Massachusetts LTB? ("License to "Bulge")

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. .

What if skinny jeans guy declined to answer? Is that an option without consequence? Is there a way out without falling into the 140/129c for skinny jeans guy without being detained or arrested or without having to show his LTC with all other things being the same? ie: revolver is printing through skinny jeans
 
What if skinny jeans guy declined to answer? Is that an option without consequence? Is there a way out without falling into the 140/129c for skinny jeans guy without being detained or arrested or without having to show his LTC with all other things being the same? ie: revolver is printing through skinny jeans


If skinny jeans guy declined to answer, it both could and should be an option without consequence, in the OPs scenario anyways.
Your guess is as good as mine as to how it would have played out though.
 
The problem with a lot of this is it could come down to the word of the cop vs the word of skinny jean printing guy. Who is the court going to believe? I think we know the answer to that unless you have your cell phone recording the entire convo.

In that video that was posted on NES months ago with the guy open carrying in a CT Subway restaurant the cop just kept asking for the guy's permit and refused to answer the guy when he asked why. The cop just kept asking and eventually called is supervisor (who was freakin' enormous).

Point is, neither cop knew the law, that was obvious, and I truly believe the only reason that guy didn't get jacked up was because the cops had doubts about the right thing to do and they knew he was recording them on his cell phone. If not for the cell phone they would have jacked him up and made up some crap that he was acting suspiciously or acting drunk or some such thing.

To drgrant's point, in CT PDs have been sued over this stuff and lost and all CT state and municipal PDs were sent memos and training updates telling them not to harass people for carrying pistols unless they are under suspicion of committing a crime.

To clarify, CT is definitely NOT gun friendly. The memo sent to CT PDs was 6 pages. The first page outlined that they can't demand to see a pistol permit without RAS. The next 5 pages outlined exactly how cops can harass CT folks carrying a gun and get away with it. It's pretty sickening really. It just backs up my belief that unless you walk around with a body cam running and can prove your rights were violated and have the time/money to fight it out in court just show them the stupid permit. Then you can let them know they violated your rights and you can report them to their supervisor and the state attorney general's office, SFLU, etc, etc. If you care to read the memo, click this link. http://ctcarry.com/Document/Download/492deac4-1b08-45d1-b8c5-fe4b3cbb62d3

I know this thread is about a MA resident, not CT. I am only bringing up CT law to help folks in CT and to make a point that MA is even less gun friendly than CT in this situation regarding handguns. If it's fuzzy in CT and the cops have easy ways to get away with it, it's even more fuzzy in MA and just not worth the hassle.
 
Last edited:
If skinny jeans guy declined to answer, it both could and should be an option without consequence, in the OPs scenario anyways.
Your guess is as good as mine as to how it would have played out though.
My guess would be something like a mini King Arthur ll scene.[shocked]
 
If skinny jeans guy declined to answer, it both could and should be an option without consequence, in the OPs scenario anyways.
Your guess is as good as mine as to how it would have played out though.

makes sense. I guess that's why when we get pulled over in a car and the cop asks where we are going we tell him. In most cases it's quicker and easier.

So in those cases we are forced into compliance by convenience. Shouldn't be....and in the case of the OP he would have been taking a chance that the cop actually knew the law and wouldn't bust his B's over it. Not sure I would want to take that chance either....thus compliance for convenience.
 
If skinny jeans guy declined to answer, it both could and should be an option without consequence, in the OPs scenario anyways.
Your guess is as good as mine as to how it would have played out though.

Probably a less funny version of this...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
makes sense. I guess that's why when we get pulled over in a car and the cop asks where we are going we tell him. In most cases it's quicker and easier.

So in those cases we are forced into compliance by convenience. Shouldn't be....and in the case of the OP he would have been taking a chance that the cop actually knew the law and wouldn't bust his B's over it. Not sure I would want to take that chance either....thus compliance for convenience.


Looking at it as compliance by convenience? I guess. In this case I look at it as compliance by common sense.
 
Looking at it as compliance by convenience? I guess. In this case I look at it as compliance by common sense.

probably more accurate description for the skinny jeans situation no doubt....
 
Last edited:
There is a ton of fail in this thread.

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.

So if a cop walked by your house and decided he'd go in "just for a quick look around" you'd be cool with that too and say "WGAF?"...Apparently we HAVE become well-conditioned in sheep hood up here, just like the .gov and the jackboots want us to be, yes? If I'm in a gun store, I've willingly taken it upon myself, put myself in a position where I should EXPECT to be asked for a license....Meanwhile, in other states, I could walk down the street with a S&W 500 strapped outside my waistband, full open carry, and not even be asked by a law enforcement officer about it, unless he specifically suspected me of being a felon...

WGAF?
"God Almighty" indeed.
Key point here is you are not in another state. The law states if asked to produce an ltc you have to comply (i disagree with the law but it is unfortunately the law). Now....arguing symantics.....he was asked "do you have a license for that".....a response of "yes" is complaince. When told "show it to me" its time to whip it out. Its massachusetts not nh or vt people.
 
Massachusetts LTB? ("License to "Bulge")

Key point here is you are not in another state. The law states if asked to produce an ltc you have to comply (i disagree with the law but it is unfortunately the law). Now....arguing symantics.....he was asked "do you have a license for that".....a response of "yes" is complaince. When told "show it to me" its time to whip it out. Its massachusetts not nh or vt people.

I am NOT saying you shouldn't produce the license. Let's just stop posting bad info. You are required to produce the license when it's demanded.

Edited for typo

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I am saying you shouldn't produce the license. Let's just stop posting bad info. You are required to produce the license when it's demanded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Play out your scenario....

Cop: Do you have a licence for that?
you: yes.
Cop:can I see your licence?
you: no.

Now this turns to action where the cop and his cop buddies get up and wrestle you to the ground kicking you in your face while putting you in cuffs.

How is this better than just showing your licence?

To your point, i do not agree with it either. But would you rather have him ask in a friendly tone or have him and his buddies stomp your skull into the ground?
 
Massachusetts LTB? ("License to "Bulge")

Play out your scenario....

Cop: Do you have a licence for that?
you: yes.
Cop:can I see your licence?
you: no.

Now this turns to action where the cop and his cop buddies get up and wrestle you to the ground kicking you in your face while putting you in cuffs.

How is this better than just showing your licence?

To your point, i do not agree with it either. But would you rather have him ask in a friendly tone or have him and his buddies stomp your skull into the ground?

Sorry my post had a typo. I meant to say I am NOT saying you shouldn't produce the license.

However, I disagree that it would go down like you stated. There are cameras everywhere and cops know that. Someone who is uncooperative but polite and respectful is often treated the same way.

Just understand that the LEO can't walk around demanding licenses without a reason. However, he can walk around asking questions. That's why it's a distinction with a difference.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Sorry my post had a typo. I meant to say I am NOT saying you shouldn't produce the license.

However, I disagree that it would go down like you stated. There are cameras everywhere and cops know that. Someone who is uncooperative but polite and respectful is often treated the same way.

Just understand that the LEO can't walk around demanding licenses without a reason. However, he can walk around asking questions. That's why it's a distinction with a difference.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I was in the army officers and NCO's senior to me would ask me to do things. Just because they asked nicely didn't mean it should be considered an order.

So I'm with the skinny jeans guy here. The cop asked nicely. I would consider that a demand just in a respectful and nice way. Why would I want to be polite and piss him off? Can't see how that will be good for me.

And to take it a step further...it is not just an uncooperative person....it is an uncooperative person with a gun. I think the gun adds and extra element.

The way the OP described it seemed like the cop didn't want to escalate the issue unnecessarily so he asked politely. My guess is that skinny jeans offered the right answer and the correct action. My guess is anything else and this would have escalated quickly against skinny jeans. I also don't think the cops care all that much about cameras these days. They know they are there and they can operate within the law and still make it hurt.
 
Last edited:
Looking at it as compliance by convenience? I guess. In this case I look at it as compliance by common sense.

^^^this...if you want to keep going with your day he did the right thing...if not be a hardass like everyone is saying and deal with the consequences...your choice but has anyone on here ever pulled anything similar to what everyone is saying to do without being further hassled or jammed up or are we just playing armchair quarterback?
 
If I choose to waive my rights, it's my choice. The OP's friend chose to waive his rights if you view a not-so-casual question by the cop as anything but a demand (because he didn't phrase the question/statement exactly the way some of you think he should have).

If it's not what you would do, NES, do it your way. It used to be a free country. [thinking]
 
I have no idea what youre talking about dude. ...

Please, allow me to rephrase:

... 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. ...

But yeah, my belief that somewhere out there someone is getting trained on that Alvarado case may be completely unfounded. I searched MassCops, and there is not one single mention of it. (Lots of "Alvarado"'s, but the hits are all about other people, places and precedents; whiffreading the search results puts one in the mind of Police Blotter Fax Friday - some real knee-slappers).

... I'm sure police have "workarounds" [for being told that mere presence of a gun is not RAS], but it's one more thing they worry about. ...

Speaking of workarounds for case law, it's fun to read the MassCops brainstorming session on reasons to tow and inventory a car (to fish for evidence without a warrant) after "Comm. v. Brinson" established that not all cars need to be towed or inventoried.
 
Last edited:
After reading thru 4 pages of what the OPs friend should have done or what everyone else would have done I went and reread the first post. Had it been me in that situation I would have responded exactly the same way by complying with the officers request. Had they turned out to be "cool dudes" after chatting with them for a while, I would have thanked them for their chosen profession like I do to many servicemen, told them to be careful out on the streets, and I would have picked up the tab for their lunch.

-Cuz


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
After reading thru 4 pages of what the OPs friend should have done or what everyone else would have done I went and reread the first post. Had it been me in that situation I would have responded exactly the same way by complying with the officers request. Had they turned out to be "cool dudes" after chatting with them for a while, I would have thanked them for their chosen profession like I do to many servicemen, told them to be careful out on the streets, and I would have picked up the tab for their lunch.

-Cuz


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
oh boy. [coffee]
 
Looking at it as compliance by convenience? I guess. In this case I look at it as compliance by common sense.

I think it's actually both things.

Convenience because producing the document nearly guarantees that the encounter will only last a short period of time. Basically complying in this particular circumstance is like picking up the fishing line from officercantmindhisownbusiness, cutting the hook off, and handing the hook remnants to him with a smile, knowing you just disabled his ability to fish in your pond anymore.

The common sense aspect comes into play when the realization is made that arm flapping, hysterics about asking for papers, etc, will not result in anything changing, even if you "win" the argument with officercantmindhisownbusiness, that doesn't mean there's going to be a paradigm shift in that town WRT how they approach carriers. If the guy is a jerk (tough to tell, not enough information) he's just going to do the same thing to the next guy knowing, reliably, that the next guy is not going to put up that kind of resistance nor is he going to know the law to that degree of complexity. Hell there might not even be a next guy, for years. We lose sight of the fact that gun carrying non LE, non security, guys in MA, we're pretty much unicorns.

I guess my main issue with this whole thing is I'm not seeing like the 3 hit combo tiger uppercut finishing move/spinning piledriver where the PD can be sued on a civil rights complaint simply for asking to see a license. I don't think the groundwork/ramp/vehicle for that kind of a lawsuit exists in MA.

-Mike
 
If I choose to waive my rights, it's my choice. The OP's friend chose to waive his rights if you view a not-so-casual question by the cop as anything but a demand (because he didn't phrase the question/statement exactly the way some of you think he should have).

If it's not what you would do, NES, do it your way. It used to be a free country. [thinking]

Correct, it used to be a free country. It is not anymore, especially in states like MA, CT, NY, CA, etc. So, what makes more sense?

1. Create a scene, create a bad rapport with law enforcement, get hassled or even arrested on some made up charge, spend a lot of money and time in court, make gun owners look like disrespectful, unruly kooks which will just lead to more rights being curtailed with the only way to stop it is an eventual all out civil war.

2. Comply with a simple request to see a permit and ask the officer why you were asked and perhaps let him know you didn't have to comply under the law but you did so out of common courtesy and a desire not to create a hassle for both of you. Then you write to the appropriate people to inform them of the incident and continue to fight for our rights via normal channels like getting involved and speaking with your state reps and senators.

I understand option 2 might get you nowhere but news flash, neither will option 1. Actually it was a small miracle but in the last state rep election here a good conservative pro 2A guy won in my district. He has been successful in limiting some of the crazy moonbat anti-gun BS they have tried to pass in Hartford. Some got through but even that was scaled back thanks to his efforts (and a few others). So there is hope, even in blue states.
 
Are they still skinny jeans if you're wicked fat?
 
I am NOT saying you shouldn't produce the license. Let's just stop posting bad info. You are required to produce the license when it's demanded.

Edited for typo

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lets just stop posting bad info?

I guess Im down with that.
I mean having zero understanding of the laws is just kind of asinine if you are walking around carrying a gun in MA.
Getting the proper training is certainly important.
Hopefully, when you instruct, you opine on both sides of this fence, so your students have a good working knowledge of what they are getting into while carrying a gun in MA.
 
Please, allow me to rephrase:



But yeah, my belief that somewhere out there someone is getting trained on that Alvarado case may be completely unfounded. I searched MassCops, and there is not one single mention of it. (Lots of "Alvarado"'s, but the hits are all about other people, places and precedents; whiffreading the search results puts one in the mind of Police Blotter Fax Friday - some real knee-slappers).



Speaking of workarounds for case law, it's fun to read the MassCops brainstorming session on reasons to tow and inventory a car (to fish for evidence without a warrant) after "Comm. v. Brinson" established that not all cars need to be towed or inventoried.

I still have zero idea of where you think Alvarado has any relevance to the OPs scenario.
Keep searching masscops, maybe itll come to you.
Or,
Make an actual argument to defend and articulate what exactly it is you are trying to say, and perhaps youll educate some of us on what we are missing.
 
I still have zero idea of where you think Alvarado has any relevance to the OPs scenario.
Keep searching masscops, maybe itll come to you.
Or,
Make an actual argument to defend and articulate what exactly it is you are trying to say, and perhaps youll educate some of us on what we are missing.

By the OP's account, the only specific fact that drew the sheriff's attention was the bulge.
Before Alvarado, the sheriff could have stopped the guy solely because of the bulge.
After Alvarado, a bulge is insufficient because sole presence of a gun is not RAS of criminal activity.

No RAS, no Terry stop; he's free to return to his own table.

Also:
By the OP's account, the sheriff asked the OP's buddy if he had an LTC.
Before Haskell, everyone thought he had to produce the LTC (answering the question).
After Haskell, he particularly has the right not to answer that question.

If my above analysis is correct,
I'd expect the changed states of affairs to displease the average Commonwealth LEO.

My modest MassCops research leads me to suspect many don't know of the changes.

Such ignorance may yield some dismissals and acquittals.
Yet I'm confident that if only they knew, they could cope with them.
 
I may be off base on the comparison with Couture.

My basis for the parallel is:

1. A "demand for license" is presumably based on the assumption the person is committing the crime of being unlicensed.

2. Couture established that the mere presence of a gun does not create the basis for a presumption of unlawful activity.

But, the cases are not similar in details beyond this point.
 
By the OP's account, the only specific fact that drew the sheriff's attention was the bulge.
Before Alvarado, the sheriff could have stopped the guy solely because of the bulge.
After Alvarado, a bulge is insufficient because sole presence of a gun is not RAS of criminal activity.

No RAS, no Terry stop; he's free to return to his own table.

Also:
By the OP's account, the sheriff asked the OP's buddy if he had an LTC.
Before Haskell, everyone thought he had to produce the LTC (answering the question).
After Haskell, he particularly has the right not to answer that question.

If my above analysis is correct,
I'd expect the changed states of affairs to displease the average Commonwealth LEO.

My modest MassCops research leads me to suspect many don't know of the changes.

Such ignorance may yield some dismissals and acquittals.
Yet I'm confident that if only they knew, they could cope with them.


You seem to be missing the 140/129c aspect of things. You dont need a crime or suspicion of a crime, and I dont think the initial inquiry is at Terry stop levels.
I now see your use of Haskell and Alvarado, I appreciate the explanation. I also think that neither of those cases are relevant here, but it certainly makes for an interesting argument. It would be nice if one or two of the litigators here on NES would offer up their opinions, but we know lawyers wont do that. Going in front of a jury and trying to use Haskell as a defense as to why you didnt answer the cops question ("He didnt demand it. The law says demand, not ask!") seems like an awful big gamble to me.

Ive never been on masscops, from what Im told, there isnt much discussion on there about topics like this.
 
You seem to be missing the 140/129c aspect of things. You dont need a crime or suspicion of a crime, and I dont think the initial inquiry is at Terry stop levels.

Hold those thoughts (see below).

I now see your use of Haskell and Alvarado, I appreciate the explanation. I also think that neither of those cases are relevant here, but it certainly makes for an interesting argument. ...

I've done a disservice to forum readers by neglecting to link to the actual cases. That's not how I want to roll.



(And I sure hope that my abstracts in #159 accurately summarize the cases).

An aside: I feel for Mike-Mike, because on p. 269 of Alvarado, the SJC cites and quotes Couture. Offhand, the SJC seems to consider Couture more relevant than was even casually obvious to me from its abstract. I guess that's why they pay the SJC the big bucks.


... It would be nice if one or two of the litigators here on NES would offer up their opinions, but we know lawyers wont do that. ...

Well, this case law is probably so obscure and new that at best I'd expect lawyers to speak in terms of probabilities/odds - not certainties.


... Going in front of a jury and trying to use Haskell as a defense as to why you didnt answer the cops question ("He didnt demand it. The law says demand, not ask!") seems like an awful big gamble to me.

Haskell is so subtle that even the decision itself apologizes for it. (See below).

First the relevant part of c140 §129c:

Any person ... shall on demand of a police officer or other law enforcement officer, exhibit his license to carry firearms ...

So I absolutely agree that a LEO can (at whim) tell anyone, "show me your LTC",
and they're required to show it.

Now the core of Haskell:

... The police, therefore, need not administer Miranda warnings before demanding that a suspect in custody produce one of the documents listed in § 129C.

The problem in this case, however, is one of form. Lieutenant Reilly did not order the defendant to produce or exhibit a license to possess the revolver found in his car; he asked the defendant whether he had such a license. As subtle as this distinction may seem, Lieutenant Reilly's question was an invitation to "relate a factual assertion or disclose information," ... specifically, an admission that the defendant was in violation of G. L. c. 140, § 129C. It was therefore a request for a testimonial communication that entitled the defendant to the Fifth Amendment's protections, including the right to refuse to answer. ...

So my take on Haskell is that if a LEO asks "do you have an LTC" of an un-Mirandized detainee (even during a Terry stop), then the detainee has the option to take the 5th and not self-incriminate by not answering. (The SJC doesn't explore the propriety of silence when the detainee has a perfectly cromulent LTC in their possession).

As far as juries go... I imagine that the defense would preemptively move to suppress any testimony (and fruits) impermissible under Haskell/Miranda. And if that removed an essential element, I imagine a motion for those charge(s) to be dismissed, without presentation to the jury.

But in the case of the OP's buddy, it's a thin hypothetical to imagine he'd get charged, but only with 129c. Probably the sheriff either shrugs it off, or goes FR with other charges.

Ive never been on masscops, from what Im told, there isnt much discussion on there about topics like this.

They have a Law Review forum (423 discussions; 2 (unrelated) Alvarado hits), a Court Decisions subforum (199 discussions; 6 (unrelated) Alvarado hits), and are not above bringing in case law when discussing current events (2 Alvarado hits). Ironically, in 2011 our own Officer Obie did cite the Alvarado case in one news story - a tragic police involved fatal shooting in Plymouth, although no illicit firearms were involved.

At its best, it seems an admirable form of continuing legal education.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom