Massachusetts LTB? ("License to "Bulge")

What about asking the cop straight up "Is this a request or a demand?" He will understand the implications of his answer. He can then either demand and give you an avenue to escalate with superiors later if you choose or call it a request and you can push back in a more controlled manner.
 
What about asking the cop straight up "Is this a request or a demand?" He will understand the implications of his answer. He can then either demand and give you an avenue to escalate with superiors later if you choose or call it a request and you can push back in a more controlled manner.

Why would you even bother to risk losing your LTC. Again, this IS Massachusetts and the sh!t don't stick to the wall around here. I'm not against fighting for your rights but in this state and several others it's a stacked decked so it's generally a good idea not to rock the boat if you value your LTC.
 
Why would you even bother to risk losing your LTC. Again, this IS Massachusetts and the sh!t don't stick to the wall around here. I'm not against fighting for your rights but in this state and several others it's a stacked decked so it's generally a good idea not to rock the boat if you value your LTC.

I don't think I'll be losing my LTC by asking a clarifying question. You can evaluate your options depending on the response.
 
I don't think I'll be losing my LTC by asking a clarifying question. You can evaluate your options depending on the response.

What options? Unless you have a political in somewhere, I don't see any options. Even if you complain you know where it's going? right in the trash can.

ETA: Like Carl B. would say...

@ 1:00
"Sure, whatever, it's going right in the trash after this, so let er rip."





-Mike
 
Last edited by a moderator:
... My friends and I (four of us) at a table. ... Two cops (one is a County Sheriff, one is Chelsea cop) are sitting in booth near restroom as my friend passes by them while heading into men's room. ... Sheriff ... says "Have a permit for that?". Our friend stops and says "Permit? For what?"... Cop says "For the revolver in your pocket" ... Our pal ... says "Yes, Sir I do"... Cop says "Can I see it?" ... So he complies, pulls his wallet and shows the LTC...

How this parses out under Mass. law depends critically on precisely what the sheriff said. "Are you licensed?" has radically different implications than "Show me the license for your codpiece carry piece".

There is a ton of fail in this thread. ...

That's the understatement of the year.

With 150-some-odd notes and counting, this thread contains Mt. Everest-sized chunks of fail, and that's based solely on solid information cited elsewhere within NES.

... The cop needs to demand the LTC not ask (and yes, there is a huge difference).

Time and time again this comes up, mere possession of a firearm is NOT enough for a cop to demand a license and is NOT an indication of a crime being committed.

You managed to capture both pieces of relevant case law in one sentence:


  1. Possession is not probable cause: Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 266 (1996): The SJC held that ``our cases have not yet declared reasonable suspicion warranted simply on a report of gun possession just because this country has problems with the unlawful use of guns.''
  2. Asking about (not demanding) LTC requires Miranda warning: Commonwealth v. Haskell, 438 Mass. 790, 793 (2003): 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.


The only reason why I knew the rulings exist is by having read their detailed discussion on NES:


  1. What would you have done?
  2. When am I required by law to provide an ID?


On the other hand, the first question was apparently non-custodial. So OP's buddy didn't have to answer; he could have gone Full YouTube Obstreperous. But faced with non-response, few cops would fail to escalate to a faux Terry Stop (i.e., an unconstitutional stop - not actually based upon RAS). This could be the start of a beatable rap, but with an unbeatable ride.

I don't fault OP's buddy cooperating, but if only he knew his rights he could have let the other shoe drop. Since the sheriff was such a great guy, the carrier would have at least had the option of reminding them after the fact that Printing Is Not Probable Cause, and that conversationally asking someone in custody if they have an LTC will get the answer tossed as a Miranda violation just as if they beat it out of him with a rubber hose.

You thinks beat cop knows the difference and will respond well if you push it?

You are in a "suitability" state.

I have the impression (can't remember why) that those SJC rulings are important enough have affected academy training, and ought to have resulted in memos to the rank-and-file. If the beat cops are incapable of absorbing the nuance, or are just thugs who ignore whatever civil rights are inconvenient, then they'll embarrass their departments with dismissed cases and successful civil suits.

If instructors are failing to incorporate those precedents into their syllabus, they are training their students to fail hard whenever they come up against defense attorneys who know their stuff.

I hear prosecutors hate it when that happens.

Such things annoy me but IMHO its a reality of carrying a gun legally in MA. LTC holders that actually carry are still pretty much unicorns. The average LEO treats them as such, and their mind can't grasp the concept well. Getting angry about it is probably not going to produce a "teachable moment" for the LEO. The problem is there is no simplistic legal guideline we can simply cite to the officer that is going to make a light go on in their head that says "maybe I shouldn't be accosting this guy over nothing". You have to question the motives of someone who is pinging some guy otherwise minding his own business.

There may be a "firing solution" for this problem that helps things but I can't think of a simple one offhand.

- - - Updated - - -

The only simplistic win I can think of is if I have LE connections I might exercise them with discretion to perhaps, get officer cantmindhisownbusiness a talking to by a pro 2A superior officer. Good luck with that though, even that is difficult.

Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 266 seems to be the silver bullet you've been looking for. It would make fun reading to see an after-action report from someone who calmly brings it to their CoP's attention on Monday morning, and actually convinces them to pass it along to their watch commanders.
 
Last edited:
what if he decides he wants to see whats in your pockets? your car? your home? your ass?

I know, in Mass you have to provide the permit on request, but there is a 4th Amendment. But we can give that up too, we've lost the 1st, 2nd, teeter on the edge of the 4th,5th, 6th 8th 9th and 10th

Really, I'm not trying to be an ass...just because a cop asks doesn't mean you should offer. In this case you are legally required, not so in most states (even this shitty one) Do not "chat" with police, they are not having polite conversation (it may be polite conversation, but ultimately you are being interrogated)

Yeah, I've never had 'just a conversation' with anyone. I've never caught myself comparing my HnK to a Bodyguard in size in broad daylight after seeing someone open carrying. Same situation btw, saw the gun, "Hey, what's that?".........

May have been a subtle hint that he wasn't 'concealed means concealed'.

But yeah, cops are all bad by default.
 
It's Massachusetts. Everyone here makes assumptions about everyone anyways.

My point^2.

Maybe not even squared, you might have just cubed it. I started drinking, I can't keep track of the math anymore. Shit, you might have just divided it by zero. For the sake of all humanity, I REALLY hope you didn't divide it by zero. I've seen memes about what happens when you do that. (I'm not a very smart man, so I don't understand the pretext in those memes, but it looks bad)
 
As for fishing or hunting then yes, if you are actively engaged. But carrying a fishing pole near the water doesn't mean you are fishing and carrying a rifle in the woods doesn't mean you are hunting. Is there an incredible chance you are planning to engage in either instance? Absolutely. But until you have a line in the water you are not fishing. And if you are walking along through the woods with a rifle slung on your shoulder you are not necessarily hunting.

Punchline to this old joke:

And then the woman said to the fish and game warden, "Officer, I have the equipment to be a prostitute, are you going to arrest me for that, too?"
 
40s and 50s, the "kid" who was stopped and questioned is 44 or 45... but I'm still trying to figure out why you think age matters? If it were younger folks, they'd be under more suspicions? Or they're not privy and/or eligible to the protections of the law? Not to sound like "you know who" but... "What difference does it make"? (the age of the person who is being - in my opinion - unlawfully detained and questioned)


Well I lost that bet.
I had you all pegged as mid twenties types. Age doesnt matter, I was curious to see if your group fell into that bracket for my own reasons.
I understand your "unlawfully detained and questioned" mentality, I actually share that opinion as well. But, at 47, Ive come to realize whats worth putting a fight up for and what isnt. I fortunately (or unfortunately really) have such a huge amount of memories in my head of truly awful and terrifying experiences to make it very easy for me to say, pppppfffffffttttttt, this isnt a blip on my radar. Your skinny jeaned buddy made the right move (in my opinion anyways) by saying **** it, Im gonna play along . Like I said, everyone has their own line in the sand.
 
How this parses out under Mass. law depends critically on precisely what the sheriff said. "Are you licensed?" has radically different implications than "Show me the license for your [STRIKE=LINE]codpiece[/STRIKE] carry piece".



That's the understatement of the year.

With 150-some-odd notes and counting, this thread contains Mt. Everest-sized chunks of fail, and that's based solely on solid information cited elsewhere within NES.



You managed to capture both pieces of relevant case law in one sentence:


  1. Possession is not probable cause: Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 266 (1996): The SJC held that ``our cases have not yet declared reasonable suspicion warranted simply on a report of gun possession just because this country has problems with the unlawful use of guns.''
  2. Asking about (not demanding) LTC requires Miranda warning: Commonwealth v. Haskell, 438 Mass. 790, 793 (2003): 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.


The only reason why I knew the rulings exist is by having read their detailed discussion on NES:


  1. What would you have done?
  2. When am I required by law to provide an ID?


On the other hand, the first question was apparently non-custodial. So OP's buddy didn't have to answer; he could have gone Full YouTube Obstreperous. But faced with non-response, few cops would fail to escalate to a faux Terry Stop (i.e., an unconstitutional stop - not actually based upon RAS). This could be the start of a beatable rap, but with an unbeatable ride.

I don't fault OP's buddy cooperating, but if only he knew his rights he could have let the other shoe drop. Since the sheriff was such a great guy, the carrier would have at least had the option of reminding them after the fact that Printing Is Not Probable Cause, and that conversationally asking someone in custody if they have an LTC will get the answer tossed as a Miranda violation just as if they beat it out of him with a rubber hose.



I have the impression (can't remember why) that those SJC rulings are important enough have affected academy training, and ought to have resulted in memos to the rank-and-file. If the beat cops are incapable of absorbing the nuance, or are just thugs who ignore whatever civil rights are inconvenient, then they'll embarrass their departments with dismissed cases and successful civil suits.

If instructors are failing to incorporate those precedents into their syllabus, they are training their students to fail hard whenever they come up against defense attorneys who know their stuff.

I hear prosecutors hate it when that happens.



Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 266 seems to be the silver bullet you've been looking for. It would make fun reading to see an after-action report from someone who calmly brings it to their CoP's attention on Monday morning, and actually convinces them to pass it along to their watch commanders.


Alvarado and Haskell arent really relevant to the OPs situation, Im curious as to why you see a silver bullet within Alvarado.
 
Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 266 seems to be the silver bullet you've been looking for. It would make fun reading to see an after-action report from someone who calmly brings it to their CoP's attention on Monday morning, and actually convinces them to pass it along to their watch commanders.
If you prefer to carry a 2 shot derringer of silver bullets, I suggest you add Commonwealth v. Couture to the other chamber. http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/407/407mass178.html
 
Being able to spout off case law seems to be quite a talent here.

In my experience in actual courtrooms over the last 28 years, it always seemed to me that for case law to be relevant and useful, there had to be some similarity between the case at hand and the relevant case law.
 
I'm trying to find the "guy otherwise minding his own business asked for ltc but didn't provide it, something went off the rails (arrest? Illegal search?) and the cops got punished for asking for it" case, but not finding much.
 
Alvarado and Haskell arent really relevant to the OPs situation, Im curious as to why you see a silver bullet within Alvarado.

Context: drgrant's mellow is harshed by the notion of police hassling CC'ers without RAS.

I suggested he consider using case law (Alvarado) that mere possession of a gun does not constitute RAS.


Q: When a individual with an LTC-A and (regrettably printing) carry piece walks past a policeman in a restaurant, what do you believe Massachusetts legally mandates as the response to the casual inquiry if they have a license for it? Not "show me your LTC" - rather, "do you have an LTC?". And not what is Massprudent - what is absolutely required.


BTW, note that the precedent can be used as a deterrent without making a scene, without making a Federal case out of it: once the officer's curiosity is sated, the truly elite barracks lawyer can then proceed to politely expound on the law, ad nauseum. If legit gun owners did that every time they were interrogated for exercising a civil right, word would get out and police would begin to give them a good stiff leaving alone.



If you prefer to carry a 2 shot derringer of silver bullets, I suggest you add Commonwealth v. Couture to the other chamber. COUTURE, COMMONWEALTH vs., 407 Mass. 178

I haven't been to Floramo's. Is the corridor to the bathroom wide enough to allow OP's buddy to drive past traditional police tables whilst riding a Segway w/ locking gun trunk?
police-segway-roller-22698442.jpg
Then they couldn't use the fruits of illegal searches of the vehicle trunks as evidence.
 
Last edited:
Context: drgrant's mellow is harshed by the notion of police hassling CC'ers without RAS.

I suggested he consider using case law (Alvarado) that mere possession of a gun does not constitute RAS.


Q: When a individual with an LTC-A and (regrettably printing) carry piece walks past a policeman in a restaurant, what do you believe Massachusetts legally mandates as the response to the casual inquiry if they have a license for it? Not "show me your LTC" - rather, "do you have an LTC?". And not what is Massprudent - what is absolutely required.


BTW, note that the precedent can be used as a deterrent without making a scene, without making a Federal case out of it: once the officer's curiosity is sated, the truly elite barracks lawyer can then proceed to politely expound on the law, ad nauseum. If legit gun owners did that every time they were interrogated for exercising a civil right, word would get out and police would begin to give them a good stiff leaving alone.





I haven't been to Floramo's. Is the corridor to the bathroom wide enough to allow OP's buddy to drive past traditional police tables whilst riding a Segway w/ locking gun trunk?
New-x2-silent-hunter.jpg

Then they couldn't use the fruits of illegal searches of the vehicle trunks as evidence.



A: What I believe is irrelevant. It comes down to what they believe, they being a jury or the SJC, this is why case law exists in the first place.

If you think a jury is going to find NG because the officer asked instead of demanded the LTC, then Id suggest you dont have any experience with juries.
In this particular scenario though, thats irrelevant, because the OPs friend answered yes. Now 140/129c comes into play.

So you dont think Im trying to cop out (pun intended), I think that asking to see an LTC is the right way to go. If Im told to pound sand after asking, well then I could certainly demand to see the LTC. If again told to FO, Im easily able to ramp up to the next step.

In MA, mere possession of a gun puts 140/129c into play. Nothing to do with Alvarado, Couture, or Haskell. Another Spewdrie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In MA, mere possession of a gun puts 140/129c into play. Nothing to do with Alvarado, Couture, or Haskell. Another Spewdrie.

This would seem to be a case where a lawful gun carrier is in violation if he refuses to produce his papers, but an illegal carrier who has no LTC, and cannot produce papers, is not only not guilty of violating 140/129c, but also cannot be convicted unless the police can articulate a reasonable reason why they believed the subject was not licensed based on their observation of peaceful carry.

So, given this, what is the purpose of even asking?

Am I missing something in this conclusion of how Cuture would apply to someone carrying, not giving any indication they are doing anything illegal, and then being arrested after failing an LTC check?
 
Last edited:
If you prefer to carry a 2 shot derringer of silver bullets, I suggest you add Commonwealth v. Couture to the other chamber. http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/407/407mass178.html

Couture cited Toole: "The empty holster and ammunition found on the defendant certainly created probable cause to believe that there was a gun in the cab. But carrying a .45 caliber revolver is not necessarily a crime. A possible crime was carrying a gun without a license to carry firearms, G. L. c. 269, Section 10 (a). However, the police did not learn that the defendant had no firearm identification card until after the search. They apparently never asked the defendant whether he had a license to carry a firearm. [There was an] absence of any showing that, before searching the vehicle, the police had probable cause to believe that there was contraband, an illegally carried weapon, in the cab . . . ."

Questions of the legality of LEO's actions are decided by the trier of facts and the Toole decision might have had a different outcome if the LEO's had asked to see his license during an investigatory encounter aka "a threshold inquiry." Finding a case to support your viewpoint is beside the point.
By the time you get the evidence suppressed you have an arrest record, your COP now has a reason to find you unsuitable, and your lawyer has a new second home in Aruba.

Other than the Molon Labe fanboys, who in MA is actually going to refuse to show LTC upon request or demand by LEO? Right. Nobody!
 
Other than the Molon Labe fanboys, who in MA is actually going to refuse to show LTC upon request or demand by LEO? Right. Nobody!

It would be worth doing if it could fundamentally change the way LE handles these encounters, but I just don't see that happening in MA, particularly when EOPS (or other entities that issue edicts of this sort for LE agencies to follow) is probably going to be spineless and do nothing, which makes that end of the exercise a waste of time. This isn't like CT where despite the moonbats in the government, the SFLU says something like "Wait this situation is retarded we need to stop LE from making this worse than it needs to be" etc.

-Mike
 
This would seem to be a case where a lawful gun carrier is in violation if he refuses to produce his papers, but an illegal carrier who has no LTC, and cannot produce papers, is not only not guilty of violating 140/129c, but also cannot be convicted unless the police can articulate a reasonable reason why they believed the subject was not licensed based on their observation of peaceful carry.

So, given this, what is the purpose of even asking?

Am I missing something in this conclusion of how Cuture would apply to someone carrying, not giving any indication they are doing anything illegal, and then being arrested after failing an LTC check?


An illegal carrier with no LTC isnt guilty of 140/129c if asked to show papers etc etc.. The elements are not met, and he/she couldnt be charged with 140/129c If found to be carrying. Thats a different crime.

In Couture, the gun was found after an illegal search. Fruits of that poisonous tree, right? Motion to suppress the gun granted, no brainer. If you can show me some sort of similarity between the OPs scenario and Coutures, Im more than happy to reassess this discussion.
 
... I understand your "unlawfully detained and questioned" mentality, I actually share that opinion as well. But, at 47, Ive come to realize whats worth putting a fight up for and what isnt. I fortunately (or unfortunately really) have such a huge amount of memories in my head of truly awful and terrifying experiences to make it very easy for me to say, pppppfffffffttttttt, this isnt a blip on my radar. Your skinny jeaned buddy made the right move (in my opinion anyways) by saying **** it, Im gonna play along . Like I said, everyone has their own line in the sand.

This might be a good hook for me to observe that any beat cop could be really upset by Alvarado. Especially if it's training on it is boiled down to a nugget so small that it's not even true - presented as prohibiting consideration of (concealed) weapons when profiling people. That's the kind of stupidity that makes TSA strip search all the Norwegian grandmothers.

I'm sure police have "workarounds", but it's one more thing they worry about.

Frankly, this whole subject reads like the Dutch pot laws in "Royale Wit Cheese" -
more and more complex...
 
Last edited:
It would be worth doing if it could fundamentally change the way LE handles these encounters, but I just don't see that happening in MA, particularly when EOPS (or other entities that issue edicts of this sort for LE agencies to follow) is probably going to be spineless and do nothing, which makes that end of the exercise a waste of time. This isn't like CT where despite the moonbats in the government, the SFLU says something like "Wait this situation is retarded we need to stop LE from making this worse than it needs to be" etc.

-Mike

Money shot post.
 
This might be a good hook for me to observe that any beat cop could be really upset by Alvarado. Especially if it's boiled down to a nugget so small that it's not even true - presented as prohibiting consideration of (concealed) weapons when profiling people. That's the kind of stupidity that makes TSA strip search all the Norwegian grandmothers.

I'm sure police have "workarounds", but it's one more thing they worry about.

Frankly, this whole subject reads like the Dutch pot laws in "Royale Wit Cheese" -
more and more complex...

I have no idea what youre talking about dude. I somewhat get the Pulp Fiction reference, but aside from that, Im clueless. Perhaps its due to my vodka intake and my 5629th viewing of The Karate Kid.
 
This would seem to be a case where a lawful gun carrier is in violation if he refuses to produce his papers, but an illegal carrier who has no LTC, and cannot produce papers, is not only not guilty of violating 140/129c, but also cannot be convicted unless the police can articulate a reasonable reason why they believed the subject was not licensed based on their observation of peaceful carry.
So, given this, what is the purpose of even asking?
Am I missing something in this conclusion of how Cuture would apply to someone carrying, not giving any indication they are doing anything illegal, and then being arrested after failing an LTC check?

Your honor, I noticed the defendant was nervous, sweating excessively and was making furtive eye movements. In addition I believe I heard the toilet flush 5 times leading me to believe defendant was possibly ingesting illegal substances. After noticing the distinct shape of a firearm in his right front pocket I become apprehensive regarding my safety and the safety of other diners. I therefor initiated a conversation regarding his possession of a valid license for what I believed to be a concealed firearm.

Kudos to the cop for being attentive and acting on his suspicion. No harm done, common courtesy ruled. Give cop attitude and your'e going to get jacked up.
 
Last edited:
In Couture, the gun was found after an illegal search. Fruits of that poisonous tree, right? Motion to suppress the gun granted, no brainer. If you can show me some sort of similarity between the OPs scenario and Coutures, Im more than happy to reassess this discussion.

Let's assume a case in which someone asked for an LTC does not have one. The person declines.

The police have reasonable reason to believe the person has a gun (as was the case on Couture), but no reason to believe, other than a possible gun law violation, that the person is engaging in illegal activity. They then search the person because they believe he has a gun (not because they are stopping him for something else and conduct a Terry search).

It is this search, based only on the belief the person has a gun, that causes me to see a similarity to Couture.

Of course, the argument could be made that once the person declines to produce an LTC, it is certain that they are in violation of either refusal to produce papers, or unlicensed carry and, as such, could be detained. This may negate the Couture parallel.
 
Let's assume a case in which someone asked for an LTC does not have one. The person declines.

The police have reasonable reason to believe the person has a gun (as was the case on Couture), but no reason to believe, other than a possible gun law violation, that the person is engaging in illegal activity. They then search the person because they believe he has a gun (not because they are stopping him for something else and conduct a Terry search).

It is this search, based only on the belief the person has a gun, that causes me to see a similarity to Couture.

Of course, the argument could be made that once the person declines to produce an LTC, it is certain that they are in violation of either refusal to produce papers, or unlicensed carry and, as such, could be detained. This may negate the Couture parallel.

It may negate the Couture parallel? It does negate the Couture parallel.

In the OPs scenario, the cop based his question (threshold inquiry) on a hunch.His question certainly did not require Miranda, as suggested in this thread earlier. OPs skinny jean clad buddy answers this question in the affirmative, and right then and there 140/129c becomes an option for our lunching officers. Or sherrifs. Whatever. We can hem and haw about what skinny jean guy could have or should have done, but according to the OP, he didnt select any of those options.
Instantly, Haskell, Couture, and Alvarado, are off the lunch table.

Couture was stopped due to a grocery clerk making a phone call (pardon the Kurtz reference, that was for AHM)about what he thought he saw. The LEO conducts a motor vehicle stop, eschews all ROE, and after his illegal search, locates a roscoe that wasnt the one described in the grocery clerks description. Motion to suppress? Granted.
 
Back
Top Bottom