Maybe too soon for us in Boston to carry unrestricted?

[X14478]

From bpdnews.com - The Boston Police Department's Virtual Community

At about 11:13 pm on Friday, August 26, 2022, Officers assigned to the Youth Violence Strike Force made an onsite arrest of Jaheem Effee, 20, of Roxbury, for firearm-related offenses in the area of 18 Woodbine St, Roxbury.


As a result of an investigation, Officers were in the area of Woodbine St in Roxbury due to information gleaned from an active firearm investigation. During their investigation, officers became aware that a male was brandishing a firearm in the area of Woodbine Street.

As Officers turned onto Woodbine Street, they observed a group that contained a male matching the description of the male seen brandishing a firearm. Officers stopped this male and recovered a loaded firearm upon conducting a pat-frisk. This male was placed into custody without incident, with officers noting that the male was holding an alcoholic beverage, smelled of alcohol, and appeared intoxicated.

Additionally, fearing the presence of another weapon, officers conducted a pat-frisk of other members of the group and recovered a loaded firearm from a bag.

Officers placed Effee in custody without further incident.

The firearm recovered from Effee was determined to be a Glock 43 9mm with nine (9) rounds in the magazine.

The firearm recovered from the other male was determined to be a Century Arms TP9 with nine (9) rounds. Officers were able to determine that this male had an active license to carry but was only authorized to carry for hunting and target shooting. This firearm, as well as the LTC, was seized by officers.

Effee is to be arraigned in Roxbury District Court on charges of Unlawful possession of a firearm, Unlawful possession of ammunition, and carrying a loaded firearm.

The other male is to be summonsed into court for Intoxicated Licensee Carrying a firearm and Firearm License Restriction Violation.

 

[M1911]

Carry away in Boston. Just don't hang around with drunken thugs in Roxbury.

 

[Beretta92FS]

How did he get an LTC if he was 20 years old, the requirement is to be 21. Maybe he just had an FID and was carrying a handgun anyway?

 

[garandman]

.

You live in Boston?

 

[Matt_SERE]

How did he get an LTC if he was 20 years old, the requirement is to be 21. Maybe he just had an FID and was carrying a handgun anyway?

A: Jaheem Effee, 20, of Roxbury, for firearm-related offenses in the area of 18 Woodbine St, Roxbury.
B: fearing the presence of another weapon, officers conducted a pat-frisk of other members of the group and recovered a loaded firearm from a bag
C: other male was determined to be a Century Arms TP9 with nine (9) rounds. Officers were able to determine that this male had an active license to carry but was only authorized to carry for hunting and target shooting. This firearm, as well as the LTC, was seized by officers.

= Two different people.

 

[whacko]

He was charged with it. Does not mean it will stick.

 

[greencobra]

How did he get an LTC if he was 20 years old...

i remember a guy i met in a shop back in the early 70's who at 19, had a ltc. got it at 18. he could not buy a handgun from a ffl but could buy via a private sale until he hit 21. this is the day of "protection of life and property" or "target and hunting" and i don't remember what his was issued for...probably t&h. am i remembering this wrong? it's just a random memory i've always had. and after all these years, i still remember his name.

i also seem to have the recollection he couldn't buy pistol caliber ammo unless he could show it was for a rifle he owned. i may be way out of the ballpark on this but just another memory associated with the guy i've kept over the years.

@Len-2A Training, any truth to what i'm remembering?

 

[Matt_SERE]

i remember a guy i met in a shop back in the early 70's who at 19, had a ltc. got it at 18. he could not buy a handgun from a ffl but could buy via a private sale until he hit 21. this is the day of "protection of life and property" or "target and hunting" and i don't remember what his was issued for...probably t&h. am i remembering this wrong? it's just a random memory i've always had. and after all these years, i still remember his name.

i also seem to have the recollection he couldn't buy pistol caliber ammo unless he could show it was for a rifle he owned. i may be way out of the ballpark on this but just another memory associated with the guy i've kept over the years.

@Len-2A Training, any truth to what i'm remembering?

Firstly. It was two different people in the OP. See my post above.

Secondly, if it was the early 70s he could have been grandfathered when the law changed in '68.

1960s Unrest Was The Impetus For The First Gun Age Limits | HISTORY

You have to be 21 to buy a handgun at a store, but only 18 to get one at a gun show.

www.history.com

In response to these factors, the Gun Control Act of 1968 established the first federal age limits for buying guns from licensed dealers: 18 for long guns and 21 for handguns. The distinction was due to the fact that handguns were associated more with homicide (and today still account for most gun deaths) than long guns. However, it set no age limit for possession, and no age limit for purchasing guns from a private seller.

 

[Len-2A Training]

i remember a guy i met in a shop back in the early 70's who at 19, had a ltc. got it at 18. he could not buy a handgun from a ffl but could buy via a private sale until he hit 21. this is the day of "protection of life and property" or "target and hunting" and i don't remember what his was issued for...probably t&h. am i remembering this wrong? it's just a random memory i've always had. and after all these years, i still remember his name.

i also seem to have the recollection he couldn't buy pistol caliber ammo unless he could show it was for a rifle he owned. i may be way out of the ballpark on this but just another memory associated with the guy i've kept over the years.

@Len-2A Training, any truth to what i'm remembering?

You are correct.

Back ~1980 my MA town appointed a "kid" as a police officer. IIRC he was 18 yo and looked 14. Today he's chief of police in a town SW of Boston.

 

[robjax]

This will be a good test.

Expert firearms attorneys should jump on this to see how it plays out.

A stupid anti public defender will not do anything for this guy.

 

[eboos]

This will be a good test.

Expert firearms attorneys should jump on this to see how it plays out.

A stupid anti public defender will not do anything for this guy.

20 years old is still an issue.

Just checked BMC Roxbury and West Roxbury and the case doesn't appear in the system yet. Normal for a new arrest.

Edit: reread the article. The LTC violation guy is "the other male". The restriction violation would be subject to dismissal, but being intoxicated while carrying is M.G.L. ch. 269 s. 10H (up to $5000 fine and up to 2.5 years HOC).

 

[microwave900]

How could this possibly be a problem? Ignoring the intoxicated carrying for a second and focusing on the restrictions.

The restriction violation is not just a dead letter because of Bruen, it’s actually not law anymore. I have to assume this is a case of the cops not knowing the law, which is basically their only job.

The law punishing the thing he did was cut out by H. 5163, the bill GOAL was following closely last month. It has an emergency preamble for immediate effect and was signed by the governor 8/15/22:

SECTION 5. Said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in lines 10 to 17, inclusive, the words “; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as it considers proper. A violation of a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under this paragraph shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to a violation of this paragraph.”

 

[Drix]

How did he get an LTC if he was 20 years old, the requirement is to be 21. Maybe he just had an FID and was carrying a handgun anyway?

This is likely the case and the reporter doesn't know any better.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Additionally, fearing the presence of another weapon, officers conducted a pat-frisk of other members of the group and recovered a loaded firearm from a bag.

That's some mighty effective pat frisking.

 

[microwave900]

This is likely the case and the reporter doesn't know any better.

Two separate people.
1. Effee, 20 years old, Glock, no LTC or FID (we know because he was charged with possessing ammo).

2. Other guy not named, has LTC, Canik, was drunk too.

 

[Palladin]

i remember a guy i met in a shop back in the early 70's who at 19, had a ltc. got it at 18. he could not buy a handgun from a ffl but could buy via a private sale until he hit 21. this is the day of "protection of life and property" or "target and hunting" and i don't remember what his was issued for...probably t&h. am i remembering this wrong? it's just a random memory i've always had. and after all these years, i still remember his name.

i also seem to have the recollection he couldn't buy pistol caliber ammo unless he could show it was for a rifle he owned. i may be way out of the ballpark on this but just another memory associated with the guy i've kept over the years.

@Len-2A Training, any truth to what i'm remembering?

I had a LTC at 19, 'protection of Life & Property". Bought a nickel SW Mod 19 from a guy at Woburn sportsman Assoc for $150

 

[eboos]

Effee's case is now viewable on BMC Roxbury's docket. Statement of facts not yet viewable. Often when there are multiple arrests, there will be one statement of facts, that would identify the "other male". There are two other Possession of a Firearm without a LTC cases filed in Roxbury today, but none appear to be "the other male". There may be additional cases coming. Looks like Roxbury is a busy place.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Effee's case is now viewable on BMC Roxbury's docket. Statement of facts not yet viewable. Often when there are multiple arrests, there will be one statement of facts, that would identify the "other male". There are two other Possession of a Firearm without a LTC cases filed in Roxbury today, but none appear to be "the other male". There may be additional cases coming. Looks like Roxbury is a busy place.

Roxbury has been a "busy place" for the last 60 yrs!

 

[MGnoob]

He was charged with it. Does not mean it will stick.

The whole restricted LTC thing is common on that side of the state.. In a current political climate it would make a great case but you have to do it yourself because no one wants to pay out for somebody was probably a shit bag in the first place. But in my opinion even shit bags have “rights”

I’m not sure if you guys know this but no one really has any rights

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I haven't looked up the section, but I would expect that EBT fraud (including buying EBT benefits for cash) is at minimum a misdafelony, thus bringing lifetime prohibited person status if convicted.

Strange thing for someone to be bragging about on a gun forum.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

if this restricted LTC guy has a decent lawyer could he not argue Bruen, or technically, regardless of Bruen, restricted is restricted?

 

[MGnoob]

if this restricted LTC guy has a decent lawyer could he not argue Bruen, or technically, regardless of Bruen, restricted is restricted?

He could but he better off just pleading out to something else that doesn’t make him a mista-felony

 

[M1911]

if this restricted LTC guy has a decent lawyer could he not argue Bruen, or technically, regardless of Bruen, restricted is restricted?

I suspect he never gets charged for carrying outside of his restriction.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

if this restricted LTC guy has a decent lawyer could he not argue Bruen, or technically, regardless of Bruen, restricted is restricted?

As noted in post #12, the offense no longer even exists.

Even if he gets a CWOF, the courts will almost certainly side with the issuing authority's determination (almost certainly to me made) that he is potentially dangerous and thus unsuitable.

[corrected]

 

[eboos]

The whole restricted LTC thing is common on that side of the state.. In a current political climate it would make a great case but you have to do it yourself because no one wants to pay out for somebody was probably a shit bag in the first place. But in my opinion even shit bags have “rights”

I’m not sure if you guys know this but no one really has any rights

That's kind of the thing with the elimination of subjective qualification, opinions of whether this guy is a shit bag or not doesn't come into play. He is either qualified to carry unrestricted, or not qualified to carry at all. My bet is they will try to stick this guy with a "Guilty - filed" or a CWOF on the carrying while intoxicated and use that as a basis for revoking his license.

 

[M1911]

As noted in post #12, the offense no longer even exists.

His bigger problem is the carrying while under the influence, as the courts have held that being under .08 is not a defense since "guns are more dangerous than cars". Yes, the court really said that.

The LTC guy wasn’t under the influence. The fellow without an LTC was under the influence

 

[M1911]

That's kind of the thing with the elimination of subjective qualification, opinions of whether this guy is a shit bag or not doesn't come into play. He is either qualified to carry unrestricted, or not qualified to carry at all. My bet is they will try to stick this guy with a "Guilty - filed" or a CWOF on the carrying while intoxicated and use that as a basis for revoking his license.

Come on folks, read the article.

Guy 1, no LTC, under the influence.

Guy 2, had an LTC, carrying outside of his restrictions. No indication he was arrested.

 

[eboos]

Come on folks, read the article.

Guy 1, no LTC, under the influence.

Guy 2, had an LTC, carrying outside of his restrictions. No indication he was arrested.

Are you sure?
"Effee is to be arraigned in Roxbury District Court on charges of Unlawful possession of a firearm, Unlawful possession of ammunition, and carrying a loaded firearm."

Effee is the 20 year old.

"The other male is to be summonsed into court for Intoxicated Licensee Carrying a firearm and Firearm License Restriction Violation."

 

[Len-2A Training]

I haven't looked up the section, but I would expect that EBT fraud (including buying EBT benefits for cash) is at minimum a misdafelony, thus bringing lifetime prohibited person status if convicted.

Strange thing for someone to be bragging about on a gun forum.

The saying that "you can't fix stupid" is very true . . . here on NES as well as elsewhere.

Some years ago I had to serve a lawsuit on a person in a neighboring town. Looking up the individual online, I find a picture of him with an AR15 in a threatening pose. I did serve him without any issues. Spin forward ~1 year and I read that he was arrested in another neighboring town for robbing women in a shopping center parking lot. Turns out that he was a convicted felon before all this and although I don't know what happened with him, his online picture was enough to send him away as a "felon in possession" even before the robbery charges.

 

[paul73]

Additionally, fearing the presence of another weapon, officers conducted a pat-frisk of other members of the group

and so much of your refusal to consent to searches, etc. if they wanna frisk you - you will get frisked.