Plymouth PD yanks an LTC

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 decision 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:
p.tice said:
He told me right away that you’re not in any trouble, we just want to talk to you.
Click to expand...
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.

It all started in June going into July of 2021 when the police were called about a man in his vehicle with a gun. At the time my job was delivering all over Boston until 11 pm some nights. I carried for protection and as it is my right. I would take off my gun from my holster on my side because it was uncomfortable for me to have it against me while I drove. I would put it next to me after I released the magazine which is 100 percent legal. You have to have it within arms reach at all times and I knew as a license holder, the laws I needed to abide by. 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. In the reports it had said that I had not pointed it or threatened anyone.
Click to expand...

Relevant cases (not all encompassing):
Commonwealth v Reyes- Car carry law.
law.justia.com

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 law.justia.com
FRB v. Simkin- Bystander concern over seeing firearm.
Rob Boudrie said:

FIREARMS RECORDS BUREAU vs. SIMKIN, 466 Mass. 168

masscases.com masscases.com
[/QUOTE
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Realtor MA said:
I feel for this guy but the people who preach this arms length bullshit are asking for trouble - and this is the proof. isnt it written as 'direct control'? I know it's all commie nonsense but.....
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rockrivr1 said:
It's unfortunate and why even if it's uncomfortable I never take my gun off of me when it's concealed. To many things can go wrong and for this guy, it did.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Broc Tuah said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
drgrant said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
drgrant said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it prints. It is obvious on her.
 
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.
 

Attachments

Broc Tuah said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
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.
 
Last edited:
p.tice said:
Plymouth resident I know on Facebook just posted this. Sad reminder of the state we live in. He gave me permission to post for more awareness.

TLDR: Plymouth PD indefinitely confiscated his LTC because someone called in and said they saw it unholstered in his car.


"After an almost 4 year battle in court with the Plymouth Police Department, the Superior court has decided to reverse the decision the District court has made over me getting my LTC back. It all happened the summer of 2021 and I have decided to publicly speak out against the department for taking away my rights other than the fact that I didn’t want to answer any more questions and they were mad and wanted to prove a point.

It all started in June going into July of 2021 when the police were called about a man in his vehicle with a gun. At the time my job was delivering all over Boston until 11 pm some nights. I carried for protection and as it is my right. I would take off my gun from my holster on my side because it was uncomfortable for me to have it against me while I drove. I would put it next to me after I released the magazine which is 100 percent legal. You have to have it within arms reach at all times and I knew as a license holder, the laws I needed to abide by. 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. In the reports it had said that I had not pointed it or threatened anyone. They contacted the Boston police and a BOLO was put on me. I wasn’t aware of this until the next day when the Plymouth police had called my father’s house looking for me. Immediately after knowing they were trying to contact me, I called the office and spoke to Detective Brian Pierce for about 25 minutes about the entire situation. He told me right away that you’re not in any trouble, we just want to talk to you. I explained that i took it off and put it next to me and sometimes people would maybe have been able to see it. That is not my fault if I offended anyone because I was not breaking any laws. After explaining my side the detective had question after question coming my way. I told him at this point in time I would no longer like to speak to him because I felt as though he was trying to dig and dig because he wanted to pin me with whatever he could. His reply” are you sure you’re done talking”, I said yes and we hung up. The next day my license was suspended.
I took this to district court where it was a long lengthy process. We had the court date and I was present without a lawyer because I felt as though I could get it done because I had not done anything wrong. The judge declared that I had not done anything wrong .

I came out of that hearing with a one year suspension of my license that captain Lebretton agreed upon. A one year suspension even though I didn’t break any laws. I put Captain Lebretton on the stand and asked him under oath “did I break any laws”? He replied with “no”. Even though this hearing meant I was without my license for a year I was willing to go with it because I was going to get it back.

One year goes by and I don’t hear anything. I end up going back to court and having a hearing scheduled to finalize this LTC. Once we go back, the Plymouth Police Department take back the agreement they made with me a year prior. They say that they want my suspension to be permanent even though we had an agreement in place. The judge decides that I have done the time that we decided on and my LTC is to be restored. A couple days after I got the letter saying that it was to be restored, I called the department and was told that they were not going to give my license back and that they were taking it to superior court. Superior court! For someone who broke no laws and was being punished because he didn’t want to answer any more questions a year prior.
Months and months go by and I hire an attorney to be with me during superior court because my second amendment means a lot to me. We go to the hearing and we’re heard in October of 2024. Today I received an email from my lawyer saying we have lost and my license is to remain suspended. This should out rage every person in and around Plymouth. That our second amendment, the right to bear arms, could be taken away like that. Our chief, Chief Dana Flynn, abused his power in this situation from disarming a citizen who had done nothing wrong. Someone saw me with my gun so we’re going to take away his right as a citizen? The police walk around every day with their gun sticking out on their sides and it’s ok. If this could happen to me it could happen to you. It is an absolute power play by the Plymouth Police Department and they wonder why people have an issue with them. I have friends on the department and I was never against the police in any way, shape or form. This is Chief Dana Flynn and Captain Lebretton who feel as though they can do whatever they want and get away with it.
I don’t know if anyone is aware of the situation that happened in 2013. Captain Rogers lost a .357-caliber revolver. Plymouth Police Chief Michael Botieri said that John Rogers took the gun out or off his belt while he was in the men’s room and forgot to retrieve it. The incident happened in the building’s first-floor men’s room. When he realized it was gone, he went back in and the revolver was missing. Botieri said the gun is a smaller, lighter weapon issued to some members of the department’s command staff, whose desk work makes a larger gun more cumbersome. Given the gun’s light weight, Botieri said it’s understandable that Rogers may not have immediately noticed that his holster was empty. Botieri blamed the incident on a “momentary lapse of judgment” and said Rogers would face disciplinary action. He said the captain would not be demoted. “He’s a 30-year employee of the department with nothing on his record, and you just can’t throw that out,” the chief said. “No one feels worse than him about it.” Someone could have been killed in this situation and it could have ended alot worse.

A Captain of the police force loses his gun in a bathroom stall! And the decision was not to demote or fire him because he has no record and you can’t just destroy a man’s career over that. I also had no record. He even was allowed to keep his LTC. If this isn’t a we protect our own, but don’t apply it to every other citizen situation, then I don’t know what is. I understand that this was a different chief at the time, but it amazes me that my right was taken from me and I didn’t lose a handgun. I didn’t break any laws. I wanted to share my story because I feel as though the Plymouth Police department should take full responsibility for this outrageous decision that was made against me. They should be completely ashamed about the way they handled this situation and the abuse of power.

I’m only sharing this because I want people to know what I have gone through and the department should know how wrong it is."
Click to expand...

“He told me right away that you’re not in any trouble, we just want to talk to you.”

f***ing lie. They say shit like this all the time. Know your rights and don’t talk to the cops without your lawyer present. You shall not be compelled or required to testify against yourself or incriminate yourself in a criminal case.

They cannot legally/lawfully use your fifth amendment as proof of “non-cooperation”. That’s jurisprudence 101. Keep appealing and file suit against the captain, the chief, hell the judge who felt it ok to accept the argument as envoking your fifth amendment protections as proof of guilt aka “non-cooperation”.
 
Last edited:
nstassel said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is the first witness in that case the politician?

The police chief can’t get through a sentence without saying "um"

Why did he personally cross exam the chief? 🤣

edit. Okay I just read that whole thing.
Just going by what is written he did pretty good and was pretty professional although I see where he messed up a couple times

Page 83 is where you get the judges opinion on the second amendment and who it applies to and who can take it from you.
page 89-90 is about giving up your fifth to keep your ltc
 
Last edited:
Rockrivr1 said:
It's unfortunate and why even if it's uncomfortable I never take my gun off of me when it's concealed. To many things can go wrong and for this guy, it did.
Click to expand...

In many many state this is a non issue.

whatluck said:
Basic CCW skill. Don't f***ing touch it. Leave it there in the holster.
Click to expand...

I was told that many times in public. But not about guns…
 
Rob Boudrie said:
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.
Click to expand...
When I said doing something with it, I meant in a threatening way or illegal manner. I wasn’t intentionally leaving what was said out. What the witness said was inaccurate and shouldn’t even hold up in court or be considered with my suitability. I didn’t do anything wrong to deserve this happening. I talked to the police at the beginning because I didn’t think talking to them was the wrong thing to do when I didn’t do anything wrong. I was fully cooperating. This was personal 100 percent. I shouldn’t be sitting here right now without my LTC and I feel as though my right was taken from me with no proof of anything. The court got this one wrong.
 
Mwylie28 said:
When I said doing something with it, I meant in a threatening way or illegal manner. I wasn’t intentionally leaving what was said out. What the witness said was inaccurate and shouldn’t even hold up in court or be considered with my suitability. I didn’t do anything wrong to deserve this happening. I talked to the police at the beginning because I didn’t think talking to them was the wrong thing to do when I didn’t do anything wrong. I was fully cooperating. This was personal 100 percent. I shouldn’t be sitting here right now without my LTC and I feel as though my right was taken from me with no proof of anything. The court got this one wrong.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum

We’re all with you trust me none of us want to see this thing happen

The reason we’re being super critical is CAUSE WE DONT WANT TO SEE THING KIND OF THING HAPPEN
Unfortunately Gun ownership in mass is a risky proposition. While you dot deserve this by any means there’s steps they could have been taken to lessen the impact
 
If you deny a friendly conversation with the PD - they might find you unsuitable when renewal time comes around.

Or, otherwise make your life a living hell.

OP could have handled this differently.
 
CMEBoston said:
Welcome to the forum

We’re all with you trust me none of us want to see this thing happen

The reason we’re being super critical is CAUSE WE DONT WANT TO SEE THING KIND OF THING HAPPEN
Unfortunately Gun ownership in mass is a risky proposition. While you dot deserve this by any means there’s steps they could have been taken to lessen the impact
Click to expand...
Am I done? Theres nothing I can do from this point on? Did everything happen the way it should and I can’t fight this anymore? I’m just wondering if it’s a lost cause at this point or is there someone out there or some organization that will help me.
 
Broc Tuah said:
I came here to post this.

When will people finally understand that other people are out there to build a career, not to help you.

There are some good ones out there, but do you want to gamble on that?
Click to expand...
Honestly a lot of thesw cops must not be very bright if they think they're going to like build a career off suspending a permit of a white guy temporarily leaving a gun on a car seat or something.

I just think it's flexing in a lot of these people are just faggots about guns. Like that faggoty sock puppet cop we had in here the other day trying to tell us about how we were unreasonable or whatever. f*** him and the horse he rode in on. They are so useless at their career they get off at terrorizing the public with authority flexes.

It sucks because I know cops that aren't this retarded but they never seem to be in the position where they can put these f***ers on blast.
 
LakeTrout said:
What an insane difference it is between that shit hole and a mornings drive away from there. Different worlds. Go to hell, MA.
Click to expand...
A good friend of mine moved to Haverhill, the nice part, I think it's called Bradford. It's a nice neighborhood, but it's also about a mile from the New Hampshire line. When he was looking at the house I kept asking, do you want a 6% raise? Do you want to be able to buy guns without a license? It made absolutely no sense.
 

Similar threads

Boston PD another ND
Replies
1
Views
293
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Rumor of Nashua PD
Replies
19
Views
872
free
F
Easton LTC ? 2A friendly?
Replies
2
Views
192
appraiser
appraiser
FREE LTC Training Class: Bring Your Friends
Replies
0
Views
90
Reptile
Reptile
Plymouth Ma ltc issue
Replies
3
Views
513
cantstoptherf
C
Back
Top Bottom