-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Plymouth PD yanks an LTC
- Thread starter p.tice
- Start date
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 49,101
- Likes
- 36,652
Handling the first level appeal without an attorney was a mistake because an attorney would likely have been able to nail down the one year agreement, and get it on record that you were suspended because you exercised your right to remain silent. This smells a bit like Godfrey v. Chief of Police of Wellesley, a pre-Bruen decision that established that exercising your right to remain silent is a valid reason to revoke an LTC. Actually, the MA Appellate Court ruled that while the LTC holder may be entitled to a remedy,that remedy is not restoration of the LTC.
Ther might be an attack surface, possibly even federal, if it can be established that the denial was the result of you refusing to talk to the detective, and especially good if this is mentioned in either the district to appellate court hearings. When I mentioned the Godfrey to Alan Gura, he described it as a unconstitutional constuct since the police were giving the applicant a choice of which two amendment granted rights he could exercise but not both.
If the OP is interested in talking to be, I will bring this up with the Comm2A triumvirate for consideration.
Ther might be an attack surface, possibly even federal, if it can be established that the denial was the result of you refusing to talk to the detective, and especially good if this is mentioned in either the district to appellate court hearings. When I mentioned the Godfrey to Alan Gura, he described it as a unconstitutional constuct since the police were giving the applicant a choice of which two amendment granted rights he could exercise but not both.
If the OP is interested in talking to be, I will bring this up with the Comm2A triumvirate for consideration.
Last edited:
I’m sure the OP realizes this now, but an awful lot of people don’t. This is what cops say when you are in trouble and they want you to incriminate yourself by confessing to what they are trying to pin on you.
“You’re not in trouble, we just want to hear your side”
“We can’t help you if you don’t tell us what happened”
All that shit.
They’re not there to help you. They’re there to arrest you and strip you of your rights, if they can, for what they suspect you did wrong. They just need you to self-incriminate to help THEM.
If you tell the truth, you’re helping them establish that you committed the crime they suspect you of. If you lie, you’re making yourself look more guilty and potentially committing another crime.
You can only lose by talking. Don’t do it.
I'm 90% certain there's standing MA case law on this exact topic, and a LTC holder is not responsible for the panic of someone seeing their firearm in a non-threatening manner.
Relevant cases (not all encompassing):
Commonwealth v Reyes- Car carry law.
law.justia.com
Missing Case:
Subj- bystander's reaction to legal carry of a firearm is not the responsibility of the licensee
Relevant cases (not all encompassing):
Commonwealth v Reyes- Car carry law.
Commonwealth v. Reyes
Defendant had a license permitting him to carry a firearm for all lawful purposes. After driving to work one day, Defendant attempted to obtain a gun locker key for the storage of his firearm during his work shift, but all the lockers were full. Consequently, Defendant placed his gun in his...
law.justia.com
Subj- bystander's reaction to legal carry of a firearm is not the responsibility of the licensee
Last edited:
June4th
NES Member
It’s poor legal advice AND poor from a tactical standpoint. One of the FBI agents in the Miami shootout placed his gun on his lap, and the gun flew godknowswhere when he rear ended the perps’ car. The gun was out of the entire gunfight.
Additionally, if you’re involved in a car accident, many bad scenarios can occur when you have a gun off your person.
One of the best decisions I have made was go to Khar PM9.
You met me, I don't wear baggy clothes and I am not a huge guy. I can conceal the PM9 in my front pocket, no issues. No need to get new pants or pants with huge, weird looking pockets.
A 6round mag also fits great in the small pocket for change jeans have.
No more uncomfortable carry.
No more trying to figure out my shirts.
No more worrying if my shirt lifts and the gun shows.
PS: the trigger is fine, better than many "newer" handguns.
My girlfriend likes it, so I will buy one for her. Contrary to common belief, women don't have many good ways to conceal easily accessible weapons. She carries a 365 today and is not too happy with it. She needs something smaller so it doesn't print.
It's probably not printing as bad as she thinks it is. I dont know how to explain this but gun people see things that average people simply won't see. You think its printing because mentally you already know its there and you're looking for it.
I had an MK9 and while it was a nice gun (same size as PM9) the whole compromise carry thing didnt sit great with me and unless its in a pocket, its not any better than a G43 or something like that which is more normal and less problematic.
That said "I get it" and carrying a gun is a pain in the ass, I dont care what anyone says. So I get the "trying to remove burden" part of the equation.
Before I started carrying, I never noticed anyone "printing." I probably missed people open carrying as well. It's just something you don't really think about. Now, I don’t worry about printing at all. Is it the best strategy? Who knows, but I honestly don't care. People are in general unaware of everything around them
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 49,101
- Likes
- 36,652
What a crock of shit and I feel for the guy. That said, if you’re not going to secure your guns in this shithole of a state, at least hide them from plain view.
nstassel
NES Member
I was not involved in this matter but at some point I think the LTC holder reached out to me after he lost in District Court. I am attaching his motion in superior court if you are interested in the facts that his lawyer pleaded there.
chris_1001
NES Member
This is why I hug you and Broccolini when I see you. Make sure you are both armed.
But looks like I’ll need to do a sorta crotch grab now on you. Sigh.
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 49,101
- Likes
- 36,652
As is typical, stories from different parties either vary or contain only components favorable to their position. The superior court pleading mentions that there was a complaint from an undentified witness who alleged that the petitioner raised and cocked the gun. This is a world of difference from the OPs summary that "A couple witnesses who were never identified had stated that they had seen a man with a gun but he was not doing anything with it." Where I come from, raising and cocking a gun is doing something with it. I am NOT saying the gun was raised and cocked, just this is a glaring omission in the OPs summary.
This hugely changes the dynamics of the case, and it is not clearly protected by Simkin.
The witness was unidentified, and could not be cross examined. Unlike a criminal trial where that would most likely resulted in exclusion, firearms licensing hearings may and do consider heresay and unflattering innuendo.
The LTC holder exercise of his 5th amendment rights is characterized as "non-cooperation" in the Plymouth department's position. Once again, "evidence" that would not even be allowed into a real trial.
Unfortunately, the pleading attorney argued that non-cooperation should not render the subject unsuitable, rather than exercise of this 5th amendment rights cannot be consitutionally used against him to deprive him of another (2a) right and therefore the exercise of this right cannot be considered in rendering a decision.
From a Comm2A perspective:
I believe we should be fighting for due process. Pre-Bruen, issuing or denying an LTC was an administrative action. Post Bruen, denial, such is deprivation of a constitutional right constitutionally requiring a court finding at which the defendant it entitled to all the presumptions of innocence, rules of evidence, discovery, and even trial by jury. We are a long way from that being the case.
This hugely changes the dynamics of the case, and it is not clearly protected by Simkin.
The witness was unidentified, and could not be cross examined. Unlike a criminal trial where that would most likely resulted in exclusion, firearms licensing hearings may and do consider heresay and unflattering innuendo.
The LTC holder exercise of his 5th amendment rights is characterized as "non-cooperation" in the Plymouth department's position. Once again, "evidence" that would not even be allowed into a real trial.
Unfortunately, the pleading attorney argued that non-cooperation should not render the subject unsuitable, rather than exercise of this 5th amendment rights cannot be consitutionally used against him to deprive him of another (2a) right and therefore the exercise of this right cannot be considered in rendering a decision.
From a Comm2A perspective:
I believe we should be fighting for due process. Pre-Bruen, issuing or denying an LTC was an administrative action. Post Bruen, denial, such is deprivation of a constitutional right constitutionally requiring a court finding at which the defendant it entitled to all the presumptions of innocence, rules of evidence, discovery, and even trial by jury. We are a long way from that being the case.
Last edited:
