Seems like a dirty trick to me.....

MisterHappy

NES Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
28,277
Likes
17,370
Location
On the 16 yard line, shootin' for the Lewis!
Feedback: 19 / 0 / 0
Excerpt:

FRAMINGHAM — A Framingham man was drunk and had a loaded handgun in his car Saturday when he tried pick up his son, who had been detained by Ashland Police, a prosecutor said in Framingham District Court yesterday.

Story:


http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x633527670/Framingham-OUI-suspect-had-gun-in-car-cops-say


OK.....maybe he was carrying while OUI.... But the gun was under his direct control until the cops took him out of the car.

So....If you've got a gun under your seat, it would be best to stuff it into your belt when John Law asks you to get out for a chat?
 
Officers searched the car and found a loaded 9mm Beretta handgun under the driver's seat. Pimentel, who had a valid license to carry the gun, never told police that it was there, Sahrbeck said.

He didn't have to.


Pimentel, of 156 Irving St., was charged with carrying a gun while intoxicated,

He wasn't carrying.

improper storage of a gun

as noted, it only out of his control when the cops yanked him.

and OUI.

sounds legit


Ashland ? Isn't there some bad crap going on there?
 
OK.....maybe he was carrying while OUI.... But the gun was under his direct control until the cops took him out of the car.

So....If you've got a gun under your seat, it would be best to stuff it into your belt when John Law asks you to get out for a chat?

Under the front seat is not "under his direct control." That being said, I don't see how they can charge him with both improper storage (should be transport), and carrying a gun while under the influence. Seems like the first precludes the second. [thinking]
 
If he were NOT licensed, he'd have been charged with carrying without a license, as has happened before in Framingham, where all occupants in a vehicle were charged with unlawful posession as the gun was found in a console.

So....what is the definition of "direct control"? I'd argue that under the seat wihile, sitting in the seat, is, as (unless you have exceptionally friendly passengers) nobody but you can access it. If the reasoning behind the concept of "direct control" is to prevent unauthorized access, then this qualifies.

The ironic thing is that the guy was probably chillin' at home, and got the call to come get his kid....no good deed, and all that.
 
If he was the only person in the car wouldn't it be under his direct control ? Makes no sense to me . If i was alone in my car with 20 handguns laying all over the seats im still the only one in the car and they are under my direct control. Sounds like Ashland PD is grasping for additional charges.
 
Your honor, is that gavel under your direct control? But you're not holding onto it, you are not fused to it at the hip. How can you say it's under your control if you're not holding it? Oh, because you can pick it up before I get to you, meaning you do have control over it...I get it. So you apparently are so fast that you can A) dive into my car, thru my window and B) pick up my gun and train it on me, before....wait for it..........wait for it......before I can?

[banghead]

Hey Martha, you get all that? Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? [rofl2]
 
I learned a long time ago, that "under direct control" de facto if not de jure in Mass means on your person, not in the console, glove box, or under the seat. The way it is and the way it should are two very different things.

In any event, I'd guess his gun toten' days are over. He better get himself a very good lawyer. I don't know if he can get in a jam with his employers or not, since he works in a school (think of the children, a drunk with a gun...oh my, oh my).

He should have never consented to a search of the vehicle, but then again if he was as intoxicated as purported, perhaps his judgement was impaired.
 
[h=2][/h]
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Ashland ? Isn't there some bad crap going on there?
Like what?





dunno...I thought I read where there was some police corruption or harassment of citizens by their police. Perhaps I am mistaken.

 
dunno...I thought I read where there was some police corruption or harassment of citizens by their police. Perhaps I am mistaken.

[/INDENT]


Not sure, but I'd like to know. Wouldn't be surprised if it was true though......
 
Based on what?

Based on the fact that the law doesn't specifically define "direct control." It's whatever the arresting officer thinks it is, and like most firearms-related statute in MA, case law determines what the real-world meaning of the law is. In this case, having the firearm on your person is always your safest bet. Granted, a woman carrying in her purse on the passenger seat would seem to violate this, but I'm not specifically aware of any court rulings that address that particular aspect.

Same with carrying while under the influence. There is no defined level of BAC for carrying a firearm (unlike OUI @ 0.08%). If you've consumed any amount of alcohol and the arresting officer says you're under the influence, then as far as the law is concerned you're under the influence. It's completely irrational & stupid, and may not hold up in court, but that's the reality of our fair state.
 
Last edited:
The OUI will terminate his LTC for life. If it's his first offense he'll get a slap on the wrist and the gun stuff will get filed. He can kiss his guns goodbye.
 
The OUI will terminate his LTC for life. If it's his first offense he'll get a slap on the wrist and the gun stuff will get filed. He can kiss his guns goodbye.

CWOF + Lawyer + bench trial (i think) i know a buddy who went through this before he moved out of MA. i'm not saying anyone should try and be the test case, but this guy had a significant amount of mitigating circumstances via issues from overseas... he got help and got reinstated. then moved.
 
Back
Top Bottom