Contact with Law Enforcement while concealed carrying question?

[Mesatchornug]

Hey Len,

You are correct. I had mush brain at 1:30am trying to get a response off to that person...

Sieze, snap, summons is the protocol for carrying outside of restrictions.

In my encounters with persons involving LTC's, I've only seen "None," "Target & Hunting," and "Employment." While there is no "standard definition" of what a restriction means, it is on the license itself and is provided to the licensee upon receipt of their license.

I don't know how up to date this is, but the City of Boston posted the LTC restrictions HERE

We've all been trained and been drilled on municipal and constitutional law. Some cities and towns have different protocols for handling LTCs. The reality is, that, specifically in Boston, city council has been more and more adamant about refusing to allow unrestricted licenses as to prevent more persons from legally carrying. That's just the way it is here. It stinks and I personally don't like it.

Also, discretion is very important. While someone from Rehoboth may have a "Target & Hunting" restriction and is concealed carrying in Boston, they are technically, even though towns may bend a bit, carrying outside of their restrictions, which is illegal. However, if the interaction is cordial and cooperative, the difference of the sieze, snap, summons, and "go lock it in your car" are very real.

Here are the two NES threads WRT the Simkin case @Len-2A Training noted

Decision in FRB v. Simkin?

I got a tweet to the effect that Simkin got his LTC back, but not much further detail. Comm2A hasn't updated the site yet. Any other details available?

www.northeastshooters.com

SJC Arguments tomorrow on a Non-Resident License Appeal

Tomorrow there is the oral arguments in a non resident licensing case at the SJC. The SJC fast tracked this case. See if you can spot why they would want this case. We filed an amicus in this case and will continue to monitor the state courts for cases such as these...

www.northeastshooters.com

Here's the actual decision:

FindLaw's Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts case and opinions.

FindLaw's searchable database of Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts decisions since

caselaw.findlaw.com

Of particular note is this paragraph towards the end (emphasis mine).

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, at 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.

Further, and this may be a failure of communication, but it seems like you're missing an important distinction. It's wonderful that Boston publishes their requirements - which are effective against the licenses they grant. Other towns have other definitions. They may or may not share them publicly*. Your theoretical Rehoboth resident would be held to his chief's definition, not yours. If his chief says carry to/from activities is ok, and he's on his way to/from listed activities, then he's ok.

If you have evidence that city-council has been directing the department to deny/restrict more LTCs, that seems like something @Comm2A might want to see.

* Notably, Brookline requires licensees to read their definition and sign an affidavit saying as much. They then refuse to allow said licensee to take any copy with them, including a cell-phone photograph.

The dispatcher is the problem! The dispatcher should have asked the caller, "Why are you concerned, what are they doing"? If the answer is, "Because he or she has a gun on them!" The dispatcher should inform the sheep on the line that, "Guns are legal in MA and unless you suspect the person is going to commit a crime, you should continue on and mind your own f'n business and stop tying up an emergency line!" No further action on behalf of the dispatcher is necessary. No crime has been committed, no crime is being suspected of being committed, there is no need for police interaction. This is where the problems occur, bad information is obtained and bad information is relayed!

This. Apparent possession of a firearm is not sufficient evidence for probable cause (or even reasonable suspicion) that the individual is in unlawful possession of a firearm. While it might be lawful to demand the LTC because it amuses you, the actual "pro-2A" position is clear - if he's not committing a crime, leave him alone.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Now, that 0.01% of people who are not law abiding citizens are the ones we are more concerned with. And, that 0.01% of cops who are bad cops are the bad apples in the tree and paint the negative picture for all of us. Plain and simple as said before by JCT61765, Massachusetts IS NOT a "free state." And it is very strict as it pertains to firearm laws. You cannot carry legally unless you're licensed (or working in specific professions). Period. This comes down to elected officials and outsourced liberals who have taken over and are cemented in their Anti-2A rhetoric.

I respectfully suggest that you may be underestimating the percentage of bad citizens, and bad cops, at .01%. It's almost certainly way more than one out of 10,000 on each side of the blue line.

 

[doolz]

I can't find it but I read about a case in MA where the officer asked a driver IF he had a LTC vs asking for a LTC and that was a issue

I've made several firearm arrests. Once the firearm is recovered from the subject, you demand to see their LTC

I respectfully suggest that you may be underestimating the percentage of bad citizens, and bad cops, at .01%. It's almost certainly way more than one out of 10,000 on each side of the blue line.

I don't have exact numbers. Not sure anyone does. But good people and good cops outweigh the number of bad people and bad cops...

The point of my post was that regardless of how many good people/cops there are, it only takes 1 to make it all look bad.

 

[pastera]

You choose to live in a state that abuse's your rights. You know this, we all know this. This is what Massachusetts does. You can complain all you want on our forum. It's not going to change what the police do in your state. I'm not going to tell you if you don't like it, move. I don't know your situation. You may despise what the police do in your state, but it's not going to change.

Concur - unfortunately living in Mass is not changing unless I want to give up half of everything and restart at almost 53.
I disagree slightly with not being able to change things - I've been involved for many years and while we haven't gained much ground we have stemmed the massive losses that would have occurred if the small but active members hadn't spent many hours in advocacy.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I've made several firearm arrests. Once the firearm is recovered from the subject, you demand to see their LTC

I might respectfully suggest that you should do this in reverse order and ONLY if the person can't provide a valid LTC.

Handling any gun can lead to accidents, so the less handled the better . . . and if the person is properly licensed there should be no reason to inspect the gun or go any further. This is providing that the person doesn't give off vibes that warrant further investigation.

In my experience as a police officer, sadly I have seen (and been "victimized" by) too many unsafe gun handling incidents by veteran police officers. I had one MSP veteran (who at the time of this incident was a Lt. at a very well run college PD) point his gun at my gut twice (I changed where I was standing each time) while I was talking with him in his office. He had taken it out perhaps to clean it? I've watched my Capt. handle a gun while another officer was downrange scoring our targets at a qualification. Most officers that I know aren't "gun people" and take gun safety about as serious as the way they handle their ballpoint pen!

So I'm all for an officer asking someone to keep their hands away from the gun, but I am not for an officer disarming someone "just to check".

ETA: My classic example was when I brought a friend (she was an Army Veteran) to a gunshop run by a fellow officer. A Boston police officer came in and was waving a shotgun around sweeping many of us in the shop. My friend turned to me and said "I'll wait for you by the car!" and I told her that I was leaving also for the same reason!

 

[flippinfleck]

There's obviously a disconnect here... and that's fine.

First, yes, I do know that there are multiple issuing agencies for LTCs in Massachusetts. An MA LTC is an MA LTC... Restrictions are restrictions. You either have them or you don't. If you don't then you're all good. If you have restrictions, then obviously you fall under certain parameters that you have to abide by based on the issuing agency. Don't know where you were going with that one.

Second, your responses to my responses are subjective. I'm giving experienced real-life and potential real-life scenarios that the OP (Keop) had asked in his original post:
"If a person is printing and law enforcement is called what can law enforcement legally do? I would assume that they would ask if you are armed and if you're licensed but would they disarm you first? Are they legally able to inspect your firearm, ammo, magazines, etc. if you provide a valid LTC?"

To answer what OP had asked, the answer is "yes," if a person is printing, and law enforcement is called, the responding officer(s) have the legal grounds to conduct a threshold inquiry on the person in question. The typical response varies from department to department based on training and experience, but the constitutional law remains the same. You are the subject of a 911 call in regards to possessing a firearm. I gave a few different scenarios and how responses vary:

I'll try to use two more "clearer" examples...

A) You, pastera, possess a valid, unrestricted MA LTC with no capacity restrictions. While at a supermarket in Downtown Crossing, some concerned citizen notices a "bulge" on your waist and it becomes more worrisome to them that you may be carrying a firearm. This concerned citizen decides to call 911 and states "... I'm at the supermarket and I think this person has a firearm on them. They have an object sitting on their waist that is poking through their shirt and it looks like it could be a firearm.... No, I haven't seen it and they haven't taken it out but I think it is a firearm can you send officers to make sure this is okay"

At that point, dispatch will put out the call. Depending on the interaction between the call taker and the caller, this information is relayed and it is what we have to go on.

We respond and locate you somewhere in the store matching the description given by the 911 caller. At this point, a threshold inquiry begins and casual conversation occurs. No firearm displayed. No problems.

Me: "Hello sir, we received a 911 call that someone was concerned you may have a firearm on you, specifically on your waist. You match the description given by the caller and I can see a bit of printing. Do you have a firearm on you?"
You: "Yes, I do."
Me: "Can you provide me your LTC and we can get this squared away?"
You: "Yes, I can, it is in my pocket."
Me: "You can remove that for me, but just for the duration of this interaction, please refrain from having your hands around that area where your firearm is until we can clarify validity of your license."
You: "Absolutely, not a problem at all."

Another officer speaks with the 911 caller to confirm the call and I'll conduct a check on the LTC. Once everything comes back as it should, I return your LTC and everyone goes on their way. The caller is informed privately of the information and if they have a problem with you legally carrying a firearm, they can choose to avoid you if they feel uncomfortable or take their business elsewhere.

B) You, pastera, possess a valid, unrestricted MA LTC with no capacity restrictions. While at a supermarket in Downtown Crossing, some concerned citizen notices a "bulge" on your waist and it becomes more worrisome to them that you may be carrying a firearm. This concerned citizen decides to call 911 and states "... I'm at the supermarket and this guy has a gun on his waist, I can see it poking through his shirt." (provides description and has a more rapid and stressed tone). No other information is given.
This is a bit more of a different call than Scenario A. Dispatch will obviously send this out in a more immediate stance than the other scenario.

This scenario plays out exactly the same as Scenario A. Period. Conversation is key.

However, if, by chance, you decide to become irate, unruly, and refuse to cooperate when officers have enough probable cause (911 call, exact description, visible "printing" on waist consistent with concealing an item) to conduct an inquiry, then based on the totality of the circumstances and the "nature of the call," we may conduct a pat frisk for safety. Then, the variables are multiple as to what can happen after that.

At the end of the day, safety is paramount. I know in my previous post I stated " "... This is the reason we are here and speaking with you. Do you have a firearm on you? If you do, do you mind keeping your hands where I can see them while I secure your firearm and check to make sure you can legally be carrying this..." By no means is this the absolute response. This is a potential response based on the current climate of the situation at hand.

If there was misunderstanding there, I hope that can clear some of it up.

Why are you deliberately not including in the scenario the point where you disarm the person prior to confirming LTC, as you noted would be procedure for you?

 

[doolz]

Why are you deliberately not including in the scenario the point where you disarm the person prior to confirming LTC, as you noted would be procedure for you?

Because, it's situation based. You don't disarm a person every time. There's a million variables. Casual traffic stop, 911 call, street encounter, criminal offenses, chases.... The list goes on.

Everyone will have an opinion from the outside looking in and other departments do things differently. That it right there in black and white.

ETA: I believe in your post you are referencing a situation where an officer safety issue is at hand which is what I was referring to. If I can articulate that I feared for my safety or the safety of the general public, then that obviously prompts different responses.

 

[TayNinh_66]

I might respectfully suggest that you should do this in reverse order and ONLY if the person can't provide a valid LTC.

I might suggest there are neighborhoods in Boston where initially controlling the firearm during a stop is paramount. The kid is going to rabbit and then the gun is going to be tossed. Asking for the LTC is a formality because most kids in Boston are not going to have an unrestricted LTC so it's just one more charge added to the possession of ammunition, large capacity magazine, etc.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Being calm, polite and white goes a long way towards making for a civil encounter.

I'm not endorsing or approving of the "white" part but, unfortunately, that is the reality of current society.

 

[doolz]

I might suggest there are neighborhoods in Boston where initially controlling the firearm during a stop is paramount. The kid is going to rabbit and then the gun is going to be tossed. Asking for the LTC is a formality because most kids in Boston are not going to have an unrestricted LTC so it's just one more charge added to the possession of ammunition, large capacity magazine, etc.

I didn't want to say this but.... this. Thank for the accurate input and kind of cementing my point. I appreciate this very much.

 

[Coyote33]

I love to play the game, “Who’s carrying” while accompanying the GF grocery shopping… occasionally the guy in the Mossy Oak ball cap wearing the Nine Line Apparel sweatshirt notices me check him out, but usually I’m wearing my faded American Flag trucker hat with my five day, no-shave beard and as our eyes meet, I give him the “whazzup bro” nod and he knows I’m one of the good guys too and probably carrying as I’m squeezing the kiwis in the produce section.

FIFY

In MA, with a Non-RES LTC ALP around 2008, I got a traffic-stop in Southie - a trap where the stop sign was 30ft from the corner after it was misplaced during construction - and the BPD cop who ran my plates/registration let me off, reminding me my LTC wasn’t good in Boston.

I wonder how this will change after the new SCOTUS decision.

Also, in MA, especially in Boston, concealed LTCs are rare

I'd say not in MA, but most likely in Boston. I'd say they are the norm in most of MA. Maybe someone else can back up or refute this.

1) As stated, this is Massachusetts I'm referring to. And more specifically, Boston. To the best of my knowledge, in the past 1-2 years, after the pandemic opened up and things started moving again, all LTC requests for Boston were granted with restrictions unless you had any of the parameters that would deny you a license. I don't believe anyone outside of law enforcement or military have been approved for unrestricted and large capacity.

Another "I wonder how this will change after the new SCOTUS decision".

Also, discretion is very important. While someone from Rehoboth may have a "Target & Hunting" restriction and is concealed carrying in Boston, they are technically, even though towns may bend a bit, carrying outside of their restrictions, which is illegal.

Third and final one of these "I wonder how this will change after the new SCOTUS decision." Maybe not at all. I really don't know.

Welcome to NES.

 

[Echo 225]

Printing will now be the 1st step to have your pew pews taken away from the new red flag laws and will cost you thousands of dollars to get your stuff back

 

[garandman]

When the cop comes up on you, yell "I have a gun!" at the top of your lungs.//

Not required if you have your CCW sash on!

 

[JRT]

This thread is a good reminder that if we ever get to the point of confiscation the police will obey the state. If you are driving around with a thin blue line and come and take it stickers on your truck, you are daft. I've been all in on defund the police a lot longer than its been a popular rant from BLM. Obama diverted the last infrastructure money into militarizing the police and I won't be surprised if BBB ends up funding the same bullshit. I can live in the same world with the police but never forget who's side they are on, if you're a gun owner, it ain't yours.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I don't have exact numbers. Not sure anyone does. But good people and good cops outweigh the number of bad people and bad cops...

The point of my post was that regardless of how many good people/cops there are, it only takes 1 to make it all look bad.

Agreed on point #1. People are more willing to accept that there are bad people than bad cops, as more is expected from those selected to wield power over us commoners.

There are probably a lot of "slightly bad cops" - the kind who would remain silent when a fellow officer wrote a report that the civilian vehicle hit the patrol car in a fender bender than the other way around.

One bad cop is like a turd in a punchbowl - nobody wants to scoop a drink out of the clean end.

 

[pastera]

As I mentioned in my previous post, 99.9% of the time, encounters with law abiding carrying citizens are rare, and usually never have any issue involved at all. Unfortunately, the laws here are the laws here. Not saying I agree with them, but they are what they are.

As for the perks and pensions in relation to the currency you pertained to, no. Absolutely not. We're underpaid, understaffed, and overworked. The sad reality, like most of what happens in this country, is that 99.9% of cops take the job because they want to make a difference. I've always wanted to be a cop and it's run in my family. That being said, I do the job for the right reasons. I'm not out there looking for people who are lawfully carrying but may be printing. I don't walk around and approach people and say "Show me your papers!" That's insane and any cop who does that should be evaluated. This whole scenario was an extreme case as an example given to the OP's question in relation to Massachusetts, specifically Boston.

Now, that 0.01% of people who are not law abiding citizens are the ones we are more concerned with. And, that 0.01% of cops who are bad cops are the bad apples in the tree and paint the negative picture for all of us. Plain and simple as said before by JCT61765, Massachusetts IS NOT a "free state." And it is very strict as it pertains to firearm laws. You cannot carry legally unless you're licensed (or working in specific professions). Period. This comes down to elected officials and outsourced liberals who have taken over and are cemented in their Anti-2A rhetoric.

Agree - however the individual officer does have a large amount of discretion on how to apply those anti2a laws.
After all of the back and forth it seems you understand that a person who is simply carrying isn't a threat and it's possible to get your job done in a manner that minimized the disruption required by the states crappy laws.

I've made several firearm arrests. Once the firearm is recovered from the subject, you demand to see their LTC


I don't have exact numbers. Not sure anyone does. But good people and good cops outweigh the number of bad people and bad cops...

The point of my post was that regardless of how many good people/cops there are, it only takes 1 to make it all look bad.

The issue comes in where essentially all 2a advocates agree that bad people with guns are bad whereas the thin blue line tends to rally around their own when they skirt the law.

 

[AHM]

I know when I'm cruising, I look for the guy squeezing the melons. Dead give away.

Cukes, man.

If you have a Massachusetts LTC with restrictions (ie. target and hunting only), you CANNOT conceal carry in Massachusetts!

(Well, that comment didn't age well).

I don't walk around and approach people and say "Show me your papers!" That's insane and any cop who does that should be evaluated.

You may need to study Haskell.

I can't find it but I read about a case in MA where the officer asked a driver IF he had a LTC vs asking for a LTC and that was a issue

Comm. vs. John R. Haskell, Jr., 438 Mass. 790

 

[Garys]

No it isn't. The SJC decided about 20 or so years ago that a police officer can not ask if you have a permit, he must ask you to produce it. Same logic as when a police officer stops a driver, he doesn't ask if the driver has a license he asks the driver to produce it.

Case of our Brockton I recall. I'm sure someone has better recollection of the details than do I.

IF the officer suspects the person is prohibited from carrying, the proper procedure is to ask if he has a LTC. It's not drawing guns ablaze. It's not code 3. It's not lockdown the supermarket.

 

[Rat187]

Question: Has MGL differentiated between lawfully carrying 'concealed' and 'printing.' If the average 'Karen or Ken' does not actually observe the firearm and only suspects a hidden firearm, having been trained in anti 2A doxxing, where a more reasonable person would conclude it could be a cell phone, money belt, iPod and a hundred other items one carries on their belt, thus none of my business. As the anti 2A hysteria really ramps LEO's are going to be spending a lot time chasing the lawful citizens. While criminals gain the advantage.....This is nuts

 

[APFSDS]

Sort of a follow-on, but there has been some debate about what would most likely happen if someone with an LTC were stopped and their weapon "controlled" for the duration of the encounter, and that weapon or their spare mag holder had a pre-ban 11+ round mag in it. Are most LEOs aware a) that pre-band 10+ round mags are legal here, and b) that it is difficult to identify some of these magazines? I can carry a print-out of the MGL paragraph stating that pre-bans are legal, but there is not a definitive guide for identifying these magazines (unless there is a post-94 date stamp or whatever).

 

[usp45ct]

A prisoner transporter asked on carrying? Do they even have that power in MA? Yes, I’m well aware they would love that ego trip with all their fancy boats and trucks.

yeah, I don’t know. It was around 7pm on a Friday night. I am not sure why they were still on the job never mind both eating pizza. Then again, it was Ludlow and there is a decent size prison there.

 

[fshalor]

IF the officer suspects the person is prohibited from carrying, the proper procedure is to ask if he has a LTC. It's not drawing guns ablaze. It's not code 3. It's not lockdown the supermarket.

Don't do what a coworker did. (This happened in a Shaws on Cape Cod. Not sure if it was Mashpee or Falmouth PD )
Officer asks "are you carrying? (Very casually, btw. Not even hand on leather or posturing visibly. Very conversational tone. )

iDiot coworker goes "Yes I am! And with pride goes to draw it and show off his brand new Taurus 9mm that he had maybe a mag at max of range time with."

As he's looking down and fiddling with his shirt to get it all the way out, he realizes both the officer and the officers partner have already draw.
He says "Oh, sh***t" and stopped. I already had my hands up and took two steps back.

The officers immediately knew what was going on at his reaction and, the partner was laughing when he came over to me and asked if I was carrying too. "I am licensed to carry concealed and I am doing so at this time and not an idiot who wants to show off his new pistol."

A few moments later (and probably a bit of poop in the idiots pants) and our LTCs were checked and we were on our way.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Question: Has MGL differentiated between lawfully carrying 'concealed' and 'printing.' If the average 'Karen or Ken' does not actually observe the firearm and only suspects a hidden firearm, having been trained in anti 2A doxxing, where a more reasonable person would conclude it could be a cell phone, money belt, iPod and a hundred other items one carries on their belt, thus none of my business. As the anti 2A hysteria really ramps LEO's are going to be spending a lot time chasing the lawful citizens. While criminals gain the advantage.....This is nuts

No.

A MA LTC covers concealed carry, open carry, and everything in between.

 

[Palladin]

Omfg, where is BCEagleAce when you need him?

https://www.northeastshooters.com/xen/threads/got-pulled-over-while-carrying-story-update-pg-45.80672/

 

[doolz]

Cukes, man.

(Well, that comment didn't age well).


You may need to study Haskell.


Comm. vs. John R. Haskell, Jr., 438 Mass. 790

In regards to the MA LTC restrictions.... even with the new SCOTUS ruling, things will take some time to adjust themselves out. Especially here.

So, yes, if your LTC has restrictions, you're still bound by the restrictions.

Also, there is a difference between asking and demanding.

 

[42!]

In regards to the MA LTC restrictions.... even with the new SCOTUS ruling, things will take some time to adjust themselves out. Especially here.

So, yes, if your LTC has restrictions, you're still bound by the restrictions.

Also, there is a difference between asking and demanding.

For those in MA with restrictions, time to write the chief a letter "In light of the recent US Supreme Court ruling, I respectfully request that the restrictions on my License to Carry firearms be removed. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation."
Just dripping with the see how magnanimous I am in my victory over your BS, without actually saying it.

 

[Mesatchornug]

For those in MA with restrictions, time to write the chief a letter "In light of the recent US Supreme Court ruling, I respectfully request that the restrictions on my License to Carry firearms be removed. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation."
Just dripping with the see how magnanimous I am in my victory over your BS, without actually saying it.

If we're being cheeky, I'd love to see a letter from @Comm2A & @GOAL signed by @nstassel, @Scrivener, Jason Guida, etc., to all 351 chiefs saying how happy they'd be to come in and run a training for their department about how to apply this decision in their day to day activities. I'd hand out a copy of that letter when I teach license classes.

A boy can dream.

 

[In God We Trust]

The dispatcher is the problem!

Yes and no. In an absurd case like “help! A black man just drove past my house and waved!” Then yes, the dispatcher should squash the call but inform the desk supervisor.

The dispatcher would be liable if they made a bad decision and blew off a call. Usually, they would ask a supervisor for a decision and then handle any further calls in the manner you mentioned.

They also have more leeway in big cities vs Mayberry.

 

[Garys]

The average Karen or Ken isn't looking for people "printing" or carrying. The average gun owner probably isn't either. NES members are always in Condition Yellow and scanning for potential threats so are far more alert than mere citizens.

Ask Broccoli about that.

Question: Has MGL differentiated between lawfully carrying 'concealed' and 'printing.' If the average 'Karen or Ken' does not actually observe the firearm and only suspects a hidden firearm, having been trained in anti 2A doxxing, where a more reasonable person would conclude it could be a cell phone, money belt, iPod and a hundred other items one carries on their belt, thus none of my business. As the anti 2A hysteria really ramps LEO's are going to be spending a lot time chasing the lawful citizens. While criminals gain the advantage.....This is nuts

 

[Rat187]

I know this is difficult, but is 'printing' "a call an LEO", *ass crime & how do the wizards at dispatch have an written SOP's? Cuz in my feeble mind, if you can't see a firearm, then it's concealed. If there's no crime, or clear and present danger, then what? Yea its Mass and ambiguity is rule of law. Maybe I'm damaged....lol