Where does MA law state 'concealed' carry?

[mibro]

******

 

[qqac]

No, no, no. Please stop saying these things. That someone might alarm another person by doing EXACTLY what their LTC permits them to do is NOT the problem of the licensee. We have VERY good case law on this.

The above link was to the Comm2A brief.

For those interested, the actual SJC decision is in 466 Mass. 168, link below.

http://law.justia.com/cases/massachusetts/supreme-court/volumes/466/466mass168.html

 

[Cap]

Don't take your LTC legal advice from:
1) Cops

Wait, what?

I don't know who you are but I'll assume you're active in pro-2A litigation from your statements. So I thank you for your efforts.

To be honest I'm a bit surprised at the hostility of your attack on me for observing what few people would deny. That in Massachusetts you hold your LTC-A at the discretion of the COP and that open carrying is asking for trouble.

Because people see posts like yours and then repeat that shit over and over. I see posts all the time regarding the fear of LTC revocation with no facts whatsoever and its just perpetuated by these comments. Its probably why you made that initial post - because someone else said it.

 

[abomb60]

Irrelevant, unless you want to spend your life in litigation. I have better things to do with my time then sue my town's police department because the chief revoked my LTC-A.

How is the case law he gave irrelevant? It's completely relevant to the issue asked here. FRB v Simkin shows that the SJC has upheld that if you are legally carrying a handgun you are safe from having the issuing authority revoke your permit due to suitability and that causing "alarm" simply because you are legally carrying a handgun is meritless. Also any police officer in the Commonwealth knows this and is told this when they got their legal update this year.

 

[mibro]

Wait, what?



Because people see posts like yours and then repeat that shit over and over. I see posts all the time regarding the fear of LTC revocation with no facts whatsoever and its just perpetuated by these comments. Its probably why you made that initial post - because someone else said it.

I wrote it because it's generally accepted as true, even here at NES. You can get your jollies from dumping on me if you like but as I said before I have no desire to spend my time litigating some 2A test case.

 

[mikelawtown]

I would love to get a nice owb leather for my xds9 "for summer carry"

 

[warwickben]

How is the case law he gave irrelevant? It's completely relevant to the issue asked here. FRB v Simkin shows that the SJC has upheld that if you are legally carrying a handgun you are safe from having the issuing authority revoke your permit due to suitability and that causing "alarm" simply because you are legally carrying a handgun is meritless. Also any police officer in the Commonwealth knows this and is told this when they got their legal update this year.

How did I miss this!

 

[abomb60]

How did I miss this!

My post or the law update? For reference it's on page 69 of the handout

 

[warwickben]

My post or the law update? For reference it's on page 69 of the handout

Law update . What hand out ?

 

[abomb60]

Law update . What hand out ?

They didn't give you a handout at the law update?

 

[qqac]

How is the case law he gave irrelevant? It's completely relevant to the issue asked here. FRB v Simkin shows that the SJC has upheld that if you are legally carrying a handgun you are safe from having the issuing authority revoke your permit due to suitability and that causing "alarm" simply because you are legally carrying a handgun is meritless. Also any police officer in the Commonwealth knows this and is told this when they got their legal update this year.

Actually, it's not quite a blanket protection. The holding in Simkin technically was that if you are legally carrying concealed and use reasonable care (like Simkin did) to not cause public alarm, that does not render you an unsuitable person.

The court cited the FRB's claim that Simkin "went out of his way to show and inform certain staff members that he was . . . armed," and specifically rejected the claim, so it was important to the court's decision that Simkin did not go about flashing his 2 guns. The court emphasized the efforts Simkin made to keep the staff from becoming alarmed, e.g. keeping his weapons concealed until he was in the examination room and had to disrobe for the exam, verbally notifying the staff, putting his guns in a locked briefcase when he had to disrobe, etc.

The Simkin case did not address open carry. Still need a test case for open carry, if anyone cares to step forward.

BTW, note that Jason Guida was the director of FRB at the time, who made those initial findings revoking Simkin's license. Jason Guida is now on the Comm2A website list of attys.

 

[abomb60]

Actually, it's not quite a blanket protection. The holding in Simkin technically was that if you are legally carrying concealed and use reasonable care (like Simkin did) to not cause public alarm, that does not render you an unsuitable person.

The court cited the FRB's claim that Simkin "went out of his way to show and inform certain staff members that he was . . . armed," and specifically rejected the claim, so it was important to the court's decision that Simkin did not go about flashing his 2 guns. The court emphasized the efforts Simkin made to keep the staff from becoming alarmed, e.g. keeping his weapons concealed until he was in the examination room and had to disrobe for the exam, verbally notifying the staff, putting his guns in a locked briefcase when he had to disrobe, etc.

The Simkin case did not address open carry. Still need a test case for open carry, if anyone cares to step forward.

BTW, note that Jason Guida was the director of FRB at the time, who made those initial findings revoking Simkin's license. Jason Guida is now on the Comm2A website list of attys.

Good points but I will note that below the verbiage of the Simkin case the MPTC handout had a "Training Tip" that says:

"Open Carry" allows Class A LTC holders to carry exposed and loaded in public barring any local restriction on the permit. "Open Carry" allows Class B LTC holders to carry exposed and unloaded non-large capacity weapons in public unless there is a local restriction on the permit. MGL c140 s131C restricts Class B holders from carrying in a vehicle unless the weapon is secured and unloaded.

Take it for what you will but I wouldn't want to be the cop who arrests someone for open carry. It would appear that case law and the MPTC would not be on that officers side. And I won't comment on my opinion of Jason Guida.

 

[qqac]

the MPTC handout had a "Training Tip" that says:

"Open Carry" allows Class A LTC holders to carry exposed and loaded in public barring any local restriction on the permit. "Open Carry" allows Class B LTC holders to carry exposed and unloaded non-large capacity weapons in public unless there is a local restriction on the permit. MGL c140 s131C restricts Class B holders from carrying in a vehicle unless the weapon is secured and unloaded.

That is awesome. Half the battle. Hey, I'm all for it.

 

[abomb60]

That is awesome. Half the battle. Hey, I'm all for it.

Just passing along the info

 

[dgrafton]

I don't know who you are but I'll assume you're active in pro-2A litigation from your statements. So I thank you for your efforts.

To be honest I'm a bit surprised at the hostility of your attack on me for observing what few people would deny. That in Massachusetts you hold your LTC-A at the discretion of the COP and that open carrying is asking for trouble.

Wow! You've been here a year and made twenty posts and you're going to say something like that? You should at least know something about the person you are going to insult.

You really should talk less and read more so you don't embarrass yourself any more. Not to mention putting out wrong info.

Many of us have posted erroneous info, but the smart ones take the corrections humbly and learn from them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dgrafton]

Law update . What hand out ?

We had a refresher at the BBC in Sandwich, remember? D'oh:/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dgrafton]

Good points but I will note that below the verbiage of the Simkin case the MPTC handout had a "Training Tip" that says:

"Open Carry" allows Class A LTC holders to carry exposed and loaded in public barring any local restriction on the permit. "Open Carry" allows Class B LTC holders to carry exposed and unloaded non-large capacity weapons in public unless there is a local restriction on the permit. MGL c140 s131C restricts Class B holders from carrying in a vehicle unless the weapon is secured and unloaded.

Take it for what you will but I wouldn't want to be the cop who arrests someone for open carry. It would appear that case law and the MPTC would not be on that officers side. And I won't comment on my opinion of Jason Guida.

May I ask why it says LTC-B may carry exposed and 'unloaded'? I thought the restrictions on LTC-B were non large-capacity and no concealed carry, although it has been a while since I have read up on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mibro]

You really should talk less and read more so you don't embarrass yourself any more. Not to mention putting out wrong info.

I'm going to quote comments from this thread in order of posting. My comment, the one that has attracted the ire of various members here, is last. As I've been nothing but courteous to all who responded to my comment I'm still surprised by your hostility. Maybe you can tell me why the six people who made the same point before I did didn't get the same treatment.

Then why don't you PM me so we can set up a time to meet in my home town, Lincoln. I'll bring a video camera and you can bring an open carry firearm. We can have a walk around and see what happens. I actually have no idea what would happen so it would be an interesting experiment.

Truly though, you are subject to the whims of your CLEO....ask him. That is your proof. If he says you can conceal carry...then so be it. Because he's the one thats allowed to revoke it. If he says you can open carry...then so be it. It's really that simple and that stupid. Its truly arbitrary and capricious as it can get.

Good point, never thought about open carry that way, but makes sense...if it's okay with your chief, would suppose you're good to go. As long as you don't mind being the subject of occasional "man with gun" calls around our fine Commonwealth.

Easy to say for someone who left MA for a place without discretionary licensing.

If the CoP in Westfield, MA says its legal and the LEO questioning me in Weymouth disagrees what my CoP isn't going to help me!

However the OP should understand that there is no law prohibiting OPEN carry either in MA. Go ahead and open carry a fire arm in mass and see what happens though! One sheeple citizen calls the cops......and your LTC A will be pulled for "unsuitability".........however you have technically broken no law.......or had any due process proving you broke any law. Let your friend know this as well.

I am familiar with the laws and what is allowed. I am also very aware that open carry in MA is not a good idea, at all.

The current climate of practicality is that open carry in most parts of the Commonwealth is not advisable, due to the possibility of a non-gun person becoming "alarmed" and calling 911 about a man with a gun. While you are within your rights ( and privileges of the LTC), you may be open to a "suitability" issue with your licensing authority.

I went home and Googled open carry and discovered it's legal in Mass. Except for the Catch-22 that if you scare the citizenry, which you will, you lose your LTC-A for unsuitability. But it appears there's a loophole to the Catch-22 - wear some kind of official-looking blue uniform and service belt and the sheeple shall be placated.

 

[EJFudd]

So who else here remembers when it was illegal to conceal a firearm in MA? In other words, you had to keep the butt of the grip/handle sticking out. Otherwise, you'd get in HUGE trouble for "trying to keep something from the police". I remember that as a kid.

You must be even older than old-as-dirt me.

 

[Kicker96FS]

Just passing along the info

Can you fix that please? It's hurting my neck..................

 

[qqac]

May I ask why it says LTC-B may carry exposed and 'unloaded'? I thought the restrictions on LTC-B were non large-capacity and no concealed carry, although it has been a while since I have read up on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That part, IMHO, is a mistaken interpretation of the statute, and you are correct. The language of the statute is LTC-B cannot "carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any public way or place." The prohibited combination is loaded and concealed and in public. The combinations allowed include: LTC-B can carry loaded and open in public; LTC-B can carry unloaded and concealed in public; LTC-B can carry loaded and open or concealed on private property.

Of course, all this pertains to so-called non-high cap for LTC-B.

 

[dgrafton]

I'm going to quote comments from this thread in order of posting. My comment, the one that has attracted the ire of various members here, is last. As I've been nothing but courteous to all who responded to my comment I'm still surprised by your hostility. Maybe you can tell me why the six people who made the same point before I did didn't get the same treatment.

Then why don't you PM me so we can set up a time to meet in my home town, Lincoln. I'll bring a video camera and you can bring an open carry firearm. We can have a walk around and see what happens. I actually have no idea what would happen so it would be an interesting experiment.

My comment was directed at your insult to Knuckle Dragger and not knowing who he is or what he has done for the people in this state.

I have been a member here for less than two years, but in that time I have done a LOT more reading than posting. At this point I have a pretty good idea of which members are players and which are posers. Knuckle Dragger is right up at the forefront of those fighting for our rights!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dgrafton]

That part, IMHO, is a mistaken interpretation of the statute, and you are correct. The language of the statute is LTC-B cannot "carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any public way or place." The prohibited combination is loaded and concealed and in public. The combinations allowed include: LTC-B can carry loaded and open in public; LTC-B can carry unloaded and concealed in public; LTC-B can carry loaded and open or concealed on private property.

Of course, all this pertains to so-called non-high cap for LTC-B.

Ok, thanks. That is what I thought. Didn't feel like reading legalspeak last night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[terraformer]

The Simkin case did not address open carry. Still need a test case for open carry, if anyone cares to step forward.

Don't hold your breath. Finding plaintiffs for even mundane matters is difficult for us.

BTW, note that Jason Guida was the director of FRB at the time, who made those initial findings revoking Simkin's license. Jason Guida is now on the Comm2A website list of attys.

The words here have the veneer of being chosen carefully so I am not going to say you said anything specific, but I will point out that lawyers who represent murderers aren't by extension murderers. Since leaving the FRB Guida has ably advocated for many gun owners and non gun owners. He has made no public comments saying gun owners should be happy to turn in their hi cap mags like other attorneys who have been lionized here on NES before have, nor been in any way an enemy to gun owners. Our criteria for inclusion in that list is simply competence in MA gun law and no advocacy* against gun owners interests. Guida meets both criteria and we gladly include him as we do the others.

* Personal feelings, beliefs and advocacy on behalf of clients, even publicly stated, are not advocacy so this is not an opportunity for a witch hunt on those on the list by parsing every little statement they have made, especially when tied to a case they worked.

 

[terraformer]

That part, IMHO, is a mistaken interpretation of the statute, and you are correct. The language of the statute is LTC-B cannot "carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any public way or place." The prohibited combination is loaded and concealed and in public. The combinations allowed include: LTC-B can carry loaded and open in public; LTC-B can carry unloaded and concealed in public; LTC-B can carry loaded and open or concealed on private property.

Of course, all this pertains to so-called non-high cap for LTC-B.

The dangers on unloaded concealed carry is that the definition of loaded will be judicially expanded to include any ammo within the zip code or some such stupidity. Hell, in the recent ammo on school grounds 4A case, the SJC basically re-interpreted 269 §10(j) to wipe out the "carries on his person" qualifier without so much as a briefing on the subject. This is the definition of legislating from the bench. Expanding the definition of loaded to to ammo outside the confines of the gun has serious implications for other statutes.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The words here have the veneer of being chosen carefully so I am not going to say you said anything specific, but I will point out that lawyers who represent murderers aren't by extension murderers. Since leaving the FRB Guida has ably advocated for many gun owners and non gun owners. He has made no public comments saying gun owners should be happy to turn in their hi cap mags like other attorneys who have been lionized here on NES before have, nor been in any way an enemy to gun owners. Our criteria for inclusion in that list is simply competence in MA gun law and no advocacy* against gun owners interests. Guida meets both criteria and we gladly include him as we do the others.

* Personal feelings, beliefs and advocacy on behalf of clients, even publicly stated, are not advocacy so this is not an opportunity for a witch hunt on those on the list by parsing every little statement they have made, especially when tied to a case they worked.

I want to share a pertinent story here that was the result of a conversation I recently had with a very high ranking police official who retired a couple of months ago.

He attended one of those anti-gun meetings as the representative of the PD on the discussion panel. Someone from a local gun club (which is totally politically INACTIVE) after the meeting took this police official to task for not being a stronger proponent of the 2nd A in the meeting. His response was that he could not represent his personal views (which I learned from him is that the 2nd A is all the license you should ever need) in that meeting and that he was mandated to speak for the department (which is anything but pro-2A).

One of the caveats of becoming a licensed attorney is that you MUST represent the best interests of your CLIENT in all matters and put aside your personal preferences and prejudices. That's why even the most heinous murderers sometimes get top attorneys who argue tooth and nail for their client even though in their heart they know that the scumbag is guilty as sin. It's a job with rules they must follow.

I disagreed with Jason on numerous items that he and I discussed, but I always found him respectful and never held our personal differences of opinion (which it now turns out were likely his defending his client, the Commiewealth) against him, keeping the issues separate from the personality (someone I could deal with) in my mind.

 

[MisterHappy]

Len,

That is the definition of Professional.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len,

That is the definition of Professional.

Right you are.

 

[RG617]

I like threads where I learn some valuable info.

 

[pastera]

Is Com2a looking for an open carry revocation case, or am I reading this wrong?