Worcester - Open Carry Central?

drgrant said:
Well, you know why they did that, right? Because an endless stream of faggots like this quist character are going to call the cops on him if he doesn't conceal.

Not saying I agree with it but the political pressure on the PD in that town to ping every person seen carrying a gun is going to be relatively high. Worcester is not in NH.

The only way this shit would end is if like 50, or 100 people did it pretty much all at once in worcester as a form of protest.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Open Carry Demonstration in Worcester! Who's in!?!?
 
StevieP said:
Open Carry Demonstration in Worcester! Who's in!?!?
Click to expand...

That sounds like a decent enough neighborhood to do it in. No worries of actual thuggery, just idiots like this Quist guy.

My sister used to live a few houses down from his place. If she still did, I would gladly OC back and forth between her house and the 7-11 to fetch multiple Slim Jim's and soda pops. One at a time.
 
So, if the cops want him to conceal, will they pay for an overcoat or for him to get pants one size bigger to accommodate an IWB?

Obviously they won't, but it's a reasonable question.
 
I have just one question

robjax said:
... “In this whole area, the guy can walk around at will, packed to the hilt with guns? When does it cross the line?,” Quist asked, ...
Click to expand...

knife-gun.jpg


Which part is the hilt?

ETA: (Yesterday?) the Bride said this was discussed on some talk radio program,
but didn't say which program.

Wasn't Howie.
 
Last edited:
TheGreekFreak said:
I love the part when 6 cruisers were diverted from their other duties to harass a man legally carrying just to ease the mind of some p*ssy nosey nancy playing detective. They should send him a bill for every false alarm just like they do when you abuse calling 911.

Ok Mr. Neighborhood Watch, you can be superman warrior against the guns in your community but every call that wastes our time as a result of your paranoia equals a nice $500 fine. A few of those and turds like this will stop harassing people. The guy wasnt even near the turd's house, he was at 7-11. This oblivious d-bag took the time to drive over and follow him while calling 911. Wtf have we come to....
Click to expand...

I love this part, Daughter comes home and tells him about it and he than drives to see the LEGALLY CARRYING PERSON!!! He's the MoonBat that started this whole thing by going to see why the guy had a gun on him!!!



“I was cooking on the grill and my daughter came home from work and said, ‘Dad, there’s a guy walking near 7/11 with guns on him,'” said Steve Quist, who resides on June Street, not far from the store. “I got in my car and checked it out. I pulled into the lot and the guy was leaning against the store outside with a clearly visible pistol in his holster. He turned around at one point and I saw what I thought were two more pistols in his rear waistband.”
 
Happening today Worcester state University has therapists at the school to council any students that might of seen a gun (ok not really but it wouldn't surprise me either )
 
swatgig said:
On June street in front of Quist's house?

It's interesting that he's the one whining, when he is frequently at odds with the city over their sign ordinance. He feels it infringes on his first amendment rights.

see http://www.telegram.com/article/20111012/NEWS/111019860
Click to expand...

[rofl]

Quist sounds like he'd be a guy to convert to our side, but he's already opened his gullet and shown where he stands. It's like he gets what infringing means but he has no problem going after a guy plainly carrying.
 
swatgig said:
On June street in front of Quist's house?

It's interesting that he's the one whining, when he is frequently at odds with the city over their sign ordinance. He feels it infringes on his first amendment rights.

see Voter defends his sign campaign
Click to expand...

It turns out that no later than 2015, he'd be right -
it's unconstitutional to regulate signs based on their content:

Eugene Volokh: New Jersey man ticketed for flying Donald Trump flag

I didn't read Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) (let alone City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)), so I'm not sure whether the specific precedent was already established in Oct'11.

(Yes, Sable v. FCC established strict scrutiny for content restrictions no later than 1989. I'm just not sure if/when it had been applied to signs before 2015).

I wonder how it resolved with Q's signs five years ago...
 
Ringworm said:
Sounds like the guy knew/knows/is buddies with someone who is a cop (or is one himself). That's why he was let go. Any civilian would be held/arrested/found unsuitable in that craphole of a town.

Call me prejudiced, but it sounds like the Thin Blue Line was in effect here...
Click to expand...
you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Ringworm said:
Sounds like the guy knew/knows/is buddies with someone who is a cop (or is one himself). That's why he was let go. Any civilian would be held/arrested/found unsuitable in that craphole of a town.

Call me prejudiced, but it sounds like the Thin Blue Line was in effect here...
Click to expand...
Really and how so?
 
Ringworm said:
Sounds like the guy knew/knows/is buddies with someone who is a cop (or is one himself). That's why he was let go. Any civilian would be held/arrested/found unsuitable in that craphole of a town.

Call me prejudiced, but it sounds like the Thin Blue Line was in effect here...
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious, but LEOs that aren't totally dense know they're not supposed to pull that shit anymore. Not saying its impossible but Simkin has definitely improved
things.

-Mike
 
Just found out today this was my brother. He was in fact carrying 2 firearms. A 92FS and a S&W 340PD. I gave him a smack on the back of his head for drawing the attention to us gun owners, even though he was within his legal rights.

No thin blue line privilage was involved, my brother works nights at UPS lol.
 
84ta406 said:
Just found out today this was my brother. He was in fact carrying 2 firearms. A 92FS and a S&W 340PD. I gave him a smack on the back of his head for drawing the attention to us gun owners, even though he was within his legal rights.

No thin blue line privilage was involved, my brother works nights at UPS lol.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA nice!!! So was he open carrying? Can someone explain to me how that is legal?
 
HiCap said:
HAHAHAHAHA nice!!! So was he open carrying? Can someone explain to me how that is legal?
Click to expand...
There is nothing -- absolutly nothing -- in MA law preventing a holder of an appropriate LTC from open-carrying a firearm. Therefore, it is legal.

Whether open-carrying is wise or unwise is another discussion, but it is by no means illegal.
 
I thought open-carrying in MA was brandishing??

Clearly I have been misinformed if that is the case.
 
Simin v. FRB is clear - open carry is not a reason to revoke an LTC.

BUT

1. I do not trust district courts to follow the precedent any more than I trust the SJC to follow SCOTUS (which is ignored when ruling the right to a license to exercise a Heller right is not protected by Heller; or when it adopted the "not in use at the time the 2a was written" argument on Celona even after SCOTUS firmly rejected that argument in relation to the 2nd). Courts are still acting as if the standard in Moyer v. Shelburne sets the standard.

It is very possible a lower court would simply ignore Simkin v. FRB.

2. It is very possible the SJC would decide there is a difference between an unavoidable display in a doctor's office while disrobing and showing one's guns in public, and rule that Simkin does not apply.

Comm2A stands ready, however we are frequently dealing with a results oriented judiciary that decides the outcome it wants and then shoehorns legal logic to fit, however contorted.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Simin v. FRB is clear - open carry is not a reason to revoke an LTC.

BUT

1. I do not trust district courts to follow the precedent any more than I trust the SJC to follow SCOTUS (which is ignored when ruling the right to a license to exercise a Heller right is not protected by Heller; or when it adopted the "not in use at the time the 2a was written" argument on Celona even after SCOTUS firmly rejected that argument in relation to the 2nd). Courts are still acting as if the standard in Moyer v. Shelburne sets the standard.

It is very possible a lower court would simply ignore Simkin v. FRB.

2. It is very possible the SJC would decide there is a difference between an unavoidable display in a doctor's office while disrobing and showing one's guns in public, and rule that Simkin does not apply.

Comm2A stands ready, however we are frequently dealing with a results oriented judiciary that decides the outcome it wants and then shoehorns legal logic to fit, however contorted.
Click to expand...


While I understand where you derive your position from, I disagree with the way that you are reading Simkin and making a leap re. open carry. Specifically, I believe that it is important to pay close attention to the paragraphs on page 182 and 183 relevant to Simkin's conduct at the medical office relevant to his carrying of the weapons. That said, I do agree which you about potential outcomes.

Next, we suspect that the average Massachusetts resident may become "alarmed" on learning that someone other than a law enforcement officer is carrying concealed weapons in his or her presence. However, Simkin is not responsible for alarm caused to others by his mere carrying of concealed weapons pursuant to a license permitting him to do exactly that. Although the bureau claims that Simkin "went out of his way to show and inform certain staff members that he was . . . armed," the record indicates otherwise. Simkin concealed his weapons until he was in the examination room and was about to disrobe, atPage 183
which time he notified the medical assistant that he was carrying concealed weapons and was going to secure them, presumably so that she would not be alarmed. Further, he had disclosed the fact that he was armed immediately prior to disrobing during a previous visit to the same medical office, albeit to a different practitioner, and had received no objection to his behavior either during or after the visit.
Click to expand...

The manner in which the SJC characterized Simkin's conduct emphasizes the efforts that he made to conceal the weapons as well as that he made specific efforts to avoid alarm (such as verbal notification/explanation of what he was doing and securing the firearms), which had been sufficient in the past to prevent alarm. In short, Simkin is not a case that is directly about open carry.

I would argue that its value is at a higher level, in which behavior that may be "unusual" but "innocuous" enjoys an ideal of explicit protection from unsuitability. Of course, the devil lies in the question of exactly when a behavior may or may not be innocuous.
 
Last edited:
HiCap said:
HAHAHAHAHA nice!!! So was he open carrying? Can someone explain to me how that is legal?
Click to expand...

He was but not exactly on purpose. He got hot and took off his jacket which then exposed his 92FS. He said all the officers were pretty nice and relaxed about the whole thing once he showed proper ID. A couple even checked out his 340PD he said.

While I know open carrying is legal, I would never do it personally. Just my preferance.
 
MAJoe said:
I don't believe there's any crime in MA called brandishing.
Click to expand...

While there isn't a brandishing charge, per-se, as there are in certain other states, the act of brandishing in the true sense of the word (i.e. drawing down on somebody without justification or presenting a weapon so as to threaten use) has resulted in A/B with Deadly Weapon charges, among others, in the past

Without encouraging open carry, an individual with a class B license (of which there are 2906 valid as of January 2016, including 2408 which are without restriction) may only open carry. (Which we know that they may do while on foot, but not in a vehicle, when the firearm must be transported unloaded and in a secure container). We know that there are certain circumstances when open carry is socially acceptable- such as a hunter actively engaged in hunting, on a firing range, by an LEO, by a security guard who is on the job....I don't believe that anybody would question those type of situations.

We also know that certain forms of open carry are prohibited by law- such as the open carry of rifles and shotguns on a public way (c. 269 s. 12D) except when an individual is engaged in an exempted activity.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Simin v. FRB is clear - open carry is not a reason to revoke an LTC.

BUT

1. I do not trust district courts to follow the precedent any more than I trust the SJC to follow SCOTUS (which is ignored when ruling the right to a license to exercise a Heller right is not protected by Heller; or when it adopted the "not in use at the time the 2a was written" argument on Celona even after SCOTUS firmly rejected that argument in relation to the 2nd). Courts are still acting as if the standard in Moyer v. Shelburne sets the standard.

It is very possible a lower court would simply ignore Simkin v. FRB.

2. It is very possible the SJC would decide there is a difference between an unavoidable display in a doctor's office while disrobing and showing one's guns in public, and rule that Simkin does not apply.

Comm2A stands ready, however we are frequently dealing with a results oriented judiciary that decides the outcome it wants and then shoehorns legal logic to fit, however contorted.
Click to expand...

I would have to agree.
 

Similar threads

ltc in worcester
Replies
6
Views
163
Enzo
Enzo
Guns mailed into Worcester
Replies
2
Views
218
hillman
hillman
Worcester Police Suspends-DUPE
Replies
3
Views
131
chris_1001
chris_1001
Worcester pulls license of critical business owner
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
4K
s&w3913
S
Carry in Post Office
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Back
Top Bottom