Hells Angels member arrested carrying loaded gun without a license

[JackDaniels]

They can search him because he "looked nervous". Cops are the bigger thugs out of the two organized crime gangs, the angels and the pigs. And, the ones that are to be trusted the least.

 

[Tooth]

I don't think this was a matter of him not knowing he should be licensed to carry. If I were hanging around some of those guys you bet I would have a gun with me. Would not put myself in that situation in the first place though.

 

[william_munny]

Hey, I said "it's possible", I'm not betting money on it, or inviting them over for dinner.

 

[Emoto]

Hey, I said "it's possible", I'm not betting money on it, or inviting them over for dinner.

Gotcha

 

[MichaelJR]

81s aren't bad people. By-standards are left alone, they keep to themselves.

 

[Emoto]

81s aren't bad people. By-standards are left alone, they keep to themselves.

Does your definition of "they keep to themselves" include trafficking in speed, meth, illegal guns, etc?

 

[Kurtz]

ateamrob, carrying concealed is illegal in most states. There are ony 3 or 4 which allow it. He is a resident of Mass so he should know mass law.

What's illegal about it?

What has me confused is the part where it says one of the charges was "carrying a loaded large-capacity firearm on a public way" I'm sure most of us do that...

 

[oilspill]

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100109/GJCOMMUNITY02/701099927/0/CITCommunity16

Jason Cavooto, 34, of 55 Essex St., Apt. 1, Marlborough, Mass., pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a knife in New Hampton in June. He was sentenced to 12 months in jail with all but 90 days suspended; and the judge ordered him to complete counseling, treatment or educational programs directed by correctional authorities.

 

[terraformer]

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100109/GJCOMMUNITY02/701099927/0/CITCommunity16

Ends the speculation. He will get out and have another gun soon thereafter...

 

[william_munny]

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100109/GJCOMMUNITY02/701099927/0/CITCommunity16

Well, that settles that. He's totally screwed.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

They can search him because he "looked nervous". Cops are the bigger thugs out of the two organized crime gangs, the angels and the pigs. And, the ones that are to be trusted the least.

Read Terry v. Ohio for details. The standard that permits a patdown to assure the subject is disarmed is much lower than that for a full search.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Jason Cavooto, 34, of 55 Essex St., Apt. 1, Marlborough, Mass., pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a knife in New Hampton in June. He was sentenced to 12 months in jail with all but 90 days suspended; and the judge ordered him to complete counseling, treatment or educational programs directed by correctional authorities.

You missed the next line in the article - "Public Defender Jesse Friedman represented Cavooto." The outcome with a public defender will not necessarily be the same a defendant, even a convicted felon, will get with top flight legal counsel backed by enough money to try, rather than plead out, a case. The credible willingness to take a case to trial is the only leverage either side has in the plea negotiations and, with a public defender, that threat is minimal - sort of like telling the playground bully you will have your little sister beat him up if he lays a hand on you.

 

[Emoto]

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100109/GJCOMMUNITY02/701099927/0/CITCommunity16

Can' be, man. I heard the HA were all nice people now.

 

[Independence Arms]

IMHO, the hell's angels are an organized crime syndicate.

be careful! MC's are not street gangs. Guaranteed he was only patted down because he was wearing his colors. I've been pulled over plenty of times, and never got patted down, however, when I wear my SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL 81 gear (proudly I might add) I get treated like a thug.

 

[drgrant]

Well, that settles that. He's totally screwed.

If he really is a PP there is only a 25% chance the feds will indict him and prosecute him under FIP. So unless that happens, he's just a typical low level MA criminal, wash rinse repeat, has another gun as soon as he's free. I'll wager right now even if they send him to jail he doesn't serve more than a year.

-Mike

 

[Emoto]

be careful! MC's are not street gangs. Guaranteed he was only patted down because he was wearing his colors. I've been pulled over plenty of times, and never got patted down, however, when I wear my SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL 81 gear (proudly I might add) I get treated like a thug.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Independence Arms]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

stupid in what way? I have friends in the club, and wear my support gear proudly! I find nothing stupid about it.
plenty of people out there wearing SONS OF ANARCHY merchandise, because they think it looks COOL!

 

[Emoto]

stupid in what way? I have friends in the club, and wear my support gear proudly! I find nothing stupid about it.
plenty of people out there wearing SONS OF ANARCHY merchandise, because they think it looks COOL!

Well, setting the issues of your friends and whatever the true nature of the HA club is aside, if you wear things that identify you with an organization that is widely regarded as a criminal enterprise, you should expect to be treated accordingly.

 

[william_munny]

plenty of people out there wearing SONS OF ANARCHY merchandise, because they think it looks COOL!

Yeah, but it's fictional. I love Natural Born Killers, but I wouldn't walk around wearing a Starkweather/Fugate shirt.

 

[rsal452]

The media never reports on the club donating to charity or runs for Jerry's Kids or other organizations. But instead we hear about someone getting searched because they "looked nervous".

 

[drgrant]

The media never reports on the club donating to charity or runs for Jerry's Kids or other organizations.

Various Mafia figures in big cities often did good things for their local communities, but that didn't absolve them from being criminal organizations, either.

This reminds me of Dudus "Coke" in Jamaica. The authorities had a hard time catching the guy because he was also a community figure. That didn't mean he wasn't a drug dealer.

I don't know much about HA, but involvement in philanthropy or charity doesn't mean much in terms of whether the org is good or bad. Hell, look at the US Government. Assistance for that, assistance for this... theft from ALL.

FWIW I think "looking nervous" sounds like a bogus reason for a search, that I can agree on..

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

FWIW I think "looking nervous" sounds like a bogus reason for a search, that I can agree on..

It is bogus for a search for contraband, but not for a pat down to check for weapons while being interviewed by an officer - see Terry v. Ohio for details.

 

[MichaelJR]

I just think talking about stuff you don't know about is ill advised for anyone. They do more for people than you think.

 

[Independence Arms]

I just think talking about stuff you don't know about is ill advised for anyone. They do more for people than you think.

with you on that one!

 

[TomH]

Another case of no real crime committed.

 

[Emoto]

I understand that Hitler was very kind to children.

 

[GSG]

Some of the comments on the news article are painful to read. But then again, so are some of the comments here.

carrying concealed is illegal in most states. There are ony 3 or 4 which allow it.

Actually it's legal in most states without a permit. For instance, in my state you can carry concealed to and from the range without a permit. Most states allow carry in the home or business without a permit, some extend that to the vehicle. There's similar rules in other states as well. Don't forget LEOSA either. The permit is what allows you to carry concealed in public, or in public without a narrowly defined purpose or exemption.

I thought it was mandatory jail time for unlicensed gun possession. Would he care about that?

There is if convicted, but it's common to see it plead down to possession of ammo or something similar to get a conviction but to avoid the mandatory minimum sentence.

He should have known MA law, regardless of how stupid the laws are here.

I mean no offense to you by this, but I'm willing to bet that you regularly break Mass. gun laws that you don't know about or don't fully understand.

But that gets me thinking... Interesting thing about this is carrying a firearm is presumptively legal (providing a right to carry which has not been recognized yet). Technically, forcing someone to provide a license (and their subsequent failure to do so) is forcing them to provide evidence against themselves...

The Mass. courts have addressed this.

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

A suspect who had been subjected to a custodial interrogation when a police officer asked him whether he had a license to carry firearms, without first advising him of his Miranda rights, was entitled to suppression of his answer where, although the police officer need not have administered Miranda warnings before demanding that the suspect in custody produce one of the documents listed in G. L. c. 140, s. 129C (here, a firearms license), the officer's asking the suspect whether he had such a document constituted a request for a testimonial communication that entitled the suspect to the protections of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution including the right to refuse to answer. [795-797]

Is that what you meant?

What has me confused is the part where it says one of the charges was "carrying a loaded large-capacity firearm on a public way"

The charge doesn't exist; it looks like they jumbled two of the 269-10 charges there.

 

[KBCraig]

ateamrob, carrying concealed is illegal in most states. There are ony 3 or 4 which allow it. He is a resident of Mass so he should know mass law.

There are exactly three states that allow concealed carry without a license: Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona.

But this case, which was about motor vehicle carry, brings up lots of variations from state to state. Some require that it be visible. Texas requires that it be concealed. Others require that it be in a "glove compartment" (a term that is quickly growing anachronistic as automobiles change).

Here's the current mish-mash:

http://opencarry.org/travel.html

 

[terraformer]

The Mass. courts have addressed this.

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



Is that what you meant?

Yes, but take the logic of that ruling and apply it to the terry stop itself. The frisk is for presumptively legal items so the fruits of the frisk do not indicate by their own the legality of the behavior. Therefore, absent other information, the presence of the firearm is not an indicator of any crime that may or may not be occurring. Therefore one could imagine a ruling that suggests the presence of the firearm does not allow them to ask and possibly even removing from evidence the fruits of the search. This fits within the stated purpose of the terry stop. Drug paraphernalia is not inherently legal but firearms now are. That changes the game a lot. Since driving is a privilege, much of the law surrounding licensing is not applicable to firearms. Terry is an abortion of rights they seem to like so don't think that the court will neuter it completely but you may see the fruits from it restricted a bit.

Now, I know a quick records check gets them the info they need, but the scenario of out of state licenses (yes, I realize this is not valid today) is different.

Also, most of the problems surrounding terry stops goes away when firearms licensing, specifically the lack of a license, becomes an administrative fine and not the rights game changer it is today. I can imagine the courts to go this route first before they limit the terry stop. This also shows GOALs desire to track criminals instead of us is such a good idea. Instant roadside background checks.

There are exactly three states that allow concealed carry without a license: Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona.

But this case, which was about motor vehicle carry, brings up lots of variations from state to state. Some require that it be visible. Texas requires that it be concealed. Others require that it be in a "glove compartment" (a term that is quickly growing anachronistic as automobiles change).

Here's the current mish-mash:

http://opencarry.org/travel.html

What happened to New Mexico's efforts to remove licensing?

 

[GSG]

Therefore, absent other information, the presence of the firearm is not an indicator of any crime that may or may not be occurring. Therefore one could imagine a ruling that suggests the presence of the firearm does not allow them to ask and possibly even removing from evidence the fruits of the search.

I'm slightly confused. Are you suggesting modifying Terry rules to allow LE to disarm for safety, but not to check license status/legality of the gun?

Some more interesting Mass. caselaw on it:

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/435/435mass171.html

On appeal, the Commonwealth's brief referenced another potential ground (G. L. c. 140, s. 129C) that would arguably justify this stop, but did so only in a single, conclusory sentence

Page 180

that does not rise to the level of adequate appellate argument. Hence, the court's opinion justifiably refuses to consider the issue. Ante at 178 n.10. Mass. R. A. R 16 (a) (4), as amended, 367 Mass. 921 (1975).

The statute provides in part: "Any person who, while not being within the limits of his own property or residence . . . shall on demand of a police officer or other law enforcement officer, exhibit his license to carry firearms . . . . Upon failure to do so such person may be required to surrender to such officer said firearm, rifle or shotgun which shall be taken into custody as under [G. L. c. 140, s. 129D], except that such firearm, rifle or shotgun shall be returned forthwith upon presentation within thirty days of said license to carry firearms . . . ... G. L. c. 140, s. 129C. The statute thus gives an officer the right to demand production of a proper license from anyone carrying a firearm and, if such license is not produced, to at least confiscate that firearm until such time as a valid license is produced [Note Concur-3]. We have never addressed the power of an officer to stop someone in order to make a demand for a license under G. L. c. 140, s. 129C, and the Commonwealth's failure to brief any of the issues surrounding the proper exercise of such a power prevents us from addressing those issues in this case [Note Concur-4]. It is, however, an

Page 181

intriguing suggestion, and one that would at least arguably justify a stop on the facts of this case [Note Concur-5].

That's a recent case too. There's an older one that discusses it a little too.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/372/372mass403.html

A classic statement of the "limits of reason and fairness" in casting the production burden on the defendant in a criminal case is found in Morrison v. California, 291 U.S. 82, 88-89 (1934): "The limits are in substance these, that the state shall have proved enough to make it just for the defendant to be required to repel what has been proved with excuse or explanation, or at least that upon a balancing of convenience or of the opportunities for knowledge the shifting of the burden will be found to be an aid to the accuser without subjecting the accused to hardship or oppression." Such a shift may be proper if there is a "manifest disparity in convenience of proof and opportunity for knowledge as, for instance, where a general prohibition is applicable to every one who is unable to bring himself within the range of an exception." Id. at 91. That standard has been applied to uphold the casting of the production burden on the defendant in circumstances much like those of the present case. Rossi v. United States, 289 U.S. 89, 91-92 (1933) (registration of still). United States v. Chodor, 479 F.2d 661, 663 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 912 (1973) (authority to possess simulated currency). People v. Henderson, 391 Mich. 612, 615-616 (1974) (license to carry gun).

Under G. L. c. 140, Section 131, as amended through St. 1974, c. 649, Section 1, effective April 1, 1975, under St. 1975, c. 4, Section 1, the chief of police of any city or town may issue a license to carry firearms to an applicant residing or having a place of business there, for a period of four to five years. Although the issuing authority is to notify the Commissioner of Public Safety, and the license holder is to notify the State and local authorities of any change in his address, it seems clear that a requirement that the prosecutor prove that no such license was issued would impose an extravagant burden. Proof of a license by the defendant, on the other hand, would be a very simple task and would not require his testimony. Cf. Barnes v. United States, 412

Page 409

U.S. 837, 846-847 (1973) (no violation of privilege against self-incrimination where a defendant's testimony is not required to rebut inference); Commonwealth v. Pauley, 368 Mass. 286 , 297-298, appeal dismissed for want of substantial Federal question, 423 U.S. 887 (1975); State v. Blanca, 100 N.J. Super. 241, 248 (1968).

Under G. L. c. 140, Section 129C, a person licensed to carry a firearm shall on demand of a police officer exhibit his license, or his firearm identification card or receipt, or a valid hunting license. On failure he may be required to surrender the firearm, but the failure is not made criminal. It could be. Cf. G. L. c. 269, Section 10 (h) (requirements as to firearm identification card); Commonwealth v. Brady, 370 Mass. 630 , 632-633 (1976) (requirement to carry bill of sale for new car); People v. Brownlee, 17 Ill. App. 3d 535, 540 (1974) (firearm identification card). A requirement that he exhibit his license in court is less stringent, and avoids the possibility of conviction for the minor mistake of leaving the license at home. See Commonwealth v. Pauley, supra at 299 n.17.

Gotta love that, don't want too much burden of proof on the prosecution.