Gun charge dropped for Worcester man with shotgun & loaded pistol in uninsured, unregistered vehicle

[Coyote33]

I smell hi-cap contributions!!!
Good luck 1%ers heh, Best wishes to all?

I have no idea what any of this means.

 

[bolt]

I have no idea what any of this means.

Me too...Updated OSX....Have to repair.

 

[Hoover]

I see this frequently where the police see a standard capacity magazine and charge large cap violation even though there's a valid ltc. I frankly think they just don't understand where the real possible crime is and I'm not going to spell it out here for them.

Just because a cop carries a gun, that doesn’t mean a cop understands guns or the laws. I know a number of cops who know very little about guns or guns laws. They’d have little understanding of pre ban mags and how to identify them.

 

[Garys]

That's SOP for all arrests. Not that all cops do it, but they are supposed to. Double locking keeps the cuffs from accidentally tightening and cutting off circulation to the hands. Among other things.

Profiling, double locked the handcuffs? Must be one bad hombre

 

[Glockster30]

no always dismissed since an ltc allows possession of a magazine over ten rounds.

 

[Friday]

They probably dropped the mag charges so the defendant couldn't beat them in court, and thus defeating the mag cap laws in MA.

A defective plate light? FFS, what a fishing trip....

 

[Coyote33]

Me too...Updated OSX....Have to repair.

What? This not only does not explain what your first message meant. This just adds to the mystery.

Can someone provide a decoder ring for me?

 

[Toast]

no always dismissed since an ltc allows possession of a magazine over ten rounds.

Not arguing, requesting exposition.

 

[nstassel]

Not arguing, requesting exposition.

All ltcs are class A meaning the holder can possess a large capacity feeding device. I don't know why police don't see that clearly.

 

[Spartan65]

All ltcs are class A meaning the holder can possess a large capacity feeding device. I don't know why police don't see that clearly.

As long as it is pre ban..?

 

[drgrant]

As long as it is pre ban..?

Not charged with AWB violation. Not the same deal. Two separate laws.

In MA the most common is "LCAFD without license" which is a chip shot/slam dunk felony. the standard of evidence is way lower than the other AWB charges available. "Do they have an LTC or otherwise exempt?" If "no" then the accused can get rekt in court if the chain of evidence is clean.

 

[Spartan65]

Not charged with AWB violation. Not the same deal. Two separate laws.

In MA the most common is "LCAFD without license" which is a chip shot/slam dunk felony. the standard of evidence is way lower than the other AWB charges available. "Do they have an LTC or otherwise exempt?" If "no" then the accused can get rekt in court if the chain of evidence is clean.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Toast]

All ltcs are class A meaning the holder can possess a large capacity feeding device. I don't know why police don't see that clearly.

Has any court seen it that clearly (or, has any court held otherwise)?

 

[drgrant]

Has any court seen it that clearly (or, has any court held otherwise)?

Lol why wouldnt they? The law he is referring to is one of the simpler MA gun laws theres oddly enough no nuances or BS to it. Someone either has an lcafd or they don't. They have an LTC or they don't. They're otherwise exempt or not. The end.

 

[nstassel]

Has any court seen it that clearly (or, has any court held otherwise)?

no that's pretty open and shut

 

[MAGA99]

Hello, I ask for God and prayers from you guys thank you.

Delete your post, PM the guy you quoted.

 

[Spartan65]

Delete your post, PM the guy you quoted.

Yes do this

 

[eboos]

This is sort of a semantic issue, but new practice advisory just came out that shifts the burden of proof back to the Commonwealth to show beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant does not have a valid LTC for a guilty finding on c 269, § 10. The Bruen decision abrogates Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787 (2012) which held that the Commonwealth does not have to prove the absence of a firearms license beyond a reasonable doubt in a prosecution under G. L. c. 269, § 10.

So a defendant no longer has to show that they do have a LTC, but the Commonwealth must prove that they don't. The burden is restored to the rightful place, but in actual application I wonder if there would be any meaningful difference. The practice advisory concerned evidence at trial, but it did not discuss the lack of being presented with a valid LTC as sufficient to establish probable cause that the defendant did not have one. Until the question of probable cause is addressed, defendants are likely to be only in a marginally better position.

 

[richc]

“Prior to his arraignment, the charge of Possession of Large Capacity Feeding Device was dismissed at the request of the Commonwealth because De La Hoz had a valid license to carry.”

I would assume they were pre-ban mags then obviously? Even if so it still speaks volumes that he was initially charged. Scary shiz.

Or they couldn't prove they were postban. Or don't want set a precedent by losing a case like this...

 

[RKG]

Profiling, double locked the handcuffs? Must be one bad hombre

"Double locking" handcuffs is SOP and has nothing to do with profiling. There are a couple of reasons. Unless double locked, handcuff halves are connected by a ratchet mechanism. This means that either intentionally or unintentionally, the ratchet can be closed further than necessary, which is potentially harmful to the person in custody (and which is sometimes employed by the person in custody in order to ground a complaint that "the cuffs are too tight"). Beyond that, unless double locked, the ratchet is susceptible of shimming, allowing an experienced person to escape the cuffs.

"Double locking" involves just pushing a pin or sliding a latch, which then moves a solid bar under the ratchet and preventing movement of the sliding side of the cuff in either direction. Double locking is routine and done whenever a person is cuffed.

 

[bolt]

What? This not only does not explain what your first message meant. This just adds to the mystery.

Can someone provide a decoder ring for me?

Well, its happened again. I do not understand I.T.code & language, I wish I did.
I believe GBT#3-#5s will be commonplace soon.
I'm in no way trying to argue with you Coyote33.

I try to add informational board info with my participation. Sometime haphazardly.
I believe USAs in a transitional period,
As Cheney once said, it's the unknown unknowns that surprise you.

Good luck ........

 

[M1911]

Well, its happened again. I do not understand I.T.code & language, I wish I did.
I believe GBT#3-#5s will be commonplace soon.
I'm in no way trying to argue with you Coyote33.

I try to add informational board info with my participation. Sometime haphazardly.
I believe USAs in a transitional period,
As Cheney once said, it's the unknown unknowns that surprise you.

Good luck ........

So not only do you bump a necro thread but you bump it with off-topic, impenetrable word salad that adds nothing to the thread.

 

[Echo 225]

excellent police work! There are too many licenses plate bulbs out in Massachusetts . Very dangerous situation

 

[42!]

Profiling, double locked the handcuffs? Must be one bad hombre

A little education. Double locking is to prevent the cuffs from tightening up, particularly when the suspect sits down. You don't do it because he's a mean mofo, you do it to prevent injury.


ETA: should have looked at the date before posting

 

[MisterHappy]

excellent police work! There are too many licenses plate bulbs out in Massachusetts . Very dangerous situation

I take my dog for a walk every evening. Not in a very busy area, just single families, except for ~1/4 - 1/3 mile on route 30. Almost every night, I see at least one car with either a light out, or no lights in the rear (car's probably set to daytime running lights, which are front only). MsHappy was pulled over on the Pike when she first got her Prius, for no lights. MSP said, "Is this a new car?" When she said it was, he (politely) turned the headlights on. Another MSP pulled up, and the first one yelled back, "It's another Prius"

Still, it gives John Law an excuse to have a chat.

 

[Broc]

“Prior to his arraignment, the charge of Possession of Large Capacity Feeding Device was dismissed at the request of the Commonwealth because De La Hoz had a valid license to carry.”

I would assume they were pre-ban mags then obviously? Even if so it still speaks volumes that he was initially charged. Scary shiz.

Not scary at all, 100% expected. They will charge you for everything. They would charge you for every primer, casing, bullet and grain of powder if they could.

 

[Broc]

Well, its happened again. I do not understand I.T.code & language, I wish I did.
I believe GBT#3-#5s will be commonplace soon.
I'm in no way trying to argue with you Coyote33.

I try to add informational board info with my participation. Sometime haphazardly.
I believe USAs in a transitional period,
As Cheney once said, it's the unknown unknowns that surprise you.

Good luck ........

Someone call this guy an ambulance, he is having a stroke.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Profiling, double locked the handcuffs? Must be one bad hombre

Documenting double locking is to prevent the subject from successfully claiming the cuff tightened after application and caused injury. Yeah, it is prevents shimming from working but that's not the reason it was worth documenting, and it is not a procedure reserved for bad bad dudes.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This is sort of a semantic issue, but new practice advisory just came out that shifts the burden of proof back to the Commonwealth to show beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant does not have a valid LTC for a guilty finding on c 269, § 10. The Bruen decision abrogates Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787 (2012) which held that the Commonwealth does not have to prove the absence of a firearms license beyond a reasonable doubt in a prosecution under G. L. c. 269, § 10.

So a defendant no longer has to show that they do have a LTC, but the Commonwealth must prove that they don't. The burden is restored to the rightful place, but in actual application I wonder if there would be any meaningful difference. The practice advisory concerned evidence at trial, but it did not discuss the lack of being presented with a valid LTC as sufficient to establish probable cause that the defendant did not have one. Until the question of probable cause is addressed, defendants are likely to be only in a marginally better position.

Only for gun possession, not high cap mag possession.

The case that established it must be proven the defendant was unlicensed, rather than allowing it as an affirmative defense, specifically mentioned that the 2A did not cover > 10 round magazines.

 

[mcb]

I hope I catch a magazine charge in MA someday, I want them to explain how the magic date has meaning or how it’s applicable to public safety. And how a firearm accessory can be regulated etc. I. Will. Win. I’m not even drunk rn.