Simkin v FRB

[dcmdon]

Hi all,

I just got through reading Comm2A's amicus brief on this and am midway through the judgement.

It would seem to me that this was a very significant decision. It effectively opens the door for OC in MA.

I spoke with one officer about this and he said that he got recurrent training on this to the effect of: If the guy is just OCing and doing nothing else threatening, leave him alone.

Thoughts?

Don

 

[Cabin Fever]

I wonder how widespread the training is.

 

[Bonesinium]

I wonder how widespread the training is.

Or rather how widespread it is ignored.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Or rather how widespread it is ignored.

My bet is this is more likely.

I wouldn't trust that ruling to keep my LTC!

 

[dnepro-mike]

uhhh, good old communist republic of taxachusetts. i so do not miss this anymore.

 

[drgrant]

It does but nothing stops them from harassing you, and in this state I doubt anyone is going to tempt fate by performing the necessary "tamping" by doing it enough that cops start getting the idea.


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

My bet is this is more likely.

I wouldn't trust that ruling to keep my LTC!

I would, but the problem is there's absolutely nothing stopping a bad LEO from creating at least a 1 ring, circus of legal aggravation out of your failure to conceal. Would be less of a problem if basic possession didn't require an LTC...

-Mike

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Hi all,

I just got through reading Comm2A's amicus brief on this and am midway through the judgement.

It would seem to me that this was a very significant decision. It effectively opens the door for OC in MA.

I spoke with one officer about this and he said that he got recurrent training on this to the effect of: If the guy is just OCing and doing nothing else threatening, leave him alone.

Thoughts?

Don

It was a significant decision and we've discussed it many times here. The basic takeaways are that the LA can't suspend a license if someone is doing what their license authorizes them to do, (i.e. carrying a firearm), and that while people might become alarmed to learn that someone is carrying a firearm, that's not the problem of the person carrying the firearm.

I can also confirm that Mass LEOs do receive recurrent training on this subject. There's always the possibility that a LEO will deviate from the proper procedure. I expect that to be the exception, not the rule. If that does happen, I don't expect someone to lose their license over it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If that does happen, I don't expect someone to lose their license over it.

The PDs should certainly know they have a well funded and highly motivated adversary should they choose to ignore Simkin.

 

[Waher]

If a case came up the legislature would 'fix' legal open carry in MA by making it illegal by statute.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

If a case came up the legislature would 'fix' legal open carry in MA by making it illegal by statute.

I think that's a distinct possibility, but only if a group of people decided to make a spectacle of open carry that they have in some other states.

 

[Waher]

Boston and Brookline would break out the fainting couch and lockstep marching media circus to get something passed in an emergency session at 1am on a Saturday if anyone was ever brave enough to do so.

 

[Bonesinium]

I expect that to be the exception, not the rule. If that does happen,

I'm not so sure it wouldn't be the opposite.

The PDs should certainly know they have a well funded and highly motivated adversary should they choose to ignore Simkin.

They should and they might. But they certainly do know they have a well funded union protecting them from such things. Better funded actually. And with more clout.

I think that's a distinct possibility, but only if a group of people decided to make a spectacle of open carry that they have in some other states.

Make a spectacle of it? That isn't nor should it be relevant. If they are willing to do that it matters not what people do. Only if people make a spectacle of it? That might be a tad ignorant. And I know your not.

 

[Woodstock]

"Disturbing the peace" is a handy catch-all charge. It's been filed against guys for the crime of disagreeing with an LEO who doesn't know the lawr.

 

[GPP]

Hey, if you can somehow stop John Q. Public from calling 911, then most cops could give a rats ass about OC in MA.

- - - Updated - - -

"Disturbing the peace" is a handy catch-all charge. It's been filed against guys for the crime of disagreeing with an LEO who doesn't know the lawr.

Wrong.
The catch all is " Disorderly Conduct" .
Disturbing the peace requires an actual named complainant. Do your homework.

 

[CTpatriot]

The PDs should certainly know they have a well funded and highly motivated adversary should they choose to ignore Simkin.

and the PDs know they aren't spending their own cash.

 

[GPP]

and the PDs know they aren't spending their own cash.

Methinks you misunderstood Robs post.

 

[MachineHead]

...while people might become alarmed to learn that someone is carrying a firearm, that's not the problem of the person carrying the firearm.

This is a nice way of telling the panty-staining moonbat to deal with it. It's good to see something like Simkin v. FRB in favor of the legal gun owner who happens to carry either concealed or openly.

 

[MaynardDad]

Remember the guy with the "not concealed" restriction from Newton? (Search for "Kicker96FS" in that thread.) People do call the cops, and the cops do come and check his license, mostly in Boston, but the panicked media circus hasn't happened yet.

Perhaps he just hasn't met the right moonbat yet. Or perhaps quietly going around your business in Boston while open-carrying a j-frame doesn't scare people as much as parading around a mall in Nashua with an AR pistol in a drop leg holster.

 

[dcmdon]

I would, but the problem is there's absolutely nothing stopping a bad LEO from creating at least a 1 ring, circus of legal aggravation out of your failure to conceal. Would be less of a problem if basic possession didn't require an LTC...

-Mike

This is why I think most of the work here needs to be done by people holding non-resident LTCs. Maybe someone who is moving south and intends to let it lapse anyway. They can take the LTC, but they can't take (much of) your property.

Shoot, I'd be willing to crowdsource funds for a Makarov or Star or Lorcin or some other "disposable" gun for these people to carry.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I would, but the problem is there's absolutely nothing stopping a bad LEO from creating at least a 1 ring, circus of legal aggravation out of your failure to conceal. Would be less of a problem if basic possession didn't require an LTC...

-Mike

Cops don't generally have enough leash to create a "1 ring circus". They tie someone up legally for very long without an agreeable ADA. Even before that point they've got supervisors who generally are pretty level headed.

Some time ago I received a second hand, but somewhat credible report of a person being arrested in Boston for carrying a firearm without a "Boston LTC". The guy had a valid LTC, but didn't live in Boston. The cop's supervisor apologized, returned the guy's gun and made the cop release him.

This is why I think most of the work here needs to be done by people holding non-resident LTCs. Maybe someone who is moving south and intends to let it lapse anyway. They can take the LTC, but they can't take (much of) your property.

Shoot, I'd be willing to crowdsource funds for a Makarov or Star or Lorcin or some other "disposable" gun for these people to carry.

I'm not sure of what you're angling at or what you think you want to accomplish. There's nothing in this area as far as I'm concerned that needs to be "fixed" in Massachusetts. Concealed carry is fine. Open carry is legal, but unusual. 'Discreet' carry (my method of carry and something in between open and concealed) is fine as well.

It sounds like you'd like to see someone provoke the police into an inappropriate response to a legal activity. Why?

 

[kingfisher]

Shoot, I'd be willing to crowdsource funds for a Makarov or Star or Lorcin or some other "disposable" gun for these people to carry.

It would be foolish to carry a "disposable" gun openly, but I'm sure you could find somebody to do it.

 

[Waher]

There is already enough to fight in the courts and legislature without activists deliberately provoking confrontational cases. Leave the lawfare to Comm2A and let them go on the offensive when the state does something stupid.

 

[Bonesinium]

There is already enough to fight in the courts and legislature without activists deliberately provoking confrontational cases. Leave the lawfare to Comm2A and let them go on the offensive when the state does something stupid.

You are right. We should all just heed and cower to authority and cross our fingers while waiting for a drawn out lawsuit that isn't likely to substantially change anything to take place while that same authority continues to further restrict rights. That's the ticket! There is no place for activism or actual exercise of your rights.

 

[71montess]

You are right. We should all just heed and cower to authority and cross our fingers while waiting for a drawn out lawsuit that isn't likely to substantially change anything to take place while that same authority continues to further restrict rights. That's the ticket! There is no place for activism or actual exercise of your rights.

Do it, do it I dare you. All talk right ?

 

[Bonesinium]

Do what? Open carry? I do. Thanks. Not that I personally have to, to support others if they want to.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Some time ago I received a second hand, but somewhat credible report of a person being arrested in Boston for carrying a firearm without a "Boston LTC".

There was a conceptually similar case in Philly where several diverse subjects were arrested for carry using a FL carry permit - perfectly leval at the time (I think PA stopped recognizing out of state permits for residents). Once arrested, one was told by a superior officer that the arrest was bogus, but it was in the system, and he would have to go through the process. Each of the 4 or so black persons carrying on an FL permit got something like a $6000 settlement.

 

[Bonesinium]

There was also this:

 

[CrackPot]

There was a conceptually similar case in Philly where several diverse subjects were arrested for carry using a FL carry permit - perfectly leval at the time (I think PA stopped recognizing out of state permits for residents). Once arrested, one was told by a superior officer that the arrest was bogus, but it was in the system, and he would have to go through the process. Each of the 4 or so black persons carrying on an FL permit got something like a $6000 settlement.

I remember that story. My memory was mostly VA non-resident licenses. Added to that at least one of those arrested was a security guard and was licensed to carry on the job. And they would not return the guns confiscated.