Think this guy is screwed?

[Len-2A Training]

You need a non-resident LTC to bring the large capacity guns and magazines into the state. For the shotgun (if it wasn't large capacity) you don't need a license, but must have it unloaded and secured in a case. If the magazines are post ban, you can't have them at all unless your LEO.

Really?? So FOPA doesn't apply in MA??

We can't take the news article as gospel, but:

- If all the guns/ammo/brass knuckles were properly cased/locked in the bed of the truck or out of reach of the driver, FOPA applies as long as he's going direct from CT to ME and not stopping in MA.

- If he had ammo on his person, he's screwed.

- If any of the guns/ammo weren't in compliance with FOPA he's screwed.

- Neither CT nor ME require a permit for possession of guns/ammo/mags/vests. No idea on the knucks.

They can arrest and try to prosecute on anything, doesn't mean it will stick however. But it will cost a bundle to defend against it regardless.

 

[vellnueve]

Len,

I don't think FOPA covers brass knuckles...

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len,

I don't think FOPA covers brass knuckles...

Mike, correct but read the referenced MGL above. Legal to possess knucks, but NOT within your control in a vehicle or "on the street". So if they were in the truck bed, no harm no foul (by law) . . . doesn't mean that they won't charge him for it however!

I've seen knucks on people's desks and I've seen them sold at gun shows. If you use it as a paperweight on your desk you aren't violating any law.

 

[jhblaze1]

what's a 30 round magazine ammunition clip?

 

[Garys]

Trooper Shaun Bellao found a knife and more ammunition on Huizinga.

If he found the ammunition on Huizinga, he has probable cause to search the rest of the vehicle. Legality of the knife depends on a number of factors, I think.

Of course that brings up the question of why the search for a MV violation?

None of which we'll ever know from the story in the Lame Stream Media.

 

[M1911]

You'd think he would have been more careful in his driving...swerving around on the highway?

I dunno how you drove when you were an 18-year-old male, but I did some pretty stupid stuff way back when.

 

[Garys]

You'd think he would have been more careful in his driving...swerving around on the highway?

You'd be amazed how many people who should scrupulously follow the traffic laws drive like idiots, have cars with defective equipment, expired inspection stickers, expired registrations, and so on.

My theory (not specific to this case) is that for some people breaking the law is such a habit that they don't even think about it. Thus when they are on their way to do something criminal, like say sell drugs, they get careless about things like MV violations.

Just a theory, based on my personal observations.

Maybe some of the LEOs on the forum can poke holes in that.

 

[M1911]

If he found the ammunition on Huizinga, he has probable cause to search the rest of the vehicle. Legality of the knife depends on a number of factors, I think.

Of course that brings up the question of why the search for a MV violation?

None of which we'll ever know from the story in the Lame Stream Media.

He was driving a Ford Ranger pickup, so the guns were probably in plain sight. Since the driver didn't have an LTC or non-resident LTC, wouldn't that be enough cause for a search?

 

[Garys]

He was driving a Ford Ranger pickup, so the guns were probably in plain sight. Since the driver didn't have an LTC or non-resident LTC, wouldn't that be enough cause for a search?

It would. Of course we don't know if they were behind the seat or if he had a truck box where they were stored. Or a cap either for that matter. Even if he had them under a tarp in the bed, it's not plain sight or within his control.

As I said, the story left a lot of information out, so I just went on what was quoted.

 

[M1911]

You'd be amazed how many people who should scrupulously follow the traffic laws drive like idiots, have cars with defective equipment, expired inspection stickers, expired registrations, and so on.

My theory (not specific to this case) is that for some people breaking the law is such a habit that they don't even think about it. Thus when they are on their way to do something criminal, like say sell drugs, they get careless about things like MV violations.

Just a theory, based on my personal observations.

Maybe some of the LEOs on the forum can poke holes in that.

I had a discussion about that with the licensing officer in my town a number of years back. I expressed to him how surprised I was to read each week in the police blotter about how they arrested someone on a warrant after a traffic stop. I told him if I had a warrant out on me, I'd be driving a lot more careful than that. He said that people like me who thought that way wouldn't have a warrant out on them -- they'd take care of it right away.

 

[cekim]

IHe said that people like me who thought that way wouldn't have a warrant out on them -- they'd take care of it right away.

+1

Turns out anti-social people are not so much good with the matriculation...

This shouldn't be a surprise, but I've heard the same thing from officers I know...

 

[lowbuckbob]

For a routine traffic stop, the Trooper cannot go beyond the scope of the original infraction (the traffic violation) without clear and articulable facts that would lead him to believe there is reasonable suspicion warranting a further search. This would include having the operator alight from the vehicle to perform a pat frisk. During a traffic stop, the subject is contained within the vehicle and if he produces his license and registration and there are no extenuating circumstances, there is no need to proceed any further. If, however, the Trooper perceives any suspicious behavior that would lead him to believe something other than the nexus of his original stop is afoot, he is indeed free to conduct any further investigation as the situation warrants.

 

[Jose]

What, if any permit or license is required of a Maine non-resident to bring these types of firearms into that state?

None. Mass is an aberration, not the rule. You could drive into Ohio with all that stuff he had without a license or permit because such things do not exist here. Just make sure no loaded magazines or speedloaders are in your vehicle unless you have a LTC from a state which we recognize.

Is the mere fact that he admitts to be heading to Maine admitting to other potential violations?

Nope. Even if he was going to be in violation of Maine law once he got there, police outside of Maine cannot enforce Maine law.

 

[Jose]

You need a non-resident LTC to bring the large capacity guns and magazines into the state. For the shotgun (if it wasn't large capacity) you don't need a license, but must have it unloaded and secured in a case. If the magazines are post ban, you can't have them at all unless your LEO.

Into Maine? Negative.

 

[jdubois]

Really?? So FOPA doesn't apply in MA??

FOPA applies to transporting guns through a state, not bringimg them into a state. And a Scriv-like right back at you.

Are you talking about ME or MA? I thought ME had no long gun restrictions.

Yeah, I miss-read the question, thought he was asking about MA. Nevermind.

 

[GSG]

Yep, if he wasn't in full compliance with FOPA he's screwed.

Brass knuckles are illegal, right? If he was in FOPA compliance then that might be the only charge that sticks. That plus the traffic charge.

Dangerous? Maybe. Illegal? Yep.

Nope, as LenS stated, MGL 269-10 only applies if the knuckles are carried on you or under your control in a motor vehicle.

Mike, correct but read the referenced MGL above. Legal to possess knucks, but NOT within your control in a vehicle or "on the street". So if they were in the truck bed, no harm no foul (by law) . . . doesn't mean that they won't charge him for it however!

I've seen knucks on people's desks and I've seen them sold at gun shows. If you use it as a paperweight on your desk you aren't violating any law.

My theory (not specific to this case) is that for some people breaking the law is such a habit that they don't even think about it. Thus when they are on their way to do something criminal, like say sell drugs, they get careless about things like MV violations.

No kidding.


And as far as Connecticut law goes WRT brass knuckles:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap529.htm#Sec29-38.htm

Sec. 29-38. Weapons in vehicles. (a) Any person who knowingly has, in any vehicle owned, operated or occupied by such person, any weapon, any pistol or revolver for which a proper permit has not been issued as provided in section 29-28 or any machine gun which has not been registered as required by section 53-202, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years or both, and the presence of any such weapon, pistol or revolver, or machine gun in any vehicle shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section by the owner, operator and each occupant thereof. The word "weapon", as used in this section, means any BB. gun, any blackjack, any metal or brass knuckles, any police baton or nightstick, any dirk knife or switch knife, any knife having an automatic spring release device by which a blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches in length, any stiletto, any knife the edged portion of the blade of which is four inches or over in length, any martial arts weapon or electronic defense weapon, as defined in section 53a-3, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon or instrument.

 

[Len-2A Training]

You'd be amazed how many people who should scrupulously follow the traffic laws drive like idiots, have cars with defective equipment, expired inspection stickers, expired registrations, and so on.

My theory (not specific to this case) is that for some people breaking the law is such a habit that they don't even think about it. Thus when they are on their way to do something criminal, like say sell drugs, they get careless about things like MV violations.

Just a theory, based on my personal observations.

Maybe some of the LEOs on the forum can poke holes in that.

Nope, I've been told and observed the same thing when I worked for the PD.

I had a discussion about that with the licensing officer in my town a number of years back. I expressed to him how surprised I was to read each week in the police blotter about how they arrested someone on a warrant after a traffic stop. I told him if I had a warrant out on me, I'd be driving a lot more careful than that. He said that people like me who thought that way wouldn't have a warrant out on them -- they'd take care of it right away.

Other than the "pros", this is a very true statement. Thankfully there are few "pros" out there. Perps tend to bring attention upon themselves . . . and then they wonder why they get caught/stopped. Of course the court's "catch and release" program makes it all for naught most of the time.

FOPA applies to transporting guns through a state, not bringimg them into a state. And a Scriv-like right back at you.

Yeah, I miss-read the question, thought he was asking about MA. Nevermind.

Yes you did, now go sit in a corner for an hour as penance!

 

[jdubois]

Yes you did, now go sit in a corner for an hour as penance!

Gladly, if it's a nice quiet corner without my screaming two year old, and I can bring my bourbon with me

 

[M1911]

Other than the "pros", this is a very true statement. Thankfully there are few "pros" out there.

The licensing officer said much the same thing about the pros -- they don't get caught in the first place, but fortunately there aren't many of them.

 

[Blitz1]

The licensing officer said much the same thing about the pros -- they don't get caught in the first place, but fortunately there aren't many of them.

How do you know there aren't many of them if they're not getting caught?

 

[M1911]

How do you know there aren't many of them if they're not getting caught?

I'm guessing it was the unsolved crimes where the perp clearly knew what he was doing and left few clues. As opposed to the typical smash-and-grabs done in view of lots of witnesses.

 

[Coyote33]

Check the comments to this article by clicking the link at the end!


Conn. man ordered held on $10,000

I-495 STOP YIELDS GUNS AND KNIVES

Thursday, March 5, 2009
Conn. man ordered held on $10,000

I-495 STOP YIELDS GUNS AND KNIVES

By Linda Bock TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
[email protected]


State police displayed some of the items recovered from Luke Huizinga's pickup. (Submitted by state police)

Luke S. Huizinga in court today.
(T&G STAFF/RICK CINCLAIR)


BOLTON — A judge set bail at $10,000 today for the Connecticut man whose pulled-over pickup was allegedly filled with an assault rifle, a shotgun, a bullet-proof vest, ammunition, brass knuckles and knives.

At his arraignment in Clinton District Court, Luke S. Huizinga, 18, of Danbury, Conn., pleaded not guilty to a litany of firearms charges. His lawyer told the court that Mr. Huizinga is an ardent target shooter.

Mr. Huizinga was arrested by state police about 12:20 this morning after state police saw the vehicle swerving in and out of lanes on Interstate 495 north in Bolton.

He told Trooper Shaun Bellao he was headed to a wedding in Maine.

According to police, the driver appeared evasive and a gun case was spotted in the cab of the truck.

Trooper Bellao told the driver to get out of the truck, and he patted him down, police said.

Mr. Huizinga's lawyer, Michael Ball, told Judge Martha Brennan that Mr. Huizinga thought he was doing the right thing by keeping his guns and ammunication separate.

According to state police, troopers searched the truck and found: a 16-inch Bushmaster assault rifle, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun with a pistol grip, seven 30-round magazine ammunition clips and several boxes of ammunition.

The assault rifle and the shotgun had both been modified, and each gun was equipped with laser sightings, police said.

Mr. Huizinga was charged with: marked lanes violation, possession of a large capacity firearm (rifle), possession of a firearm (shotgun), seven counts of possession of high capacity feeding devices (seven 30-clips), possession of a dangerous weapon (brass knuckles) and unlawful possession of ammunition.

Mr. Huizinga may face federal charges, including transporting guns across state lanes and not having a license to carry firearms.

Mr. Huizinga told authorities he bought the guns on his 18th birthday in September at a gun store in Connecticut, according to state police.

Mr Huizinga is a plumber's apprentice for his father's business.

Trooper Bellao found six knives and brass knuckles on Mr. Huizinga, police said.


Mr. Huizinga has no previous criminal record, according to authorities.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Depends. If the guns and ammo were properly stored per FOPA and he gets a good lawyer, then he has a chance.

It also depends on his actions at the scene. If he knew enough to SHUT UP once it became clear he was under arrest, he's got a far better chance than if he engaged in casual conversation and did not know EXACTLY what to say. If he choose the wrong words to explain his trip, gave them something to claim he was not covered under FOPA86 and he's not only screwed on the gun charge, but the search subsequent to that will probably be valid for the brass knucks charge. If he simply said "I am on a continuous and uninterrupted trip between CT and ME, both locations where I may legally posess these firearms" and nothing else, a decent attorney might even be able to argue that the search based on the presence of guns legal under FOPA86 was illegal and, as such, the brass knucks cannot be used as the base of another charge.

But, how many out of state 18 year olds will know enough to make only statements that are clearly consisent with FOPA86, and then lawyer up once it is clear they are under arrest?

My guess is that he will run up $5K - $10K in legal fees and get either dismissal of charges or a no-jail time plea bargain, but will forfeit the guns in any case.

 

[Underwhere]

I feel bad for this kid.
The state is going to have their way with him.

How about all the illegal handguns in Boston? How about we try and put some of those guys away instead of charging a guy with something that would have likely been perfectly legal in another state.

 

[Martlet]

That's right down the street from my house. I love that place.

I miss home.

 

[Underwhere]

Some pics of what he had.

Loaded mags
He had a lock on the AR15 (which does not look like an assault rifle) Fixed stock.
He had a trigger lock on the shotgun.

 

[Len-2A Training]

federal charges, including transporting guns across state lanes and not having a license to carry firearms

Since when is either of these a Federal Charge??

It sounds to me like he's guilty of "contempt of cop" and so the trooper is throwing the book at him and adding pages to it as he goes!

AN EXERCISE TO THE READER: Can you see why it is wisest to always keep the guns/ammo/mags "invisible" even if you are 100% legal? If the trooper didn't see this stuff, there would have been nothing more serious than the MV violations and he'd be on his way.

 

[Garys]

Looks like the shotgun has a lock on it too. Are the loaded mags a problem? If he had the brass knuckles on him, that's a problem.

 

[Half Cocked]

What about Federal statute 926A? If they were legal where he is coming from and legal where he is going, then Mass can’t charge him with this.

A lot of assumptions here that the defendant was even legally allowed to possess the firearms in Connecticut.

Do we know that he was not an otherwise prohibited person?

Do we know that he was just a average gun owner from CT who made a mistake?

Just sayin.......

 

[Snapshot]

Do we know that he was not an otherwise prohibited person?

Do we know that he was just a average gun owner from CT who made a mistake?

Just sayin.......

Do we "know"? No. But how many gang bangers do you know of put trigger locks on their illegal guns?

All we can do is argue the facts given which sadly are less then ideal.

What is the proper way to answer the policeman's trap question, "Do you have any guns or drugs in the car?"

~snip~

I envision the best answer as, "I have nothing illegal in the car."

Can we get away with that in MA? Can we just say "nothing illegal". I thought I read somewhere that if you have a gun, you are legally required to say so if asked by a LEO