Friend is losing his LTC

[M1911]

But you're still wrong!


Yeah, i quoted the wrong section but there really isn't anything to quote since there is no law saying you have to tell a cop that you're carrying without being asked. Maybe even if you are asked, you can refuse to speak. But you need to read the links. sorry. You're still wrong. Read the text of the mass law. No where does it state you must volunteer the information. Therefore, still, MA is not a "must inform state", which is what skyliner's original point was, and you asked for a cite. I got you the cite. So far as I read the law, since they don't say you have a duty to inform, you don't.

I read it again. I still don't see anything that says you must tell an officer you are carrying if asked. You keep saying it is there, so post the exact text that says that.

Are you claiming that I said you must inform a police officer that you are carrying? If so, then you need to reread my posts, because I've never said that.

 

[45collector]

Again, I'd fight for this moron's freedom on principle and just hope he doesn't kill anyone.

 

[Serapis]

For a point of clarification, an officer may demand a ltc. He cannot ask. There is a legal difference.

There is nothing in the law that states you have to make a statement as to if you have a firearm on you or your vehicle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OfficerObie59]

If it is for a 209A, you are correct the federal Lautenberg prohibition REQUIRES said PD to confiscate them.

Requires PD confiscation or requires owner's surrender?

An Act of Congress cannot command state and local law enforcement to execute Federal law. Interestingly enough, the case law on this, United States v. Printz, concerned local cops opposing part of the Brady gun bill back in the 1990's. This is also the same reason why local law enforcement can refuse to comply with the Secured Communities Program or refuse to tell ICE when they pick up suspected illegal aliens.

 

[M1911]

For a point of clarification, an officer may demand a ltc. He cannot ask. There is a legal difference.

There is nothing in the law that states you have to make a statement as to if you have a firearm on you or your vehicle.

Exactly!

 

[OfficerObie59]

For a point of clarification, an officer may demand a ltc. He cannot ask. There is a legal difference.

There was a case back 15 years ago or so out of Pittsfield where an officer "asked" if a seized suspect, in possession of a handgun, had an LTC.

He replied "no". The court later threw out the statement as a violation of Miranda, as the inquiry phrased as a question was considered "interrogation" and the suspect was in custody. The court stated while officers have a statutory power to demand presentation of an FID or LTC, they cannot cannot inquire from the outset as to whether suspect has one or not.

Thus, there is a distinct legal distinction between "Show me your LTC" and "Do you have an LTC?"

EDT: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/438/438mass790.html

 

[45collector]

For a point of clarification, an officer may demand a ltc. He cannot ask. There is a legal difference.

As in, if you admit that there is a firearm on your person or in your vehicle, the officer may then demand to see your LTC. If you never offer up that information in the first place, and if the officer cannot see any firearm in sight, there is no law that says you must show them your LTC if they ask if you have one? That about right?

 

[KMM696]

As in, if you admit that there is a firearm on your person or in your vehicle, the officer may then demand to see your LTC. If you never offer up that information in the first place, and if the officer cannot see any firearm in sight, there is no law that says you must show them your LTC if they ask if you have one? That about right?

Not really - see C140 S129C (u)

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,...

No qualifications on probable cause, suspicion, whether you told them you had a firearm. If the officer demands to see your LTC, you must exhibit it or be in violation of c140 S129C, unless you're on your property, or meet on of the other 129C exemptions.

 

[Serapis]

As in, if you admit that there is a firearm on your person or in your vehicle, the officer may then demand to see your LTC. If you never offer up that information in the first place, and if the officer cannot see any firearm in sight, there is no law that says you must show them your LTC if they ask if you have one? That about right?

An officer may demand your LTC regardless if you admit to possessing a firearm or not.

 

[45collector]

An officer may demand your LTC regardless if you admit to possessing a firearm or not.

Got it.

 

[NewGuyRay]

Maybe this is a question of semantics but, does having a firearm locked in the trunk require a "Yes" answer to be truthful if an officer asks, "Are there any firearms in the vehicle" or some such variant? Give how MA storage and transport laws treat a locked trunk that is inaccessible from the passenger compartment differently from the passenger compartment itself, isn't it possible for a reasonable person to interpret a question of "in the vehicle" as meaning in the passenger compartment?

Yes I realize that not answering at all is the best course of action but, if someone answered "No" to a question of in the vehicle would they have a defensible argument if accused of lying to the officer?

 

[OfficerObie59]

Not really - see C140 S129C (u)

No qualifications on probable cause, suspicion, whether you told them you had a firearm. If the officer demands to see your LTC, you must exhibit it or be in violation of c140 S129C, unless you're on your property, or meet on of the other 129C exemptions.

While, yeah, that's technically true, if you read the rest of the section, it assumes the person has a gun on their person since, if a person fails to do so, said gun can be held by police for up to 30 days.

Your point is correct in a vacuum, but it prevents a fluid, coherent reading of the statute. Furthermore, while the statute doesn't require at least reasonable suspicion, the 4th Amendment probably will.

 

[AlwaysBeClosing]

Whacko, you negative-repped me because I "really don't understand the definition of freedom"?!?!

First, thanks, I guess, for my first negative rep...mods, please take note.

Second, you're confused.

I understand the concept of freedom: it's wrong for JBTs to trick people into self-incrimination and getting freedom-raped.

My point is the guy is an idiot. He drove with at least a 0.08 BAC, without question, and that's stupid, plus he had a loaded gun and decided to tell a cop about it. I'm a former EMT and have seen bad results from drunk driving. I've also lost a couple friends to drunk drivers. Sucks man. Since there's no proof of an OUI, he shouldn't be charged.

If he was charged with an OUI, I'd join your angry mob.

 

[M1911]

My point is the guy is an idiot. He drove with at least a 0.08 BAC, without question,

You know that how? He blew a 0.05.

 

[jasons]

You know that how? He blew a 0.05.

At the scene if I'm reading the thread right.

 

[teaser452]

I read it again. I still don't see anything that says you must tell an officer you are carrying if asked. You keep saying it is there, so post the exact text that says that.

Are you claiming that I said you must inform a police officer that you are carrying? If so, then you need to reread my posts, because I've never said that.

Excuse me if i misinterpreted you, but...


Skyliner said this:



Originally Posted by Skylineracer329
Not sure the statute exactly. I'm just fairly certain you don't have to tell a cop the you are armed unless explicitly asked. I could be wrong.

then you said this in reply in post #139

Yes, you could be wrong and, in fact, I believe that you are.

So, I reread your posts, and it appeared to me that you explicitly said that skyliner was wrong. So, yes, you did say that you must inform a police officer if you're armed (based on telling skylineracer he was wrong), which is facially incorrect. Maybe you meant you don't have to tell him and can assert your right to remain silent?

You also asked for a cite, and I gave you one.

The english seems plain to me. You do NOT have to tell an officer who stops you if you're armed in MA. Some other states do make you tell the officer promtly if he he stops you. But, you also cannot lie, so if you're carrying, you must either tell if asked or remain silent if asked.

 

[M1911]

At the scene if I'm reading the thread right.

I don't get it. The only post that I see with any detail is:

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.

Might he have had a higher blood alcohol level at the scene? Maybe. Is there some proof of that that I'm missing?

 

[AlwaysBeClosing]

Might he have had a higher blood alcohol level at the scene? Maybe. Is there some proof of that that I'm missing?

There's no "proof" he was more intoxicated at the scene than at the hospital. It's just an extremely remote possibility he got more drunk after he stopped drinking. There's a very high probability this guy chose to drive drunk...this has nothing to do with how he was processed legally, "proof" or "freedom". These are totally separate topics.

At the scene if I'm reading the thread right.

Not by my read. He blew the 0.05 at the hospital.

So, as I understand:
- he gets behind the wheel (clock starts),
- drives (10? 20? 30? 40?) minutes,
- crashes, calls cops and AAA.

How long does it take for a cop to arrive at a single car MVA with no injuries? Then the cop questions the guy and processes the crash scene for an insurance-oriented report. Then everyone drives to a near/far hospital and the driver gets checked into the "non-emergency" queue, and the cop resumes casual questioning? That is a slog...not a fast process at all.

My experience is as an EMT...with a 911 call by a bystander, plus emergency response/ambulance, it could be as fast as 30 min from crash to hospital. There's no injuries, so no ambulance and no hurry to get to the scene initially, process it or get to the hospital.

~1-2 hrs is a conservative estimate of that whole scene, from when he starts to drive, to the breathalyzer. All the while the guy is metabolizing ETOH at a rate of 0.015/hr.

Obviously, there's no proof the guy was higher than 0.05, but there it's certain he was while driving

 

[pastera]

Whacko, you negative-repped me because I "really don't understand the definition of freedom"?!?!

First, thanks, I guess, for my first negative rep...mods, please take note.

Second, you're confused.

I understand the concept of freedom: it's wrong for JBTs to trick people into self-incrimination and getting freedom-raped.

My point is the guy is an idiot. He drove with at least a 0.08 BAC, without question, and that's stupid, plus he had a loaded gun and decided to tell a cop about it. I'm a former EMT and have seen bad results from drunk driving. I've also lost a couple friends to drunk drivers. Sucks man. Since there's no proof of an OUI, he shouldn't be charged.

If he was charged with an OUI, I'd join your angry mob.

Do you know why portable BAC meters are not admissible? Because they are nortoriously inaccurate and will register BAC for many different compounds that a calibrated unit will correctly ignore.

http://www.shouselaw.com/ketosis.html

This poor guy could blow several hundreths without a drop of alcohol in his system. You don't know and therefore a 0.08 BAC is not "without question"

For the record, I am not the neg repper.

 

[drgrant]

My point is the guy is an idiot. He drove with at least a 0.08 BAC, without question,
.

Lol. Yeah good luck proving that, with all the variables involved.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

Excuse me if i misinterpreted you, but...


Skyliner said this:

Originally Posted by Skylineracer329
Not sure the statute exactly. I'm just fairly certain you don't have to tell a cop the you are armed unless explicitly asked. I could be wrong.

Where you did you get that quote from skylineracer329?

Skylineracer329's post is this:

Probably not. In MA you "have" to tell an LEO if asked. If your car is getting towed, it's going to be searched and inventoried by PD. So they'll find it anyways.

His post is here: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...sing-his-LTC?p=4168886&viewfull=1#post4168886

Skylineracer329 claimed that in MA you have to inform a police officer that you are carrying if asked. I told him he is wrong.

You and I actually agree -- there is no duty to inform a police officer that you are carrying if you are asked. You must exhibit your LTC/FID if the officer demands it. That is it.

You misread Skylineracer329's post and kept going...

 

[whacko]

Do you know why portable BAC meters are not admissible? Because they are nortoriously inaccurate and will register BAC for many different compounds that a calibrated unit will correctly ignore.

http://www.shouselaw.com/ketosis.html

This poor guy could blow several hundreths without a drop of alcohol in his system. You don't know and therefore a 0.08 BAC is not "without question"

For the record, I am not the neg repper.

I was the neg reppper. Alwaysbeclosing answer this question please....in this case of the ops buddy......who is the victim of this "crime"? That will give you some insight into what I and many here on nes think true freedom is.

 

[Cmaro21]

Teaser, somewhere between the OP and M1911's post #139, skyline said that you did have to inform an officer. I think you guys are agreeing, just not on the same page.

Edit -

Probably not. In MA you "have" to tell an LEO if asked. If your car is getting towed, it's going to be searched and inventoried by PD. So they'll find it anyways.

God speed to your buddy. Tough situation but he should have kept his mouth shut. It is easy for me to say that now, sitting here, armchair qb.

 

[92G]

ultimately if the guy did not attempt to hurt anyone, then he shouldnt lose 2A rights.....but in MA as we know rights are stripped on almost any basis

 

[M1911]

Teaser, somewhere between the OP and M1911's post #139, skyline said that you did have to inform an officer. I think you guys are agreeing, just not on the same page.

Yup. Skyline's post was #62.

- - - Updated - - -

Not by my read. He blew the 0.05 at the hospital.

So, as I understand: he gets behind the wheel, drives X minutes, crashes, officer arrives, car is processed / report noted, goes to hospital, then blows a 0.05 BAC and discloses he has a loaded gun in the car.

So then we don't know what his BAC was at the scene, do we?

 

[teaser452]

Yup. Skyline's post was #62.

I stand corrected. Missed that post.

 

[AntiHippie]

Do you know why portable BAC meters are not admissible? Because they are nortoriously inaccurate and will register BAC for many different compounds that a calibrated unit will correctly ignore.

http://www.shouselaw.com/ketosis.html

This poor guy could blow several hundreths without a drop of alcohol in his system. You don't know and therefore a 0.08 BAC is not "without question"

For the record, I am not the neg repper.

Alco-Sensor IV will show at least .070 five to ten minutes after swishing around a mouthful of Listerine.


It will also piss off the guy that has to recalibrate it because someone wanted to try some things they saw on the internet.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Requires PD confiscation or requires owner's surrender?

Each state has implemented Lautenberg. In MA it requires the PD to confiscate. AFAIK, this is true in each state, but there might be an outlier somewhere out there. In MA the person must surrender them, but if they are out of state, the person won't be traveling there to turn them in, a local to that area PD will do the work. This was done in one 209A case I'm aware of where the guns were stored in Manchester, NH and the Manchester PD went and got them.

 

[Billsail]

I don't get it.
Might he have had a higher blood alcohol level at the scene? Maybe. Is there some proof of that that I'm missing?

It has been scientifically proven that most human bodies "processes" approx. .015% bac per hour. It therefore may be assumed, if your last drink was 2 hours ago, you were .08 when you finished your last drink. However, it is difficult, in most cases to prove a specific timeline, between your last drink, and a calibrated breathalyzer. Where did the "2 hours" come from, in this case? What if it was 20 mins. He may have been .06.

I agree, however, he shouldn't have been "busted" for anything!

 

[jasons]

Not by my read. He blew the 0.05 at the hospital.

So, as I understand: he gets behind the wheel, drives X minutes, crashes, officer arrives, car is processed / report noted, goes to hospital, then blows a 0.05 BAC and discloses he has a loaded gun in the car.

OK, so at the hospital but still with a portable so it's not like it was hours later after he got hooked up and transported and had a chance to sober up. Point being that the evidence (such as it is) doesn't support your assertion that:

He drove with at least a 0.08 BAC, without question.....

But again THAT'S NOT THE POINT. Even if he hadn't had a drop he'd still be looking at gun charges that have zero to do with getting into a minor accident. (At least the transport charge, all because he probably didn't want to be unloading in a parking lot somewhere before he put his gun in the trunk. What a criminal, right?)