This is absolutely disgusting

[Tames D]

Tames,

Yes you can draw it very quickly. And I mean VERY quickly.

Several methods to do this:

1) if it's a IWB appendix holster, use your off hand to grab the t-shirt upwards as your strong hand grabs the gun and draws. If you don't have two hands, just use the strong hand to raise the shirt and draw.

2) if behind the hip IWB and just a t-shirt, use the strong hand to raise the shirt above the gun, then use the elbow to keep the shirt there while the strong hand draws. It's quite quick when practiced.

3) If using a behind the hip IWB and a coat. have the strong hand go to the chest and wipe downwards and toward the gun. It will move the coat out of the way as your strong hand goes to the gun and draws.

And there are other ways!

Deaf

Sorry Deaf. I'm very well aware of all this. That wasn't the point of my post.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

But I don't think police corruption is so much the point as it is the way due process works in MA.

In many states, if one's license to carry is revoked, that has no bearing on one's right to own a firearm to keep at one's home.

In MA, if one's license to carry is revoked, or even temporarily suspended, one does not have the legal right to own that firearm any longer.

That is also very true, guess the point I was making wasn't quite the one this thread is addressing. Sorry for the drift.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

Sorry Deaf. I'm very well aware of all this. That wasn't the point of my post.

Sorry for the drift Tames. Deaf and I sometimes get caught up in our willingness to teach and sometimes don't catch stuff right away

 

[jks9199]

Cop sees gun in high crime area, reacts to deal with perceived threat in a defensive manner. Ok so far.
Cop safely disarms suspect. Ok
Suspect supplies what he claims is a CCP. ok so far.

Cop is unable to validate CCP. This is an issue. #1

Cop confiscates firearm and CCP. Considering he could not validate the CCP, this seems a reasonable action given the area and local laws.

Cop then makes telling statement that seems to indicate cop will make his own rules irregardless of law. This is an issue. #2

Suspect is left unarmed in dangerous area. This is an issue. #3

IF a real problem existed, suspect along with weapon and permit should have been brought in for further investigation.

Suspect is not charged, property is returned. Ok. However, it should not have gotten to this stage, IMO. See Issue #1.

I disagree with your issue number three, Bob. Schubert was not left any worse off than anyone didn't have a CCW, and wasn't breaking the law. Take a guy driving in the middle of nowhere here in VA on a suspended license, DUI related, and I impound his car. Yeah, he's still in the middle of nowhere, but it ain't my job to find him a ride out, either.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Sorry Deaf. I'm very well aware of all this. That wasn't the point of my post.

Well Tames in Texas the law also leaves an out if you display your weapon while defending your life. It's in PC42.01 (Disorderly Conduct.)

Deaf

 

[Skpotamus]

When I looked up Mass. carry laws, nowhere in them did it say the firearm had to be concealed. Everyone is assuming that the attorney messed up by having his gun in the open (he did as the cop went nuts over it), but from what I can find, it's not illegal to carry openly in that state with the license type that attorney had.

So it sounds like the officer overreacted since nothing the attorney was doing was against the law at any time.

http://opencarry.org/ma.html
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/MASL.pdf

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I disagree with your issue number three, Bob. Schubert was not left any worse off than anyone didn't have a CCW, and wasn't breaking the law. Take a guy driving in the middle of nowhere here in VA on a suspended license, DUI related, and I impound his car. Yeah, he's still in the middle of nowhere, but it ain't my job to find him a ride out, either.

I'd be careful with this one. If he gets hurt, you are the one that placed him in that situation by taking his car, even if it is based on his actions of driving while suspended. You could be held civilly liable for it.

 

[Archangel M]

I'd be careful with this one. If he gets hurt, you are the one that placed him in that situation by taking his car, even if it is based on his actions of driving while suspended. You could be held civilly liable for it.

Depends on where you take it. If the guy is sober, its not -20 deg outside and it's not on the interstate he can drive off in his size 10's IMO. The sidewalk or the shoulder is no more dangerous to him than everybody else walking/jogging on it.

If he's "juiced" it's a whole other ball game. My dept. got sued big time over an incident 20+ yrs ago under those circumstances. Wasn't driving of course otherwise he'd have been arrested.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

When I looked up Mass. carry laws, nowhere in them did it say the firearm had to be concealed. Everyone is assuming that the attorney messed up by having his gun in the open (he did as the cop went nuts over it), but from what I can find, it's not illegal to carry openly in that state with the license type that attorney had.

So it sounds like the officer overreacted since nothing the attorney was doing was against the law at any time.

http://opencarry.org/ma.html
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/MASL.pdf

http://web.mac.com/dariusarbabi/Massgunlaw.com/Hot_topics_and_FAQs.html

Is it legal, or a good idea for someone with a Class A LTC to openly carry a firearm in Massachusetts?

No, it is probably not a good practice, even if it is arguably legal. While there no statute or case law directly on point, it is a good idea to view your Class A LTC as a license only for concealed carry of a firearm.

It's not strictly on-the-books illegal, but the common accepted practice is you do not do it and can expect no mercy if you do. It's pretty much an automatic brandishing charge, maybe even an automatic assault with a deadly, depending. That's the way it's been since before I was even born. It sucks, but it is what it is until it either gets changed or until I manage to leave this state. *shrug*

 

[Cryozombie]

http://web.mac.com/dariusarbabi/Massgunlaw.com/Hot_topics_and_FAQs.html
It's not strictly on-the-books illegal, but the common accepted practice is you do not do it and can expect no mercy if you do. It's pretty much an automatic brandishing charge, maybe even an automatic assault with a deadly, depending. That's the way it's been since before I was even born. It sucks, but it is what it is until it either gets changed or until I manage to leave this state. *shrug*

If the law doesn't specifically state it has to be concealed I don't see how this works. It is, IMHO, stupid to open carry, unless that is your only option, ALA Wisconson, but like most laws, if it isn't written into the law, it's not Illegal, so I can't see how the Republik of Mass gets awat with that.

To me, doing so would be like saying you are required to have a drivers license to operate a motor vehicle, but arresting everyone in a red car, because they don't feel the license should cover that.

 

[lklawson]

Apples and Oranges.

Your neighbor isn't taking your mower as part of his or her job.

Exactly.

Like I said. Different rules for "public servants."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jks9199]

Depends on where you take it. If the guy is sober, its not -20 deg outside and it's not on the interstate he can drive off in his size 10's IMO. The sidewalk or the shoulder is no more dangerous to him than everybody else walking/jogging on it.

If he's "juiced" it's a whole other ball game. My dept. got sued big time over an incident 20+ yrs ago under those circumstances. Wasn't driving of course otherwise he'd have been arrested.

Hey guys, I was making a comparison, not trying to derail the discussion.

Of course you can't leave the guy in a situation that creates a danger, whether he's drunk, or the weather is nuts to be out, or in a situation that's going to break the law. Even then, you aren't going to drive him home; you might call him a cab or arrest him for public intoxication.

 

[lklawson]

When I looked up Mass. carry laws, nowhere in them did it say the firearm had to be concealed. Everyone is assuming that the attorney messed up by having his gun in the open (he did as the cop went nuts over it), but from what I can find, it's not illegal to carry openly in that state with the license type that attorney had.

So it sounds like the officer overreacted since nothing the attorney was doing was against the law at any time.

http://opencarry.org/ma.html
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/MASL.pdf

You can get arrested for Open Carry. Disturbing the Peace, Inciting a Panic, whatever.

Face it. If a cop wants you arrested, you WILL. BE. ARRESTED.

It's a good thing that most do not abuse this sort of authority.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Carol]

When I looked up Mass. carry laws, nowhere in them did it say the firearm had to be concealed.

Actually I think you are right. There is no law stating that the firearm must be concealed. Therefore, one may not be charged with a crime for carrying openly. The Joseph Landers matter that I mentioned in 1998 didn't leave Mr. Landers with an arrest or any criminal procedings to address.

But his choice of carry did leave him without a license to carry anymore.

So, very true. It entirely possible to carry openly and not face criminal charges for doing so. Its also entirely possible to lose one's entire right by doing so. A Mass. LTC is a bloody PITA to get just to have a firearm at home, to get one with the endorsement for concealed carry is even harder. I suspect the folks that go through all the trouble to get one do so with the intention of wanting to keep their licenses/rights for a very long time.

 

[Skpotamus]

http://web.mac.com/dariusarbabi/Massgunlaw.com/Hot_topics_and_FAQs.html



It's not strictly on-the-books illegal, but the common accepted practice is you do not do it and can expect no mercy if you do. It's pretty much an automatic brandishing charge, maybe even an automatic assault with a deadly, depending. That's the way it's been since before I was even born. It sucks, but it is what it is until it either gets changed or until I manage to leave this state. *shrug*

We have a term in my state for "not strictly by the books illegal"... it's called..... LEGAL! What that Q&A basically said is that police don't have the legal justification to arrest someone for open carry, but will do so on some trumped up BS charge. Police enforcing laws that don't exist is the exact opposite of what they were created to do. Betraying the very essence of law enforcement should be grounds for being fired IMHO. Especially when the officers KNOW they are not enforcing the law.

We had the same issue in my home state for a while. We had an entire town declare that open carry was illegal and would arrest anyone for open carrying. Ended up going to the state supreme court where the city was told they were violating state law, and to remove that law from their books or lose all state funding. Later they tried the whole "public disturbance" BS to do it, went back to court and still lost (probably because indiana doesn't have a public disturbance law).

Now, regarding law enforcement powers, different states may be different. But in IN, a LEO has to follow all the laws of his state, as well as pretty strict guidelines for anything she/he does. They have exemptions written into state laws about carry for instance, as well as breaking speed limits and traffic laws in the case of an emergency only. I showed the district courts ruling to three of my students last night, one was a lawyer, two were LEO's (one for 20+ years, the other for just over 12). All three said that if it had happened in IN, the officer would probably have been fired, if not brought up on charges. This was from reading the district court's ruling, not the more inflammatory article. So I think we're just looking at this from the blinders our own state justice systems puts on us.

Also, side note: Theft in IN is exactly what I said it was. Intent to convert property to your own use has NOTHING to do with whether it's theft or not. Depriving the lawful owner of their property or it's value (via destruction, loss, etc) counts as theft. So


Now, I personally think open carry is just plain silly, and won't do it at all except for one town I have to go to every now and then that REQUIRES open carry (ordinance passed before the state exemption laws took effect). It sounds like Mass LE is playing fast and loose with people's rights. Arresting people on some other charge for enjoying legal behavior? Denying a person a firearms carry license because of them following the law? Sounds incredibly UN-american to me.

 

[Carol]

The Comm. of Mass? Un-American? Say it ain't so... :lol:

Personally, I think the vast majority of LEOs in Mass. are very strong supporters of 2A rights. The change in Mass is not going to come from LE, or from painting the cops as the bad guys, they are some of the strongest allies we have. They have the to jump through the same hoops that the rest of us do. Unlike many of us, their ability to support their family depends on their LTC.

The change must come from Beacon Hill, and from the city and town halls. That will take a change in the mindset of the citizenry in Mass. in order for that to happen.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

The Comm. of Mass? Un-American? Say it ain't so... :lol:

Personally, I think the vast majority of LEOs in Mass. are very strong supporters of 2A rights. The change in Mass is not going to come from LE, or from painting the cops as the bad guys, they are some of the strongest allies we have. They have the to jump through the same hoops that the rest of us do. Unlike many of us, their ability to support their family depends on their LTC.

The change must come from Beacon Hill, and from the city and town halls. That will take a change in the mindset of the citizenry in Mass. in order for that to happen.

Carol said it better than I could.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

We have a term in my state for "not strictly by the books illegal"... it's called..... LEGAL! What that Q&A basically said is that police don't have the legal justification to arrest someone for open carry, but will do so on some trumped up BS charge. Police enforcing laws that don't exist is the exact opposite of what they were created to do. Betraying the very essence of law enforcement should be grounds for being fired IMHO. Especially when the officers KNOW they are not enforcing the law.

We had the same issue in my home state for a while. We had an entire town declare that open carry was illegal and would arrest anyone for open carrying. Ended up going to the state supreme court where the city was told they were violating state law, and to remove that law from their books or lose all state funding. Later they tried the whole "public disturbance" BS to do it, went back to court and still lost (probably because indiana doesn't have a public disturbance law).

Now, regarding law enforcement powers, different states may be different. But in IN, a LEO has to follow all the laws of his state, as well as pretty strict guidelines for anything she/he does. They have exemptions written into state laws about carry for instance, as well as breaking speed limits and traffic laws in the case of an emergency only. I showed the district courts ruling to three of my students last night, one was a lawyer, two were LEO's (one for 20+ years, the other for just over 12). All three said that if it had happened in IN, the officer would probably have been fired, if not brought up on charges. This was from reading the district court's ruling, not the more inflammatory article. So I think we're just looking at this from the blinders our own state justice systems puts on us.

Also, side note: Theft in IN is exactly what I said it was. Intent to convert property to your own use has NOTHING to do with whether it's theft or not. Depriving the lawful owner of their property or it's value (via destruction, loss, etc) counts as theft. So


Now, I personally think open carry is just plain silly, and won't do it at all except for one town I have to go to every now and then that REQUIRES open carry (ordinance passed before the state exemption laws took effect). It sounds like Mass LE is playing fast and loose with people's rights. Arresting people on some other charge for enjoying legal behavior? Denying a person a firearms carry license because of them following the law? Sounds incredibly UN-american to me.

Whatdid you, think I was kidding when I typed my location descriptor?

 

[Archangel M]

Nope not theft. You just WANT it to be.

 

[Archangel M]

....you do get a receipt when someone "steals" your property. And you don't get legal process for it either. Spin it as you like but an officer confiscating property as part of his job will not meet any states definition of theft.