Brass knuckles

[Duane Allman]

Would you still be subject to arrest for having brass knuckles in your car or on your person if you held an LTC-A, LTC-B, or FID?

For instance, pepper spray might help you contain an aggressor or suspect of a crime in progress if perhaps the situation didn't warrant deadly force.

It is my contention that brass knuckles SHOULD be similar.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Yes!

Sorry, your contention doesn't cut it with MA laws.

 

[Duane Allman]

What about CCW with an LTC-B?

I heard you can't even be charged with a crime.

I also heard that with an LTCs those restrictions don't mean diddly squat.

You can still carry according to the MGLs so long as you legally possess the firearm in question and have a valid LTC (A or B)

And what if I only have my FID. I can still drive around with an unloaded shotgun in my trunk every day of the year even if it says Sporting.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Duane,

I have a constructive suggestion for you . . .

- Set your User CP to show ALL Threads,

- Then go to "Advanced Search" mode and search on some keywords in the Gun Laws forum.

- Do some reading there, also the stickies on the MGLs.

We put that stuff there so folks would have the references they need to cover their butts.

Most of what you posted is WRONG and could land you in jail and definitely result in you with never getting another LTC in MA. However, if you do some reading you will find the proper info, with MGL cites.

It's up to you (and each and every one of us) to educate yourself (ourselves) as "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

 

[Duane Allman]

Haha.

So basically you have no clue.

Aren't you a LEO?

And you can't even tell me what the name of the crime I would be charged with for any of the above?

I think the Restrictions are a bunch of crap put their to psyche you out of using your license to the fullest extent. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just on the card and not even included in the MGLs.

They didn't change the MGLs when they switched from laminated paper with reason for issuance, to laminated card with restrictions, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Duane, I'm not going to waste my time at o-dark-thirty citing MGL to you. I told you where to find it here on NES, it has already been cited numerous times.

If you don't want to look, I don't care. It's no skin off my nose.

If you take that attitude when people try to teach you how to fish (as opposed to feeding you a fish), you'll never learn for yourself.

If you proceed to act the way you wrote, you might enjoy the challenge of dealing with your local DA and police "educating" you in a more authoritative way!

 

[Carguy]

Duane: Do us all a favor, put on your brass knuckles , load up your whatever you own and carry concealed - with a high capacity mag if you can- on a Class B or less, run a red light then don't stop right away, when the flashing lights catch up to your speeding car...let us know what you were charged with when you get out.

 

[drgrant]

What about CCW with an LTC-B?

I heard you can't even be charged with a crime.

I also heard that with an LTCs those restrictions don't mean diddly squat.

None of that is true. You cannot carry on an LTC-B, and carrying against
restrictions is now 100% illegal as the "reason for issuance" loophole is
effectively gone.

See the GOAL LTC differences chart:

http://www.goal.org/misc/faq/aandbdifferences.pdf

The LTC-B discussion will always inspire some lunkhead to come out of
the woodwork and say "Well, what if I carry openly on a public way" or
something that doesn't seem to be directly prohibited. My response to
these lunkheads is please go ahead and try that, and tell us how it
turns out.

There was an old piece of case law where some guy with an LTC
and a bunch of greasy potsmoker types got busted in a traffic stop,
and he got off on the gun charge because he had an LTC, and even
though it was restricted. That case is what that started that
rumor... and even scriv will tell you that loophole would not be exploitable
anymore.

If you don't believe me, just wait a few moments and you'll probably
end up getting Scrivened. I'm not going to bother
quoting the MGL sections because this topic has been covered like 900
times on the board.

You can still carry according to the MGLs so long as you legally possess the firearm in question and have a valid LTC (A or B)

Well, if you consider carrying to be transporting the gun in
accordance with MGLs, then yes. (eg, encased in locked container) You cannot carry a loaded
gun on a public way with an H+T restricted A or any kind of LTC-B.

And what if I only have my FID. I can still drive around with an unloaded shotgun in my trunk every day of the year even if it says Sporting.

Yes, that you can do.

And if I'm wrong, don't bullshit me, cite the specific crime with which I would be charged if found doing any of the above. Or else don't even bother posting.

Again, this topic has been covered about 65,535 times... you may want
to use the search function or check the perpetual "ma gun laws" thread
at the top of the gun laws subform.

-Mike

 

[Duane Allman]

Duane: Do us all a favor, put on your brass knuckles , load up your whatever you own and carry concealed - with a high capacity mag if you can- on a Class B or less, run a red light then don't stop right away, when the flashing lights catch up to your speeding car...let us know what you were charged with when you get out.

So you don't know?

And lose the attitude. If you know as much as you act like you do, then you'd have no problem offering specific factual truthful knowledge.

I guess I belong in jail or something just because I asked a question on a forum without ever doing anything I'm even asking about. I don't even own a gun yet.

 

[Carguy]

My brass knuckles are a paperweight on my desk...if I run out of ammo and somehow can't beat the BG with my empty gun then I'll use them to try some more beating. And yes I do carry concealed, cocked and locked but with the proper license. The laws in this state suck but until we decide to leave we have to obey them or pay the consequences which in your examples means jail time.

ATTITUDE! I have no attitude, you're the one that berrated LenS as he merely directed you to do a little reading! The laws are volumes and volumes and if you simply looked a the list of topics available when you first log in there it is MASS GUN LAWS. You're the one that put him down for being a LEO and not knowing the laws you were violating in your example. As he said no skin of his nose if you don't want to listen. You asked the questions and when told where to get the answers you didn't like it...sorry. This forum is a bunch of very nice, helpful and knowledgable people with similar interests. You got pissed at me when I gave you a little attitude, try reading your response to LenS. I'm surprised he even bothered responding.

Sorry for the rambling but there is no reason for that.

 

[Duane Allman]

obey them or pay the consequences which in your examples means jail time.

Your wrong.

None of it means jail time.

It means license suspension and up to a $!0,000 fine if I'm reading correctly.

Which is enough to stop me from doing it because I'm poor and that would probably stop me from getting my CCW in another state.

And i'd really appreciate if someone in the know would man up and prove this LTC-A restrictions (or chief's wishes) garbage with a citation from the MGLs.

And the problem still remains in which I cannot think of the crime you could be charged with for carrying a loaded handgun with an LTC A H+T

 

[Shepherd]

CHAPTER 269. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE


Chapter 269: Section 10. Carrying dangerous weapons; possession of machine gun or sawed-off shotguns; possession of large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device; punishment



b) Whoever, except as provided by law, carries on his person, or carries on his person or under his control in a vehicle, any stiletto, dagger or a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position, any ballistic knife, or any knife with a detachable blade capable of being propelled by any mechanism, dirk knife, any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches, or a slung shot, blowgun, blackjack, metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles, nunchaku, zoobow, also known as klackers or kung fu sticks, or any similar weapon consisting of two sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather, a shuriken or any similar pointed starlike object intended to injure a person when thrown, or any armband, made with leather which has metallic spikes, points or studs or any similar device made from any other substance or a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand, or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends; or whoever, when arrested upon a warrant for an alleged crime, or when arrested while committing a breach or disturbance of the public peace, is armed with or has on his person, or has on his person or under his control in a vehicle, a billy or other dangerous weapon other than those herein mentioned and those mentioned in paragraph (a), shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years in the state prison, or for not less than six months nor more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction, except that, if the court finds that the defendant has not been previously convicted of a felony, he may be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction.

 

[Duane Allman]

OK brass knuckles are moot.

Now we're talking LTC A H+T

and sorry LenS I didn't mean to belittle you

 

[Supermoto]

Your wrong.

None of it means jail time.

It means license suspension and up to a $!0,000 fine if I'm reading correctly.

Which is enough to stop me from doing it because I'm poor and that would probably stop me from getting my CCW in another state.

And i'd really appreciate if someone in the know would man up and prove this LTC-A restrictions (or chief's wishes) garbage with a citation from the MGLs.

And the problem still remains in which I cannot think of the crime you could be charged with for carrying a loaded handgun with an LTC A H+T

Your disrespectful attitide will not invite people to produce case law for you.
You best bet now is to contact an attorney and pay for the info

 

[Shepherd]

If you carry on a class B you WILL be in Violation of MGL Chapter 140 Section 131B


b) A Class B license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) non-large capacity firearms and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of such firearm as the licensing authority deems proper; provided, however, that a Class B license shall not entitle the holder thereof to carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any public way or place; and provided further, that a Class B license shall not entitle the holder thereof to possess a large capacity firearm, except under a Class A club license issued under this section or under the direct supervision of a holder of a valid Class A license at an incorporated shooting club or licensed shooting range; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity rifles and shotguns, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as he deems proper. A violation of a restriction provided under this paragraph, or a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under the provisions of this paragraph, shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that the provisions of section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to such violation.


By the way these are question you could find the answers to YOURSELF if you just put in a little effort.

 

[Duane Allman]

By the way these are question you could find the answers to YOURSELF if you just put in a little effort.

Listen I don't mean to disrespect anybody,

and I have put in the effort.

But the fact that nobody can cite a single thing about LTC-A hunting and target not being allowed to carry from the MGLs make me think that either

a) nobody knows (which is fine)

or

b) it's simply not true

as i sit here i'm continuing to look and can't find a single mention of restrictions or chief's wishes

 

[9000S]

hmmm "b) Whoever, except as provided by law" I wonder who is provided by law to carry some of those things? Do police get carte blanche? That would be the day to get knocked out with leaded gloves after being taken down by a manrikigusari.... I love that little loop in there, who does it work for??

 

[pdm]

hmmm "b) Whoever, except as provided by law" I wonder who is provided by law to carry some of those things? Do police get carte blanche? That would be the day to get knocked out with leaded gloves after being taken down by a manrikigusari.... I love that little loop in there, who does it work for??

Not the common man, that's for sure.

 

[9000S]

Well on the B section there it is mentioned.. "use or carrying of such firearm as the licensing authority deems proper" haven't scoured the Class A MGL but I am sure that language is duplicated. (now that I am sure I am sure I am wrong...) but the licensing authority has their wishes weighed in right there. that whole Deems proper bit...

 

[Duane Allman]

OK I answered my own question finally.

Yup I guess you can't with a restricted LTC A.

OK...

NOW ARE WE SURE I CAN CARRY AN UNLOADED SHOTGUN in the trunk WITH FID HUNTING AND TARGET?

what if i'm not on a hunting trip or on my way back and forth from the range?

 

[Carguy]

I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that the LEOs should have better weapons than the bad guys. The LEOs, FireFighters and teachers all are underpaid (except the LEOs when they get details to direct traffic and drink coffee, sorry for the aside) and under equiped for the jobs they are charged with performing. Remember those 2 masked bank robbers in LA a few years ago all hyped up on drugs and wearing body armor and firing automatic weapons. The police department was ill-equiped for the job. How no one was killed "except" the BGs I'll never know, someone was watching from above.

Why would anyone on the street carry a switch blade or a sap or even the brass knuckles Duane mentioned if they really weren't out for trouble. I don't think there exsists a true use for most if not all of the items listed as "illegal" under the mass laws. Maybe I'm just brain washed like Duane said he has a bit of a problem trusting LEOs and I am the opposite where my family had a Chief and currently have active Police Captain, DEA, Homeland Security and State Department agents in it as well as many local, state and federal officers I've worked with and befriended over the years (and I am not in law enforcement).

 

[drgrant]

I don't necessarily disagree with the fact that the LEOs should have better weapons than the bad guys. The LEOs, FireFighters and teachers all are underpaid (except the LEOs when they get details to direct traffic and drink coffee, sorry for the aside) and under equiped for the jobs they are charged with performing. Remember those 2 masked bank robbers in LA a few years ago all hyped up on drugs and wearing body armor and firing automatic weapons. The police department was ill-equiped for the job. How no one was killed "except" the BGs I'll never know, someone was watching from above.

IMO the police should not be entitled to any guns/weapons that the
average US citizen cannot own. I'm all for LEOs having patrol rifles and
even subguns/MGs but all this crap about LEO exemptions in the gun laws
sickens me. Those exemptions were put into gun laws in order to pacify
some LE unions, nothing more. If the politicos could have gotten away
with disarming LEOs, they would have done that, too. (Remember that
the "al sharpton woe is us police brutality wah" crowd is not all that far
away on the dial from the gun banners... they're one and the same. )

As far as the N. Hollywood shootout goes.... its prime evidence that
fully automatic weapons are not necessarily more lethal. "Spray and
Pray" might keep heads down but it is woefully ineffective at actually
hurting people. In order for an MG to be effective in anyones hands
standard marksmanship rules still apply!

-Mike

 

[Duane Allman]

well i'm not looking for trouble, just answers

but eventually you realize the laws are so damned stupid here in MA, that there are no real answers.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

None of that is true. You cannot carry on an LTC-B, and carrying against
restrictions is now 100% illegal as the "reason for issuance" loophole is
effectively gone.

A change for which we owe GOAL a debt of gratitude.

Prior to 1998, violation of a restriction was in a gray area - definitely something that could get an LTC pulled, but not absolutely clear it was a crime. The 1998 laws made it a specific offense ($1k - $10K fine, plus loss of license) and removed that ambiguity.

The meaning of the label "reason for issuance" left some room for ambiguity. One lower court found that stating a "reason for issuance" was not sufficiently clear to establish that it was a restriction rather than just a "reason for issuance." GOAL pressed for a clear definition, and the state obliged by changing the license forms to read "Restriction" rather than "Reason for issuance." Interestingly enough, GOAL tried to tell us this was a good thing.

Somewhat later, the system was chanced to make it easier to use "None" as a restriction rather than "All lawful purposes" (good grammar caught up with the new name for the field).

 

[M1911]

What about CCW with an LTC-B?

I heard you can't even be charged with a crime.

You heard wrong.
See MGL Ch. 140 S. 131, which reads, in part:

(b) A Class B license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) non-large capacity firearms and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of such firearm as the licensing authority deems proper; provided, however, that a Class B license shall not entitle the holder thereof to carry or possess a loaded firearm in a concealed manner in any public way or place;

Full text is here:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131.htm

 

[bazfoo]

Again, this topic has been covered about 65,535 times... you may want
to use the search function or check the perpetual "ma gun laws" thread
at the top of the gun laws subform.

-Mike

65,535 ... once for each port on my machine

 

[KMaurer]

65,535 ... once for each port on my machine

Actually that statement wasn't quite correct; it should have been 65,535 times per port.

Ken

 

[Carguy]

Actually this makes 65,536 times.

 

[Duane Allman]

A change for which we owe GOAL a debt of gratitude.

Prior to 1998, violation of a restriction was in a gray area - definitely something that could get an LTC pulled, but not absolutely clear it was a crime. The 1998 laws made it a specific offense ($1k - $10K fine, plus loss of license) and removed that ambiguity.

That's ridiculous.

I'd prefer it in the gray area.

All you don't give a shit because you already have LTC ALP.

I owe nobody a debt of gratitude. You guys keep pressing for more laws. It's pretty idiotic.

How could making it a specific offense help? When it wasn't a specific offense to begin with?

In this instance GOAL HURT GUNOWNERS.

 

[fubar]

Duane , you really ought to just go away. When you have a good idea , come back and tell us about it. Unless we see you in the newspaper on your way to jail first ...