"Under the influence"

[GPP]

I don't recall seeing you at MF&G lately, I thought Maxspeed picked up your badge for you the other day.

As you say . . . "it's a total crapshoot". Based on the guys I've worked with and for, I'd be willing to bet that they stick it to anyone in that position, given that chance. I'm sure that there are guys and departments out there that might do different, but I don't think we can expect that.

All that said, if I'm having pizza and beer or wine with dinner (and since I never have more than 1 with dinner) and someone breaks in, I'll do what I have to and deal with the aftermath later. I just don't expect to be cut a break.

He did indeed grab my ID and fob the other night (Thanks again Maxspeed).

I saw you a few Saturday mornings ago during my "reorientation" and said " hey good morning Len", you looked at me and said " good morning" in return, then went back in the clubhouse. (24 SEP if that helps).

Having known some of the guys you worked for, I can understand your concern. I hope you realize that guys like SgtFreddy that felt it OK to give a kiss to a victim of domestic violence "in a fatherly way", or Detective Adam "The Sampler" , arent the best role models for part timers. Luckily, they are long gone. Well except one of them, hes still there. Theres a few more but those 2 came right up in my head.

We obviously cant expect treatment based on common sense and fact, we can only hope for it, and as long as we respond appropriately to a threat, having had 1 beer or half a bottle of Absolut should be a non factor. It is indeed a roll of the dice, but Im with you; I will respond as needed and deal with the ensuing BS afterwards.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Sorry I didn't recognize who I said hi to then! My bad. There was a large crowd of people around when I arrived. I was teaching the MA Gun Law Seminar that day and my brain was probably focused on that.

 

[MisterHappy]

Rob, its actually a wonder to me that either of you actually leave the house to be honest lol. Ive seen Len at MF&G recently, but I cant vouch for you so Ill take your word for it. Im beyond cynical as well, though Im forced to keep it in check due to my job. When I retire, all bets are off.

When I grew up, my father told me to never accept " because I said so " as an answer, unless it was him answering me.
If Im destined to eat a bag of shit, thats fine, Ill accept it, but I want to know why Im eating it. 90% of the reason I only made E6 in the military is due to this, and roughly 97.3% of the reason it took me almost 20 years to make detective is also because of this.

When your audience is asshats like me, and millenials as well, youd better have something better in your magazine than "because I said so", or "because Im cynical".

The truth is, neither you, Len, myself, or anyone else knows whats gonna happen if youre involved in a good shoot, in your home, while under the influence of alcohol or any other substance. Its a total crapshoot.

The sad truth of Rob's, Len's and often my cynicism is due to what I bolded in your post.

I'm sure you're one of the "good ones". Unfortunately, when you have stories such as Boris' interaction at a gas station were John Law approached him, as he sat in his car, and "questioned" (in quotes as the appropriateness is open for discussion) about his LTC status, and whether he was carrying, due to a plate scan, the skitishness of some here is understandable.

Since you run a real chance of getting your LTC pulled for a possible infraction of a gray area out of an abundance of caution, and if that happens, you have a sh!tstorm of joy to get it, and your valuables back even if you're found to be in the right, caution is warranted.

My kids' cars are registered in my name (insurance, of course). So, if they're pulled over, and the owner's name is run, LTC/FID status will apparently be available. Same town as Boris, so it's not a stretch. Now, they both have FIDs, and occasionally travel with FID-grade guns and ammo. I don't want them screwed over because a gun-unfriendly cop decides to be proactive.

That's why they make their posts urging caution. That's why I coined "Massprudence", and have no "advertising" on my car. Because you don't know. Black letter law? The vagueness is why this thread was started. Case law? Plea bargains, deals, CWOF, reduced charges.....one person loses their LTC, and it's lost to history. So.....it's a choice that everyone has to make for themselves. But, since your don't know what the chances are either way, it's a tough call to make.

 

[GPP]

The sad truth of Rob's, Len's and often my cynicism is due to what I bolded in your post.

I'm sure you're one of the "good ones". Unfortunately, when you have stories such as Boris' interaction at a gas station were John Law approached him, as he sat in his car, and "questioned" (in quotes as the appropriateness is open for discussion) about his LTC status, and whether he was carrying, due to a plate scan, the skitishness of some here is understandable.

Since you run a real chance of getting your LTC pulled for a possible infraction of a gray area out of an abundance of caution, and if that happens, you have a sh!tstorm of joy to get it, and your valuables back even if you're found to be in the right, caution is warranted.

My kids' cars are registered in my name (insurance, of course). So, if they're pulled over, and the owner's name is run, LTC/FID status will apparently be available. Same town as Boris, so it's not a stretch. Now, they both have FIDs, and occasionally travel with FID-grade guns and ammo. I don't want them screwed over because a gun-unfriendly cop decides to be proactive.

That's why they make their posts urging caution. That's why I coined "Massprudence", and have no "advertising" on my car. Because you don't know. Black letter law? The vagueness is why this thread was started. Case law? Plea bargains, deals, CWOF, reduced charges.....one person loses their LTC, and it's lost to history. So.....it's a choice that everyone has to make for themselves. But, since your don't know what the chances are either way, it's a tough call to make.

Agreed to all that, hence my use of the word crapshoot, because if you use your firearm in self defense, you are absolutely rolling the dice.

I do often question the validity of many of the blanket policies that get bounced around here tho, because more often than not, when you ask for a source, or a cite, you dont get one, you get an opinion. You get "because I said so".

Show me the list of MA LTC holders that used a firearm in a good shoot, that were arrested and charged due to their involvement, and Ill jump on the bandwagon. Im not talking about a guy who had his LTC suspended while his good shoot was investigated, and eventually got it back after much mental stress and lawyers fees.

Every and any time you use a legally possessed firearm to defend yourself or someone else, you are going to be investigated, I dont think anyone here questions that. Someone mentioned the Brockton Craigslist incident a short while ago. No arrest, no charges etc. The shooter was outside of his home so "duty to retreat" was in play right? That guy did it right.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The truth is, neither you, Len, myself, or anyone else knows whats gonna happen if youre involved in a good shoot, in your home, while under the influence of alcohol or any other substance. Its a total crapshoot.

I absolutely agree, and hope never to roll those dice.

Rob, its actually a wonder to me that either of you actually leave the house

Yeah, but if I stayed home, I'd probably just worry about a tree falling on me or something.

 

[MisterHappy]

Agreed to all that, hence my use of the word crapshoot, because if you use your firearm in self defense, you are absolutely rolling the dice.

I do often question the validity of many of the blanket policies that get bounced around here tho, because more often than not, when you ask for a source, or a cite, you dont get one, you get an opinion. You get "because I said so".

Show me the list of MA LTC holders that used a firearm in a good shoot, that were arrested and charged due to their involvement, and Ill jump on the bandwagon. Im not talking about a guy who had his LTC suspended while his good shoot was investigated, and eventually got it back after much mental stress and lawyers fees.

Every and any time you use a legally possessed firearm to defend yourself or someone else, you are going to be investigated, I dont think anyone here questions that. Someone mentioned the Brockton Craigslist incident a short while ago. No arrest, no charges etc. The shooter was outside of his home so "duty to retreat" was in play right? That guy did it right.

But, the rest of us are. Those are very real concerns. Lose your LTC, even for a bit? Where do your guns go? Dowd's Pit of Expense? If you engage Dewey, Chetam, and Howe's services, drop $XXXX+, do you get a refund, with a "Sorry......" note from the Commiewealth?

By virtue of your occupation, the rules, and/or your perception of them, are different. Not trying to be divisive, but Tin does help a bit.

 

[M1911]

Yes, those are very real concerns. But the post that GPP and I were responding too said something along the lines that if you use your gun defensively in MA that you WILL go to jail. That statement is an exaggeration and is not correct.

If you shoot someone, the state will investigate that incident, and it may be lengthy and costly.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I do often question the validity of many of the blanket policies that get bounced around here tho, because more often than not, when you ask for a source, or a cite, you dont get one, you get an opinion. You get "because I said so".

Winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm still waiting for the cite that a MA LTC is "automatically rendered invalid" if you move out of state and do not have it expired or revoked.

Dowd's Pit of Expense?

I don't know if it would do any good, but I have a letter in my safe to the PD telling them what individuals and dealers may pick up my guns if they are confiscated, and instructing the PD to give the guns only to those individuals/dealers and not a bonded warehouse, and that I will initiate action to recover fees if they are given to a bonded warehouse. I also have arrangements with a dealer who would be at the PD doing a pickup before the ink was dry on the inventory sheet.

At Dowd's rate, a next day pickup by a dealer would cost me a few thousand.

 

[MisterHappy]

Rob, THIS is the problem. That absent a guilty finding, you are still penalized by State actions. 'Cuz.....gunz!

You have a letter. Cops have exigency. I hope that you'll never need it; I hope that if it's needed, you wishes will be honored; I hope that if they are not, your lawfully-owned property will be treated with the care that it deserves.

When Pandora opened the box, she slammed the lid back on.....only hope was left.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob, THIS is the problem. That absent a guilty finding, you are still penalized by State actions. 'Cuz.....gunz!

You have a letter. Cops have exigency. I hope that you'll never need it; I hope that if it's needed, you wishes will be honored; I hope that if they are not, your lawfully-owned property will be treated with the care that it deserves.

When Pandora opened the box, she slammed the lid back on.....only hope was left.

The federal courts have ruled that bonded warehouses are not state actors .

Exigency is irrelevant because there is no exigent reason to get guns to a bonded warehouse less than one business day after taking them in. I doubt it would be a problem in my town since the PD is known to work with a local dealer who charges (literally) 1/3 the storage rate Dowd does, without many of the extra fees, and who will cooperate with things like partial bailouts/transfers; consignment sale; etc. In other words an ethical, free market, businessman.

The goal is to make it easier, and cheaper, for the PD to do a lawful dealer transfer rather than transfer to a bonded warehouse and fund a civil defense. If Comm2A ever runs into someone who is as well prepared as I am who none the less loses the guns to a thefthouse, there is an excellent chance we will provide an attorney to litigate the issue.

Other PDs find it easier to work with a warehouse and will tell Down to "please hurry up, the owners attorney is bringing a dealer over". This is why you need to act quickly if your guns are seized.

 

[MisterHappy]

Exigency is relevant.....'cause gunz! I agree that it's not really a consideration, but that's what they'll cry.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm still waiting for the cite that a MA LTC is "automatically rendered invalid" if you move out of state and do not have it expired or revoked

Oh the irony

 

[GPP]

Exigency is relevant.....'cause gunz! I agree that it's not really a consideration, but that's what they'll cry.

Who is they? Did the guy from the Brockton shoot have all his shit confiscated because guns? If you are involved in a defensive shoot that is under investigation, do you think youre automatically suspended? The fact that you feel exigency becomes relevant after a good shoot (in regards to impounding the contents of your safe) tells me that youve adapted to the non cited blanket policies, and feel the sky is falling, all the time.
Does anyone have actual knowledge of this type of shit happening after a good shoot? Or is it all assumption based on he said she said, or a guy at the local shop said.
If you are that concerned, have some COAs in place should you ever be involved in a defensive shooting.
Btw, in my opinion, your mentioning of my "tin" was a feeble attempt at making it so you didnt actually have to put thought into your answer, a "cop out" of sorts ie: Because I Said So. So, yeah, youre in that group too.

 

[drgrant]

Exigency is relevant.....'cause gunz! I agree that it's not really a consideration, but that's what they'll cry.

Maybe, maybe not. I've heard of a shitload of incidents to the contrary. Hell I even know someone who lost thier LTC (got charged with a misdafelony) and the cops NEVER showed up for the guns. They got the guns out "manually" to an FFL protect against confiscation, but their act of an attempted confiscation never actually happened. 209As are pretty consistent in the "we're stealing all the guns nao" stuff but outside of that? Also bear in mind that there are different levels of an investigation, etc. I've even known of cases where people plugged someone in MA and their LTC was not suspended; because the investigation has not reached the point of applying criminal charges.

I'm not saying good behavior is reliable by PDs, but pant shitting hysterics some folks have around here are overboard.

-Mike

 

[PeterGV]

So, for me, this has been one of the better/more interesting threads in this category in a while.

Can we go back the the OP's original question: There's no guidance whatsoever, other than "Never drink, never worry" when carrying? I go to dinner in Boston with my wife, have a couple of glasses of Pinot Grigio, and have the bad luck to get assaulted walking home and need to use my firearm... and I'm screwed? That's very discouraging, to say the least. Because, that's a real-world situation. I shouldn't have to leave my gun at home all day, because I *might* want to have a couple of glasses of wine over dinner later that night.

Anybody know of any MA case law about carrying or defending oneself with a firearm when "under the influence"?

Sigh!

 

[kalash]

So, for me, this has been one of the better/more interesting threads in this category in a while.

Can we go back the the OP's original question: There's no guidance whatsoever, other than "Never drink, never worry" when carrying? I go to dinner in Boston with my wife, have a couple of glasses of Pinot Grigio, and have the bad luck to get assaulted walking home and need to use my firearm... and I'm screwed? That's very discouraging, to say the least. Because, that's a real-world situation. I shouldn't have to leave my gun at home all day, because I *might* want to have a couple of glasses of wine over dinner later that night.

Anybody know of any MA case law about carrying or defending oneself with a firearm when "under the influence"?

Sigh!

See previous post:

No one knows for sure. People seem to fall into one of three campus:
-Better safe than sorry and skip drinking altogether
-0.08 as with driving sounds reasonable
-No specified limit means no limit - where's the keg??

I'm basically in the 2nd category - I don't worry about having a drink at dinner, though I do keep it to one.

Personally, I think that if you can't be trusted with a gun after a drink or two, then you can't be trusted with a gun at all.

 

[GPP]

So, for me, this has been one of the better/more interesting threads in this category in a while.

Can we go back the the OP's original question: There's no guidance whatsoever, other than "Never drink, never worry" when carrying? I go to dinner in Boston with my wife, have a couple of glasses of Pinot Grigio, and have the bad luck to get assaulted walking home and need to use my firearm... and I'm screwed? That's very discouraging, to say the least. Because, that's a real-world situation. I shouldn't have to leave my gun at home all day, because I *might* want to have a couple of glasses of wine over dinner later that night.

Anybody know of any MA case law about carrying or defending oneself with a firearm when "under the influence"?

Sigh!

This is actually the issue, there is no case law on this as of yet.

2 schools of thought; one is "under the influence" , no matter the amount. One sip of that Pinot Grigio and technically youre wrong.

The second is to use the same standard as the OUI law. A BAC of %.08 or over, and you are under the influence, anything under and you are good to go.

This is pure speculation and guesswork on everyones part tho, and thats the issue.

Common sense and multiple not guilty findings of OUI cases say that if youve had a few glasses of Grappa, get involved in a good shoot, and are somehow charged (which Ive yet to see happen, tho its discussed here as the standard), youd be able to beat it in court pretty easily.

- - - Updated - - -

See previous post:

I'm basically in the 2nd category - I don't worry about having a drink at dinner, though I do keep it to one.

Personally, I think that if you can't be trusted with a gun after a drink or two, then you can't be trusted with a gun at all.

Excellent common sense response.

 

[HarryPottar]

I love a drink, I do drink in moderation now but when I was younger I was known to get hammered.
However I do not believe there is any excuse for drinking and driving, I think it should be zero allowance then there is no doubt, no dispute, no pressure just to have one more. If you drink and drive you should lose your license, no Cinderella license nothing. If your dumb enough to think you can drive after a drink then you shouldn't have a license in the first place.

flame suit on.

harry

 

[kalash]

I love a drink, I do drink in moderation now but when I was younger I was known to get hammered.
However I do not believe there is any excuse for drinking and driving, I think it should be zero allowance then there is no doubt, no dispute, no pressure just to have one more. If you drink and drive you should lose your license, no Cinderella license nothing. If your dumb enough to think you can drive after a drink then you shouldn't have a license in the first place.

flame suit on.

harry

So a Bud Light instantly turns you into a retard who runs red lights, weaves all over the road, doesn't pay attention, speeds like crazy, etc? One beer or glass of wine has no ill effect on most people.

 

[HarryPottar]

So a Bud Light instantly turns you into a retard who runs red lights, weaves all over the road, doesn't pay attention, speeds like crazy, etc? One beer or glass of wine has no ill effect on most people.

Of course not and it would not with most, the issue is that most people don't stop at one, they push the limit or are egg'd on by others to push the limit.

I lost 3 close friends (all in one car) to a drunk driver who in his defense swore he was under the limit and had been drinking with friends who 'must' have spiked his drink. If there wasn't a limit and we had zero drink rule then it removes the doubt. My 3 friends and many others would probably be alive now and those that broke the law would clearly know they had broken the law before getting into the car

Harry

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Anybody know of any MA case law about carrying or defending oneself with a firearm when "under the influence"?

The late attorney Darius Arbabi told me of a case where his client was driving armed and charged with CUI but not OUI. He told me he beat the rap in court by emphasizing "you considered him legal to be driving".

I can't find the cite, but I remember a case where a chief refused to reinstate an LTC after a finding of not guilty in an OUI trial. The court held for the chief, saying that despite the not guilty finding, evidence of guilt still exists.

 

[Mike-Mike]

The late attorney Darius Arbabi told me of a case where his client was driving armed and charged with CUI but not OUI. He told me he beat the rap in court by emphasizing "you considered him legal to be driving".

I can't find the cite, but I remember a case where a chief refused to reinstate an LTC after a finding of not guilty in an OUI trial. The court held for the chief, saying that despite the not guilty finding, evidence of guilt still exists.

Yes, Darius spoke of that story often.

 

[M1911]

Yes, Darius spoke of that story often.

Yup, he told me about it as well. IIRC, while he was not convicted, his LTC was revoked. Darius was going to work on getting it back, but I don't know the outcome.

 

[kalash]

Of course not and it would not with most, the issue is that most people don't stop at one, they push the limit or are egg'd on by others to push the limit.

Pre-crime? Really?

...despite the not guilty finding, evidence of guilt still exists.

Wow!!!

 

[browncoat]

Of course not and it would not with most, the issue is that most people don't stop at one, they push the limit or are egg'd on by others to push the limit.

I lost 3 close friends (all in one car) to a drunk driver who in his defense swore he was under the limit and had been drinking with friends who 'must' have spiked his drink. If there wasn't a limit and we had zero drink rule then it removes the doubt. My 3 friends and many others would probably be alive now and those that broke the law would clearly know they had broken the law before getting into the car

Harry

Why not just execute the guy who caused the deaths? No harm no foul otherwise

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

 

[bostonasphalt2]

I love a drink, I do drink in moderation now but when I was younger I was known to get hammered.
However I do not believe there is any excuse for drinking and driving, I think it should be zero allowance then there is no doubt, no dispute, no pressure just to have one more. If you drink and drive you should lose your license, no Cinderella license nothing. If your dumb enough to think you can drive after a drink then you shouldn't have a license in the first place.

flame suit on.

harry

I'm 6 feet, 300 pounds. If you think I'm anywhere incapable of operating a motor vehicle after ONE drink, you're delusional.

 

[drgrant]

Of course not and it would not with most, the issue is that most people don't stop at one, they push the limit or are egg'd on by others to push the limit.

I lost 3 close friends (all in one car) to a drunk driver who in his defense swore he was under the limit and had been drinking with friends who 'must' have spiked his drink. If there wasn't a limit and we had zero drink rule then it removes the doubt. My 3 friends and many others would probably be alive now and those that broke the law would clearly know they had broken the law before getting into the car

Harry

Not sure if serious, but this post is the epitome of why we can't have nice things. You really think that guy would not be irresponsible because of the LAWR?

Sorry, not my fault some ******* killed your friends, or that you cant handle the responsibility of handling your liquor. I'm sick of this blame distribution bullshit. This is what is DESTROYING our country. People projecting their weaknesses on others. **** that noise.

-Mike

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Of course not and it would not with most, the issue is that most people don't stop at one, they push the limit or are egg'd on by others to push the limit.

I lost 3 close friends (all in one car) to a drunk driver who in his defense swore he was under the limit and had been drinking with friends who 'must' have spiked his drink. If there wasn't a limit and we had zero drink rule then it removes the doubt. My 3 friends and many others would probably be alive now and those that broke the law would clearly know they had broken the law before getting into the car

Harry

I'm sorry for your loss, but I don't think it would have changed the fact your friends died, it would only change the verdict of the court case.

Laws don't stop people, morals do. Legislating morality does nothing more than strip our rights as citizens, and makes us subjects of the government, when in reality, they are subservient to us ideally.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Laws don't stop people, morals do

Fear of punishment stops many people.

It's what keeps many moderating speed in the highways, or deciding not to drive even when the "know they can handle it".

Fear of punishment is also why people pay their taxes.

Law compliance is not about morals, but adjusting the decision factors by introducing penalties to certain behaviors.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Fear of punishment stops many people.

It's what keeps many moderating speed in the highways, or deciding not to drive even when the "know they can handle it".

Fear of punishment is also why people pay their taxes.

Law compliance is not about morals, but adjusting the decision factors by introducing penalties to certain behaviors.

So the people who carried out mass shootings, certainly fear of punishment worked there.....