I smell hi-cap contributions!!!
Good luck 1%ers heh, Best wishes to all?
I have no idea what any of this means.
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***
I smell hi-cap contributions!!!
Good luck 1%ers heh, Best wishes to all?
Me too...Updated OSX....Have to repair.
I have no idea what any of this means.
I see this frequently where the police see a standard capacity magazine and charge large cap violation even though there's a valid ltc. I frankly think they just don't understand where the real possible crime is and I'm not going to spell it out here for them.
Profiling, double locked the handcuffs? Must be one bad hombre
What? This not only does not explain what your first message meant. This just adds to the mystery.Me too...Updated OSX....Have to repair.
Not arguing, requesting exposition.no always dismissed since an ltc allows possession of a magazine over ten rounds.
All ltcs are class A meaning the holder can possess a large capacity feeding device. I don't know why police don't see that clearly.Not arguing, requesting exposition.
As long as it is pre ban..?All ltcs are class A meaning the holder can possess a large capacity feeding device. I don't know why police don't see that clearly.
Not charged with AWB violation. Not the same deal. Two separate laws.As long as it is pre ban..?
Thank you for the clarification.Not charged with AWB violation. Not the same deal. Two separate laws.
In MA the most common is "LCAFD without license" which is a chip shot/slam dunk felony. the standard of evidence is way lower than the other AWB charges available. "Do they have an LTC or otherwise exempt?" If "no" then the accused can get rekt in court if the chain of evidence is clean.
Has any court seen it that clearly (or, has any court held otherwise)?All ltcs are class A meaning the holder can possess a large capacity feeding device. I don't know why police don't see that clearly.
Lol why wouldnt they? The law he is referring to is one of the simpler MA gun laws theres oddly enough no nuances or BS to it. Someone either has an lcafd or they don't. They have an LTC or they don't. They're otherwise exempt or not. The end.Has any court seen it that clearly (or, has any court held otherwise)?
no that's pretty open and shutHas any court seen it that clearly (or, has any court held otherwise)?
Delete your post, PM the guy you quoted.Hello, I ask for God and prayers from you guys thank you.
Yes do thisDelete your post, PM the guy you quoted.
“Prior to his arraignment, the charge of Possession of Large Capacity Feeding Device was dismissed at the request of the Commonwealth because De La Hoz had a valid license to carry.”
I would assume they were pre-ban mags then obviously? Even if so it still speaks volumes that he was initially charged. Scary shiz.
"Double locking" handcuffs is SOP and has nothing to do with profiling. There are a couple of reasons. Unless double locked, handcuff halves are connected by a ratchet mechanism. This means that either intentionally or unintentionally, the ratchet can be closed further than necessary, which is potentially harmful to the person in custody (and which is sometimes employed by the person in custody in order to ground a complaint that "the cuffs are too tight"). Beyond that, unless double locked, the ratchet is susceptible of shimming, allowing an experienced person to escape the cuffs.Profiling, double locked the handcuffs? Must be one bad hombre
Well, its happened again. I do not understand I.T.code & language, I wish I did.What? This not only does not explain what your first message meant. This just adds to the mystery.
Can someone provide a decoder ring for me?
So not only do you bump a necro thread but you bump it with off-topic, impenetrable word salad that adds nothing to the thread.Well, its happened again. I do not understand I.T.code & language, I wish I did.
I believe GBT#3-#5s will be commonplace soon.
I'm in no way trying to argue with you Coyote33.
I try to add informational board info with my participation. Sometime haphazardly.
I believe USAs in a transitional period,
As Cheney once said, it's the unknown unknowns that surprise you.
Good luck ........
A little education. Double locking is to prevent the cuffs from tightening up, particularly when the suspect sits down. You don't do it because he's a mean mofo, you do it to prevent injury.Profiling, double locked the handcuffs? Must be one bad hombre
I take my dog for a walk every evening. Not in a very busy area, just single families, except for ~1/4 - 1/3 mile on route 30. Almost every night, I see at least one car with either a light out, or no lights in the rear (car's probably set to daytime running lights, which are front only). MsHappy was pulled over on the Pike when she first got her Prius, for no lights. MSP said, "Is this a new car?" When she said it was, he (politely) turned the headlights on. Another MSP pulled up, and the first one yelled back, "It's another Prius"excellent police work! There are too many licenses plate bulbs out in Massachusetts . Very dangerous situation
Not scary at all, 100% expected. They will charge you for everything. They would charge you for every primer, casing, bullet and grain of powder if they could.“Prior to his arraignment, the charge of Possession of Large Capacity Feeding Device was dismissed at the request of the Commonwealth because De La Hoz had a valid license to carry.”
I would assume they were pre-ban mags then obviously? Even if so it still speaks volumes that he was initially charged. Scary shiz.
Someone call this guy an ambulance, he is having a stroke.Well, its happened again. I do not understand I.T.code & language, I wish I did.
I believe GBT#3-#5s will be commonplace soon.
I'm in no way trying to argue with you Coyote33.
I try to add informational board info with my participation. Sometime haphazardly.
I believe USAs in a transitional period,
As Cheney once said, it's the unknown unknowns that surprise you.
Good luck ........
Documenting double locking is to prevent the subject from successfully claiming the cuff tightened after application and caused injury. Yeah, it is prevents shimming from working but that's not the reason it was worth documenting, and it is not a procedure reserved for bad bad dudes.Profiling, double locked the handcuffs? Must be one bad hombre
Only for gun possession, not high cap mag possession.This is sort of a semantic issue, but new practice advisory just came out that shifts the burden of proof back to the Commonwealth to show beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant does not have a valid LTC for a guilty finding on c 269, § 10. The Bruen decision abrogates Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787 (2012) which held that the Commonwealth does not have to prove the absence of a firearms license beyond a reasonable doubt in a prosecution under G. L. c. 269, § 10.
So a defendant no longer has to show that they do have a LTC, but the Commonwealth must prove that they don't. The burden is restored to the rightful place, but in actual application I wonder if there would be any meaningful difference. The practice advisory concerned evidence at trial, but it did not discuss the lack of being presented with a valid LTC as sufficient to establish probable cause that the defendant did not have one. Until the question of probable cause is addressed, defendants are likely to be only in a marginally better position.