Where does MA law state 'concealed' carry?

pastera said:
Is Com2a looking for an open carry revocation case, or am I reading this wrong?
Click to expand...

Looking for is a little strong. If one comes our way we would be happy to take it. But we are not recommending to people to go out and open carry, not here. There is a very high likelihood you will be shot. As Jim Wallace has said, MA government has an infantile relationship with guns.
 
LenS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except he wasn't acting in the capacity of an attorney representing the Commonwealth. He was acting in his capacity as Director of the FRB and, according to the SJC, as an administrator he made the determination that jammed up Simkin.

From the SJC opinion: "regarding the incident on November 6, Guida determined that Simkin was no longer a"suitable person" to possess a firearm in Massachusetts. Specifically, Guida made this determination on the basis that (1) Simkin's visit to the medical office while "heavily armed" fell outside the "business activity" of buying and selling firearms that Simkin indicated on his license application as the reason he sought the license; (2) Simkin caused "fear and alarm" at the medical office; and (3) Simkin used a false name in order to conceal his identity."

As the FRB director, was he merely carrying out policy directives issued from higher up? I don't know.

But the whole just representing a client and doing your job excuse only goes so far.

Martha Coakley is just representing the Commonwealth as AG. David Linsky is just representing his constituents as State Rep.
 
terraformer said:
Looking for is a little strong. If one comes our way we would be happy to take it. But we are not recommending to people to go out and open carry, not here. There is a very high likelihood you will be shot. As Jim Wallace has said, MA government has an infantile relationship with guns.
Click to expand...

I'm still figuring out the landscape here. It's confusing.

So it's OK for Comm2A to state that open carry in MA may cause you to be shot but not OK for Joe Gunowner to state that open carry in MA will cause you to lose your LTC-A due to (un)suitability?

And Comm2A is not recommending open carry in MA but when Joe Gunowner states open carry in MA is probably a bad idea he's a cowardly sheeple.

Is that about right?
 
mibro said:
I'm still figuring out the landscape here. It's confusing.

So it's OK for Comm2A to state that open carry in MA may cause you to be shot but not OK for Joe Gunowner to state that open carry in MA will cause you to lose your LTC-A due to (un)suitability?

And Comm2A is not recommending open carry in MA but when Joe Gunowner states open carry in MA is probably a bad idea he's a cowardly sheeple.

Is that about right?
Click to expand...

Now you're catching on![laugh]

No doubt though, Comm2A does work hard and does lead the fight, where many of us are just free-riders.
 
Last edited:
mibro said:
I'm still figuring out the landscape here. It's confusing.

So it's OK for Comm2A to state that open carry in MA may cause you to be shot but not OK for Joe Gunowner to state that open carry in MA will cause you to lose your LTC-A due to (un)suitability?

And Comm2A is not recommending open carry in MA but when Joe Gunowner states open carry in MA is probably a bad idea he's a cowardly sheeple.

Is that about right?
Click to expand...

I never said most of that. If other people said it, take it up with them. As for losing your license for open carrying, the position of the AGs office is that open carry is constitutionally protected (if carry is considered to be a right, which they don't assent to) and concealed carry is a state privilege that only the white land owners can get access to. Not really in their words but definitely what they mean.
 
mibro said:
I'm still figuring out the landscape here. It's confusing.

So it's OK for Comm2A to state that open carry in MA may cause you to be shot but not OK for Joe Gunowner to state that open carry in MA will cause you to lose your LTC-A due to (un)suitability?

And Comm2A is not recommending open carry in MA but when Joe Gunowner states open carry in MA is probably a bad idea he's a cowardly sheeple.

Is that about right?
Click to expand...
Yep! Welcome to NES! [grin]
 
terraformer said:
I never said most of that. If other people said it, take it up with them. As for losing your license for open carrying, the position of the AGs office is that open carry is constitutionally protected (if carry is considered to be a right, which they don't assent to) and concealed carry is a state privilege that only the white land owners can get access to. Not really in their words but definitely what they mean.
Click to expand...

No, no it's OK. I understand now and I shall sin no more. I have committed my last thought crime.
 
qqac said:
Except he wasn't acting in the capacity of an attorney representing the Commonwealth. He was acting in his capacity as Director of the FRB and, according to the SJC, as an administrator he made the determination that jammed up Simkin.

From the SJC opinion: "regarding the incident on November 6, Guida determined that Simkin was no longer a"suitable person" to possess a firearm in Massachusetts. Specifically, Guida made this determination on the basis that (1) Simkin's visit to the medical office while "heavily armed" fell outside the "business activity" of buying and selling firearms that Simkin indicated on his license application as the reason he sought the license; (2) Simkin caused "fear and alarm" at the medical office; and (3) Simkin used a false name in order to conceal his identity."

As the FRB director, was he merely carrying out policy directives issued from higher up? I don't know.

But the whole just representing a client and doing your job excuse only goes so far.

Martha Coakley is just representing the Commonwealth as AG. David Linsky is just representing his constituents as State Rep.
Click to expand...

Jason was an attorney as well as Director of FRB. He testified in court at the Westfield trial. He was absolutely used as "counsel" by the state (his client if you will) while in that position.

Yes, he was ordered to do and interpret certain things the way higher ups dictated.

From a discussion with Atty Karen MacNutt when she was running for AG (for newbies, she was one of the first GOAL BOD members when they were founded).
- The primary job of the AG is be the Chief Prosecutor (atty) for the Commiewealth in court cases.
- The other primary job of the AG is to be Chief Defense Counsel for the Commiewealth whenever the Commiewealth is named as a defendant in a court case.

You may choose to believe these things or not. YMMV
 
dgrafton said:
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
Click to expand...

Not sure why but like I said this was from this years MPTC training so this is what police officers are being told. There was a reference to Gliddens latest firearms law book so there might be more information in there.
 
terraformer said:
Looking for is a little strong. If one comes our way we would be happy to take it. But we are not recommending to people to go out and open carry, not here. There is a very high likelihood you will be shot. As Jim Wallace has said, MA government has an infantile relationship with guns.
Click to expand...

Got it - willing to take it on but not looking for a fight.

As summer approaches I find it harder to dress for full concealment comfortably and effectively. Had several incidents last year with odd looks where I realized my shirt had pulled up and over the holster. Good to know that Com2a is looking out for us if we get jammed up, or I could just loose 15lbs and make the problem go away...
 
pastera said:
Is Com2a looking for an open carry revocation case, or am I reading this wrong?
Click to expand...

terraformer said:
Looking for is a little strong. If one comes our way we would be happy to take it. But we are not recommending to people to go out and open carry, not here. There is a very high likelihood you will be shot. As Jim Wallace has said, MA government has an infantile relationship with guns.
Click to expand...

Would this count as "open carry"?

fearful for his safety, shows tough guy that he is carrying
Click to expand...
 
Coyote33 said:
Would this count as "open carry"?
Click to expand...

No. The allegation is he cleared leather. Someone is lying. I suspect it's tough guy, but by letting tough guy know he was carrying, he walked into getting lied about. Why else do you think the antis want open carry?
 
terraformer said:
No. The allegation is he cleared leather. Someone is lying. I suspect it's tough guy, but by letting tough guy know he was carrying, he walked into getting lied about. Why else do you think the antis want open carry?
Click to expand...

Oh. The way I read it, he just hiked up his shirt. You sure?
 
Coyote33 said:
Oh. The way I read it, he just hiked up his shirt. You sure?
Click to expand...

The allegation by the dirtbag is he cleared leather while the defense attorney says he lifted up his shirt. This is not simply the loss of ones license for open carrying, this is Assault with a deadly weapon. Even with the good guys story, that he lifted up his shirt is enough to send this case to a jury (it shouldn't be enough to find him guilty but MA juries being what they are...).
 
Even with the good guys story, that he lifted up his shirt is enough to send this case to a jury (it shouldn't be enough to find him guilty but MA juries being what they are...).
Click to expand...
One of the members of my local club went to trial because he lifted up his shirt to expose a gun (in a stupid confrontation that never should have happened in the first place). He beat it, and fate was really smiling on him since he didn't even need to hire an attorney to get his LTC back.

The reasonable person would conclude that intentional display of a firearm during a confrontation constitutes making a threat with that gun, even if it is not touched or drawn. Do it, and you had better be prepared to prove you were justified in making such a threat.

Just remember the Linda Hamilton case.
 
terraformer said:
Note she was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and paid $400 in fines. Think about that. They were so eager to try her for this horrible crime, yet they only fined her as punishment. Why? They wanted to make her a felon. That was the punishment.
Click to expand...

https://billstclair.com/LindaHamilton/

Read up a bit on this case. Needless to say, it completely destroyed her life.[sad2]

Glad I'm soon to leave this God-awful state.
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Massachusets is a Constitutional Carry State for residents only
2
Replies
33
Views
783
Thunder Dump
Thunder Dump
  • Locked
Does Massachusetts have the best "gun control laws" for Pro-2A people?
Replies
28
Views
533
Picton
Picton
Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
21
Views
563
67ray
67ray
"...possess prior to 9/13/14" Line in the Law
Replies
1
Views
153
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
New to MA
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
HooVooLoo
HooVooLoo
Back
Top Bottom