Inadvertent "exposure" of an otherwise legally concealed weapon?

[Dick]

I seem to recall there was a thread related to this a while back, but I've searched for it and can't find it, so if there was . . . apologies for the repeat question.

On the way back from Monday's match, one of my shooting buds was telling a story about a guy who was legally carrying concealed (in MA) but his jacket accidently opened to reveal the weapon to someone who then called the cops. As the story goes, he was apparently successfully prosecuted for violating his A-ALP permit because it's intended to cover only "concealed" and not open carry.

This sounded a bit like an urban myth, so I read (again) through the MGLs on issuance of permits, and the only thing I see is that Class B's are expressly forbidden to carry concealed - Class A's simply permit "carry," which I would interpret to mean open or concealed. So, I don't understand if the accidental exposure - or even wearing one openly on your hip - would be a violation of your CCW permit, per se.

That said, I recognize that there may be any number of laws that restrict so-called "brandishing" (a term that I couldn't find in searching the laws) and maybe that's what he was prosecuted under. If that's the case, then strictly speaking he didn't violate what the A-ALP permit permitted him to do, but rather ran afoul of something else. Or the whole thing could just be BS.

Anyone have any definitive information relative to this issue?

 

[Admin]

It's true. Someone will find the link. I believe the guy is a member of the forum too.

 

[Weerd Beard]

I forget where I read it, but it was true.

Though from memory his gun was witnessed by a police officer, not a civilian. And no LEGAL action was taken, he was just downgraded to a FID on his next renewal.

He had quite a collection. Luckily he had a family member with an LTC-A and he transfered all his class B&A weapons to that person.

he was contesting it...haven't heard about it since. In this case I assume no news is bad news.

-Weer'd Beard

 

[Scrivener]

I seem to recall there was a thread related to this a while back, but I've searched for it and can't find it, so if there was . . . apologies for the repeat question.

On the way back from Monday's match, one of my shooting buds was telling a story about a guy who was legally carrying concealed (in MA) but his jacket accidently opened to reveal the weapon to someone who then called the cops. As the story goes, he was apparently successfully prosecuted for violating his A-ALP permit because it's intended to cover only "concealed" and not open carry.

That would be Joseph Landers of Dedham. He was NOT "successfully prosecuted for violating his A-ALP permit;" the LTC was simply revoked by the ex-chief. There were NO criminal charges brought.

Ding, dong - the witch is dead! Said chief retired (although he was then elected a selectman) and the new chief, possessing a far greater sense of reason and fairness than his predecessor, issued an LTC this past Spring.

 

[Cross-X]

And, I do believe, Scrivener was Mr. Landers' attorney, and the one who successfuly won back his client's LTC.

Kudos to Mr. Scrivener!

 

[JellyFish]

Yaaaaaaaaaaaay, Scrivener! Good job!!!

 

[JonJ]

That would be Joseph Landers of Dedham. He was NOT "successfully prosecuted for violating his A-ALP permit;" the LTC was simply revoked by the ex-chief. There were NO criminal charges brought.

How can an "ex-chief" revoke a license?

 

[Scrivener]

And, I do believe, Scrivener was Mr. Landers' attorney, and the one who successfuly won back his client's LTC.

Kudos to Mr. Scrivener!

Thanks, but I came to this dance late. He had two other attorneys for the actual appeal of the denial.

I started with a new app to a new chief. The change in personnel made the real difference.

Which is not to say that a well - prepared app and a cover letter highlighting certain false statements about firearms licensing on the PD's website did not help.........

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

How can an "ex-chief" revoke a license?

By the numbers now.....

 

[Cross-X]

The ex-chief was still chief when he issued the revocation letter...

 

[JonJ]

Thanks, Darius. That wasn't clear in Scriv's post.

 

[Dick]

Thanks for the info guys (esp. Scrivener). I knew I'd get the straight story here.

Dick

 

[Weerd Beard]

I'm glad to hear that the story did in fact have a happy ending.

-Weer'd

 

[Lugnut]

I'm glad to hear that the story did in fact have a happy ending.

-Weer'd

+1!

 

[Len-2A Training]

I'm glad to hear that the story did in fact have a happy ending.

-Weer'd

Yes, but after how many years (7 IIRC) and how much money spent fighting it?

Hardly a victory in my book!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yes, but after how many years (7 IIRC) and how much money spent fighting it?

Hardly a victory in my book!

... and with absolutely no judicial finding that the previous chief acted improperly

 

[Scrivener]

Yes, but after how many years (7 IIRC) and how much money spent fighting it?

Hardly a victory in my book!

Did he have the license BEFORE this application? NO.

Does he have it now? YES.

In what way, shape, manner or form is that NOT the desired objective?

Having achieved that objective, how is it NOT a "victory?"

 

[Len-2A Training]

Scrivener,

OK you win!

It's a victory when you only have the bamboo spikes stuck under your fingernails for 7 years and the "new man" pulls them out because he's the "new guy on the block" and wants to show that he's a nice guy!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It's a victory for the individual, but not for gun owners in general. It's sort of like one black getting a pass to ride in the front of the bus and leaving the state free to prosecute anyone else who tries to ride up front.

 

[KMaurer]

Well, I can see how it might be regarded as a victory from the attorney's point of view: chalk one in the win column, and collect a lot of income. From the gun owner's point of view I expect things look a bit different: denied rights for 7 years, spent thousands of dollars (more likely tens of thousands) fighting the system, absolutely no guarantee that the scenario won't repeat itself whenever the CLEO wakes up on the wrong side of the bed or there's a new CLEO, nothing to suggest that the person responsible for denying your rights and starting the entire fiasco was in any way wrong. With wins like this one, who needs any losses?

Ken

 

[joe6486]

And, I do believe, Scrivener was Mr. Landers' attorney, and the one who successfuly won back his client's LTC.

Kudos to Mr. Scrivener!

I've gotta say, it's refreshing to see "competing" lawyers patting each other on the back. We're all on the same side, of course, but I rarely hear of, say, patent lawyers complimenting each other.

Props.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Welcome back Joe, hope you'll hang out here more now that you're back in the fold.

 

[Scrivener]

That it cost a fortune and took years is fact.

That there is no Official Declaration of Misfeasance is also true.

However, the fact that the new chief issued a license the old chief:

1. Revoked; and

2. Refused to renew;

is an implicit repudiation of the prior chief's actions.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!