actually up to a jury really, but as for getting charged that's correct. (And in practice that's almost as bad as a conviction.) I would think that a good lawyer would be able to argue that the standard for "under the influence" is the that's one already defined in the law. Then again this is MA where the jury pool as a whole is not exactly gun friendly.
Click to expand...
The late Darius Arbabi told me of a case where the client was arrested for carrying under the influence, but not OUI as he was below the legal standard. He told me he won that case, and hammered the cop on "so, he was legally sober to drive, is that correct?".
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The late Darius Arbabi told me of a case where the client was arrested for carrying under the influence, but not OUI as he was below the legal standard. He told me he won that case, and hammered the cop on "so, he was legally sober to drive, is that correct?".
Click to expand...

He was something else! Miss you D.
 
knfmn said:
This. What most of the statists on this forum who squawk about how awful anyone who has a couple of beers and drives don't seem to comprehend is that the people who are after your guns are now using the same tactics that MADD used to get laws applying ridiculous punishments for having a beer before driving put into place.

In both cases we have people who get up in public and scream bloody murder, weeping and wailing about how it's for the CHILDREN! If we only put a couple more restrictions in place we can save the CHILDREN!

What would happen if I decided to have four beers and go for a drive this evening? Absolutely nothing. I would take my drive, come home, have dinner and go to sleep. What would happen if I decided I wanted an M16 with an 11" barrel and a supressor? Absolutely nothing, except the drive I take would be to the range.

They are both entirely victimless crimes in and of themselves, but people insist on making a distinction. You're not hurting anyone by drinking and driving anymore than you're hurting someone by possessing a FA firearm.

We currently have guys in black ninja suits kicking in doors and killing women and animals because they suspect that some poor sucker has a gun that's too short, too quiet or too fast. It's not a far step from that to kicking in doors because they suspect that you had two beers instead of one with dinner and you might go for a drive later.

Have some sympathy for the poor bastard who is up shit creek now and is having his entire life ruined for the CHILDREN. It's a victimless crime until you hurt someone, but the powers that be are ruining people over it.
Click to expand...

While I agree with pretty much everything you said, I have to call you on that part I highlighted. I feel that is a poor analogy because simply possessing a FA firearm in itself does not put anyone at risk (as you said, victimless crime), but driving while impaired is very likely to hurt you, or someone else. The only debatable part is whether driving with a BAC of .05 puts anyone in danger. The whole thing is FUBAR though. I suspect he will be able to beat most of the charges with a good attorney, but suitability will likely cause permanent loss of his LTC unfortunately.
 
If this thread starts turning into another drunk driving bitch fest it will be closed. We've had dozens of those and they always end badly. Fair warning.
 
Wait -- handguns have to be unloaded in the trunk???
I thought that only applied to long guns???

I may (or may not) have been transporting loaded handguns in the trunk forever. What else would someone do when headed up to NH?

In the trunk, in a box, under the spare tire, strapped down and surrounded by rottweilers?

[shocked][shocked][shocked][shocked][shocked]
 
weldingmachine said:
.05 is not drunk.
That is no worse than taking a cold pill.
That is One beer with dinner, a long long way from drunk..
Until there is a ZERO% accident rate for unimpaired, undistracted, people that is a crock of shit.
Yet cops can fly down the highway at 75 mph while playing with their laptops...
Click to expand...


Just an anecdote to add. If you hold a CDL drivers license, whether your driving a commercial vehicle, or your personal vehicle, .04 bac will get you arrested, and .02 bac will get you put "out of service" for 24 hrs, and your employer/safety officer will be notified! Federal DOT regulation!

Random roadside tests are sometimes conducted by the DOT, or State Police truck teams, legally I might add. If you refuse, you can kiss your job/livelyhood goodbye.

Random tests may also be conducted at your place of employment. It could be at any time. Think about it! 3:00, 4:00, 5:00 AM!!!
 
knfmn said:
This. What most of the statists on this forum who squawk about how awful anyone who has a couple of beers and drives don't seem to comprehend is that the people who are after your guns are now using the same tactics that MADD used to get laws applying ridiculous punishments for having a beer before driving put into place.

In both cases we have people who get up in public and scream bloody murder, weeping and wailing about how it's for the CHILDREN! If we only put a couple more restrictions in place we can save the CHILDREN!

What would happen if I decided to have four beers and go for a drive this evening? Absolutely nothing. I would take my drive, come home, have dinner and go to sleep. What would happen if I decided I wanted an M16 with an 11" barrel and a supressor? Absolutely nothing, except the drive I take would be to the range.

They are both entirely victimless crimes in and of themselves, but people insist on making a distinction. You're not hurting anyone by drinking and driving anymore than you're hurting someone by possessing a FA firearm.

We currently have guys in black ninja suits kicking in doors and killing women and animals because they suspect that some poor sucker has a gun that's too short, too quiet or too fast. It's not a far step from that to kicking in doors because they suspect that you had two beers instead of one with dinner and you might go for a drive later.

Have some sympathy for the poor bastard who is up shit creek now and is having his entire life ruined for the CHILDREN. It's a victimless crime until you hurt someone, but the powers that be are ruining people over it.
Click to expand...


I didn't realize drinking was a constitutional right, or driving for that matter. You are comparing apples to oranges. I mean remember that thing called prohibition. There was actually an amendment against it. (Stupid as it was) Comparing the second to drinking cheapens it.
 
Quiet said:
Wait -- handguns have to be unloaded in the trunk???
I thought that only applied to long guns???

I may (or may not) have been transporting loaded handguns in the trunk forever. What else would someone do when headed up to NH?

In the trunk, in a box, under the spare tire, strapped down and surrounded by rottweilers?

[shocked][shocked][shocked][shocked][shocked]
Click to expand...

I am really dumbstruck by this after a more careful reading of the laws...
I can only imagine that since it wasn't spelled out like it is for large capacity guns (that they must be unloaded) it caused me to misread the law.

Good grief. What a convoluted, inconsistent, erratic, confusing, incomprehansible piece of shit set of laws we have.
 
Tango680 said:
I didn't realize drinking was a constitutional right, or driving for that matter. You are comparing apples to oranges. I mean remember that thing called prohibition. There was actually an amendment against it. (Stupid as it was) Comparing the second to drinking cheapens it.
Click to expand...

Another constitutional Obama student joins the fray [rolleyes]
 
2 pronged impairment statute for driving. He's fooked on the improper storage though. He should go to trial in the impaired driving bit.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The late Darius Arbabi told me of a case where the client was arrested for carrying under the influence, but not OUI as he was below the legal standard. He told me he won that case, and hammered the cop on "so, he was legally sober to drive, is that correct?".
Click to expand...

This
 
Skylineracer329 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Skylineracer329 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Skylineracer329 said:
UPDATE:

The "unofficial breathalyzer" was not counted and won't be admitted as evidence. He was taken to the police station after being discharged from the hospital and offered a breathalyzer test that will be admitted as evidence, which he refused. So now he's fighting a DUI charge as well.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight he flipped his car and a gun fell out and he wasn't drunk.

Then he really didn't flip his car and a gun didn't fall out and he still wasn't drunk.

Then he took the "unofficial breathalyzer since it didn't count.

And then he refuses to take a breathalyzer that will count probably hours later when he should be sober by now.

I don't know if he should be arrested for under the influence but he should be charged with stupidity.
 
xtry51 said:
That's not the same scenario as the cop showing up and knowing nothing. He saw you do it, and it's a ticket not jail time. Big difference.
Click to expand...
In my experience talking to The Man for during traffic stops has paid off handsomely. In my 18 of driving, I've been pulled over 9 times, ticketed 5 times, and only ended up actually paying one of the tickets. Luckily that one was an out of state ticket and the points never made it to my insurance. I will say that all 3" of my skull were finally penetrated and the last one was '08. It really would have been easier though to just not drive like a putz......
 
swatgig said:
Guy needs a lawyer, and quieter friends.
Click to expand...

In case the other 30 posts echoning this point weren't enough: He needs a good lawyer.

Skylineracer329 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let me try to shed some light here:

#1 re: OUI.

What the friend in this case was given is known as a "portable breath test" or PBT. PBT's have NOT be given judicial notice in Massachusetts, and are inadmissible at trial to prove the guilt of an OUI defendant. They are considered on the level of a field sobriety test, similar to the horizontal gauze-nystagmus test in that, while both cannot be admitted at trial, they are used to confirm and compound probable cause to make sure an arrest or charge is on solid ground. It's also for that reason that I'm at a bit of a loss as to why after blowing a .05 on the PBT, the trooper still decided to go forward with charges; strikes me as being a weak as shit case. Once you're arrested or charged, only then are you offered the actual chemical breath test at the PD or barracks (or blood test at the hospital). You'll know that you're being offered the real test because the officer will read you a long rights statement explaining in excruciating detail the possible consequences of refusal or failure.

As an aside, it's a little known fact that in Massachusetts, OUI can be charged and the defendant convicted on a measured alcohol level of above .05 and below .08 on the official post-arrest/charge chemical test. Now, if your BAC is a .08 or above, there is PRESUMPTION of intoxication. That presumption is not present if you blow above a .05 and below .08; the fact finder will have to determine guilt with an even balance either way. According to ch. 90, §24(e), if you blow a .05 or below, then and only then do the police have to release you from custody.

#2 re: Carrying Loaded while Intoxicated

There is no case law outlining the intoxication level required for charging ch. 269, §10H, and as has been discussed, the statute is silent. At least in my experience where I work, there has been long assumed a de facto .08 standard for charging 10H violations, though exceptional circumstances might allow flexibility (think a guy who's .06 plinking at street lights). I've long thought this statute ripe for a void-for-vaugeness challenge, though we've seen how such challenges have gone in state courts in the past--not well.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the friend needs a good lawyer to review the case and reports for possible criminal procedure challenges. I would say, however, that a suitability challenge based on the facts at issue is likely to be upheld eight ways to Sunday.
 
Last edited:
In God We Trust said:
They also inventory before a car is impounded regardless of arrest. May vary from town to town.

If it is a voluntary tow, the contents of your vehicle are your problem. If the tow is against your will, the town and the tow company are on the hook if you say you had a MacBook in the trunk that is missing.
Click to expand...
That's generally the gist of most inventory policies. If you're not there to remove your stuff, the inventory is meant to ensure you can't claim they or the tow company stole shit or caused damage that was already there.
 

Similar threads

Free LTC?
Replies
3
Views
378
OMM 0000
OMM 0000
ltc in worcester
Replies
8
Views
258
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Trying to sell my Anderson lower to a friend
Replies
27
Views
639
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
LTC renewal question
Replies
4
Views
211
Sam P
S
LTC renewal in Quincy
Replies
6
Views
221
nin7474
nin7474
Back
Top Bottom