Quincy man charged after guns found in car, home Read more: http://www.patriotledger

Angel, Angel, Angel what were you thinking????!!!!, repeat after me.....It wasn't a gun I was waiving it was my cell phone, it was my phone!! I was trying to see how many bars of signal I had and couldn't see it in the sunlight.

I hope the "caller" gets run over by bus before the next sunset.
 
The most honest assessment of the purpose of LTC revocation I have ever seen in a news article:

Rodriguez told police he also had several firearms and ammunition at his home, which he agreed to turn over for a review, Burrell said.

It's not because he is dangerous, but they want a warrantless peek.
 
Angel, Angel, Angel what were you thinking????!!!!, repeat after me.....It wasn't a gun I was waiving it was my cell phone, it was my phone!! I was trying to see how many bars of signal I had and couldn't see it in the sunlight.

I hope the "caller" gets run over by bus before the next sunset.

+1 with an added Amen!
 
Who the hell takes out their gun after getting cut off? I get cut off 10 times a day as I travel alot. I don't have much sympathy if he openly admitted that.
 
True. Yeah like he'll ever get his LTC back after his "review" is over. What an idiot. Someone saw too many action movies and went out looking for danger.
 
Angel, Angel, Angel what were you thinking????!!!!, repeat after me.....It wasn't a gun I was waiving it was my cell phone, it was my phone!! I was trying to see how many bars of signal I had and couldn't see it in the sunlight.

I hope the "caller" gets run over by bus before the next sunset.

This, and 'No officer. You may not search my vehicle.'
 
This, and 'No officer. You may not search my vehicle.'

They may or may not have needed a warrant to search his car in this case. It would depend on the circumstances, but if he was arrested and his car was towed, a search could be mandated by department policy and would be legal without a warrant.

Also a credible witness stating she saw a gun being waved around could give probably cause for a search.

There's a fair amount of federal and state case law on searches of vehicles. The courts have recognized that the mobile nature of motor vehicles warrants some limited exceptions to the warrant requirements. It's been 10 years since I had to know any of this stuff so I don't recall the details, but maybe one of the legal types can elucidate.

The article doesn't say whether or not they actually searched his car.
 
They may or may not have needed a warrant to search his car in this case. It would depend on the circumstances, but if he was arrested and his car was towed, a search could be mandated by department policy and would be legal without a warrant.

Also a credible witness stating she saw a gun being waved around could give probably cause for a search.

There's a fair amount of federal and state case law on searches of vehicles. The courts have recognized that the mobile nature of motor vehicles warrants some limited exceptions to the warrant requirements. It's been 10 years since I had to know any of this stuff so I don't recall the details, but maybe one of the legal types can elucidate.

The article doesn't say whether or not they actually searched his car.

Cars are no where near as protected as a home, and there are a number of legal doctrines that allow for warrantless searches of a vehicle, to include search incident to arrest and the motor vehicle exception doctrine, both of which would likely apply in his case. What's more, the search incident to arrest doctrine has two subsets, both of which would apply here--search for fruits of the suspected crime (the assault and armed breach) and search for weapons.

Interestingly, Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights has been read by the SJC to give MA citizens much more protection from government intrusion into a vehicle than SCOTUS permits on the federal level. The vast majority of case law used in court when examine the legalities of vehicle searches in MA is state-based, search and seizure being one of the few areas of law where you have greater rights than elsewhere in the United States.
 
Cars are no where near as protected as a home, and there are a number of legal doctrines that allow for warrantless searches of a vehicle, to include search incident to arrest and the motor vehicle exception doctrine, both of which would likely apply in his case. What's more, the search incident to arrest doctrine has two subsets, both of which would apply here--search for fruits of the suspected crime (the assault and armed breach) and search for weapons.

Interestingly, Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights has been read by the SJC to give MA citizens much more protection from government intrusion into a vehicle than SCOTUS permits on the federal level. The vast majority of case law used in court when examine the legalities of vehicle searches in MA is state-based, search and seizure being one of the few areas of law where you have greater rights than elsewhere in the United States.

This only covers what was in his direct possession in the car. There is still the LTC revocation which got them the rest that was in his home.
 
Gun owners in this state are rediculous, so quick to throw their own to the wolves for fear of 'making us all look bad'. Such a joke...
So you feel someone cutting you off in traffic justifies drawing your firearm? Do you think anyone should defend this clown? His reckless behavior does make gun owners look bad.
 
From what is read, this guy made a piss poor decision, pretty tough to defend it.....or his thought process, if he did indeed remove his gun from anywhere because of a stupid cutoff..

However, this is a state that has scared sheep douchbags that mistake umbrella's for AR-15's....so lets say you were mis identified and lifted up something that someone misidentified while driving by, yet your still carrying...so therefore...GUILTY! Or better yet, any asshxle that has a beef with you could just say they saw you waving your gun in traffic and that gives them the right to come to your house and take all your guns. That to me is total bullshxt.
 
This only covers what was in his direct possession in the car. There is still the LTC revocation which got them the rest that was in his home.

The evidence of that is what, exactly? All the article stated is he agreed to surrender his weapons. He could have made them get a warrant; LTC revocation doesn't automatically get the cops into the house.

I think you and I have had this debate before...déjà vu...
 
So let me ask this question, unrelated to this story. What if a douchebag somehow saw you with a concealed carry pistol and decided to give you hell day (and many days after). All you did was bending over to pick up a piece of trash and he saw it. He'd call the police saying he saw you waving a gun. Wouldn't the police go through the same process with this man? The police don't know who lied but you did have a gun on you when they arrived.
 
What about this "In addition to assault, he is also charged with disturbing the peace while armed." crap?

Does this mean that if I am carrying in public and I sneeze, they can take my gun/LTC??? What exactly is considered "disturbing the peace"?
 
The evidence of that is what, exactly? All the article stated is he agreed to surrender his weapons. He could have made them get a warrant; LTC revocation doesn't automatically get the cops into the house.

I think you and I have had this debate before...déjà vu...

The point is they revoked his LTC before a full investigation could take place is guilty til proven innocent. I believe it's supposed be the opposite of that.
 
Last edited:
So let me ask this question, unrelated to this story. What if a douchebag somehow saw you with a concealed carry pistol and decided to give you hell day (and many days after). All you did was bending over to pick up a piece of trash and he saw it. He'd call the police saying he saw you waving a gun. Wouldn't the police go through the same process with this man? The police don't know who lied but you did have a gun on you when they arrived.

Tiebreakers in "he said, she said" go to the alleged victim when there's no evidence to contradict either story. Victims are "inherently reliable."
 
For those of you condemning the guy for getting his gun out after getting cut off: have you never been cut off in such a way that gives you reason to believe the person driving the car is a very angry person? There are people out there who rage when given the tiniest excuse to do so.

Someone simply racing into traffic barely ahead of you is hardly worth worrying about, but we weren't there, were we? We don't know exactly what happened.

I've had plenty of times where, after encountering someone on the road, I remained very VERY wary of them until we went our separate ways. We don't know if this guy had a bad feeling about the way the other driver was acting, and decided to prepare himself for the worst.


That's not to say this guy wasn't an idiot. He dealt with the police far too freely.
 
it will end up being the he said , she said debate but bottom line is your never suppose to pull out your gun unless you intend on using it correct? Atleast thats what i was always told. This guys lapse of judgement and anger at the moment is gonna cost him.I agree there are some angry whack jobs driving the roads out there. you just never know
 
Back
Top Bottom