Disturbing CCW case involving overzealous deputy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trooper I disagree

In this case in the absolute letter of the law you are right. The pistol apparently

wasn't concealed.


But where I disagree is that there definitely is something to discuss when a state

can't even verify permits they issue.


Because of Mr Schubert's pursuits in court a MAJOR flaw in the Mass. system has

been exposed. Yes, he lost his case ............ however, that does not invalidate

the apparent finding that officers (in this case a Law Enforcement officer as opposed

to a peace officer) cannot in 10 minutes verify a legal state issued document that a

citizen has paid for and went through a lot of trouble to obtain.

Remember, officer Stern (what a coincidence this officer has that name in this situation) DID NOT cite Mr.

Schubert for improper concealed carry.
 
Last edited:
I would have to agree with you that any LEO should be able to verify if a permit is valid quickly. Barring some giant disaster we can check permit status almost instantly, I don't know why Mass. can't, seems silly.

Remember, he was not arrested and his weapon was returned once the permit was verified. In this wonderful lawsuit filled society everyone in LE is concerned about civil liability. If he let the person keep the gun and he didn't legally possess it and went on to shoot someone, he would be burned at the stake. Sadly.
 
Conn. Trooper said:
I would have to agree with you that any LEO should be able to verify if a permit is valid quickly.
Click to expand...
That is certainly a big part of this. Since we allow CCWs, all LEOs need a fast and reliable method to check the validity of such permits. If in fact the "did" in question above is representative of a change made that allows LEOs quick access to the list of valid CCWs, then great!

However, I think that is an important secondary issue. It seems that the reaction of the LEO is what's mostly the problem, which as I stated earlier - the description of events seem illogical.
 
You'll please excuse me for what I'm about to write. See, I have a real problem with the way this all went down.

I understand that the license may not have been able to be verified, instantly (although, in this age of computers and instant communications, it seems rather strange). I understand that because of this, the officer had probable cause to keep the firearm until it was shown to be lawfully possessed (and therefore, carried).

Why wasn't the attorney detained, along with the firearm, for alleged unlawful carry? If the officer had probable cause to retain the firearm, then he also had probable cause to detain the attorney. One sort of follows the other, I would think. Keep the firearm but let the criminal go?

Anyone have a link to the decision? Maybe it will answer my questions.
 
3 words, WELCOME TO MA. supposdly this happend in Springfield MA. Ive seen this some where else about a month or two ago but it was just about what happened. I wouldn't doubt that MA would uphold the police's action. some sections of springfield are pretty bad but not like Hartford CT. I live near springfield, actaully know a guy on the force ( haven't talk to him lately) but this is just another act by a dick cop who felt that he needed to feel impowered. could have gone a thousand different ways some good some bad. But if your an lawyer you should know that law and that MA doesnt reciprocate with GA. so the lawyer was in the wrong, but that doesnt excuse the officer pointing a gun at him and taking his license and firearm. If he felt the need to drawn on a civilan he had a reason to fear for his safety of him or others, in which case he should have arrested the lawyer. but he didnt and he stole both the license and the gun. Just because a cop does it doesnt mean its legal. both partys are in the wrong, but since its MA who gives two ^&$^s about your rights
 
Thanks StiveC2007 for the link to the decision.

After reading this, it just confirms that the attorney is rather lame in bringing this lawsuit. It appears that there were several arguments that Shubert should have made, but didn't.

I don't know for a fact that Shubert acted pro per in the District Court, but it does appear that way.

I still think that the officer should have detained Shubert until such a time that the LTC-A was verified. It the license was not valid, then the officer did in fact let a criminal go.
maestro pistolero said:
The whole problem is that carrying a weapon is presumptively unlawful.
Click to expand...
Because a State requires a permit to carry concealed, it is unlawful to carry without one. It's been that way (concealed = unlawful) since almost from the beginning of this country.

Even after incorporation, it will still be. What will may change is that the State might have to allow unlicensed open carry, if it wishes to retain licensed concealed carry. Lots of IF's and court cases before this happens.
 
I have a question and if it is too off topic I will start a new thread.

For you proponents of open carry. What level of retention do you think is adequate?

When I was a recruit I had a level III holster since then I have vacillated between level I and II
 
Antipitas said:
Because a State requires a permit to carry concealed, it is unlawful to carry without one.
Click to expand...

And how is that any different than "because a State requires a permit to drive an 18-wheeler, it is unlawful to drive an 18-wheeler without one?"

I don't see every police officer on the road pulling over every 18-wheeler they come across checking for a class A driving permit.

Just because a police officer sees a concealed weapon doesn't mean it's fundamentally illegal for that person to have the weapon.
 
I don't see every police officer on the road pulling over every 18-wheeler they come across checking for a class A driving permit.
Click to expand...

No but every driver that gets pulled over better have a permit.
 
But they only get pulled over after doing something else wrong:
-Failure to signal
-Speeding
-Failure to stop at a scale (like carrying into a place that is prohibited)

They don't get pulled over JUST BECAUSE it's a big rig.

And, if he has a license and the officer's computer is acting up or he can't check the status of the license for some reason... he doesn't confiscate the big rig due to a failure of his remote working conditions to validate a routine license.

And, he doesn't make the assumption that the rig is immediately stolen or that the license is counterfeit as a basis for initiating the stop.
 
Actually I can stop any CMV at any time for no reason at all. I am a CMV Inspector and I don't need any reason to stop a CMV, they must comply with an inspection at any time, rules of the game for big rigs.

But thats apples and oranges. Driving a big truck or any vehicle goes on all the time, every day, every road. People with firearms that are carried visibly are not common in Mass., that I have ever seen, therefore it drew the officer's attention.
 
Common has nothing to do with it.

If a licensing system exists, then it is legal to carry.

Assuming it is illegal to carry is the basis for a harassment-based campaign to permanently discourage carry.

As evidenced here, IMO.
 
Stumbled but continue!

posted by Antipitas
After reading this, it just confirms that the attorney is rather lame in bringing this lawsuit. It appears that there were several arguments that Shubert should have made, but didn't.
Click to expand...

Boy I'll say. To be a 'criminal defense attorney for 30 years' he was not very impressive. But........ because he stumbled doesn't mean he shouldn't continue to pursue this for all our sakes. Who knows this decision may be cited in future during someone else's case. In the article below Shubert says he's gonna continue.


posted by StiveC2007
[heres a local springfield link
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...vows_to_a.html
Click to expand...


posted by Antipitas
I still think that the officer should have detained Shubert until such a time that the LTC-A was verified. It the license was not valid, then the officer did in fact let a criminal go.
Click to expand...

Yes he did. But the license was valid. So in essence because Stern did not want to take any more than 10 minutes to check the permit he basically tried Schubert on the spot and found him guilty of illegally carrying without a permit and confiscated his weapon...... from an elderly man... in a high crime area... in spite of the fact it was very near the courthouse steps.

The whole thing smells because of:
1. If Schubert was a 'well known criminal defense attorney in the Springfield area' I bet a dozen donuts that Stern's shift supervisor knew Mr. Schubert and could have verified the permit and saved the Mass. taxpayers a pile of money.

2. The state of Mass. issued permits that apparently could not be verified in 10 minutes. AND..... never once in the appeals decision fessed up about this flaw and never stated emphatically they had corrected it.
 
Last edited:
In the end if the attorney wanted to pursue vindication through the courts, i think that the attorney should sue the state for not having a working license verification system, demanding that such a system be implemented. I doubt that happens. The state should be ashamed of its poor performance; having worked for a state agency in the past, i doubt that will happen either.
 
Hey No problem Antipitas, this hit very close to home. But I agree that the officer pretty much tried the lawyer in the street. Cop are not judges and they do not have the ability to make those kinds of judgements. they are supposed to up hold the law, nothing else. Has any one thought what might have happened if the lawyer waited for the license to be checked, he could have been late to court and or missed it completely, and what ramifications that would have entailed.

In looking for this on google and other forums, I came across the masscops fourm. apparently this officer as they mention his initals J B, is all for CCW and for the second amendment. but what kind of tool says " im the only one to carry on this beat" (could be a lil off I dont remeber the actual quote). I have an idea why doesnt the springfield PD take more time trying to find the drug dealing POS that kill each other on the street week after week with heres the kicker ILLEGAL FIREARMS. Springfield is one of the worst cities in MA, no wonder people carry. As I stated earlier if it was worth it to draw down on the lawyer he should have been taking into custody. As I see this the officer is on a power trip, but its my opinion only.
 
Common has nothing to do with it
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it. Cops are paid to pay attention to things out of the ordinary. Often out of the ordinary is a criminal "tell" .
 
Last edited:
4. The Springfield police commissioner recommended officer Stern be retrained on
Click to expand...

If I assault someone, steal their property, can I get retrained instead of a court trial and jail. And can I continue getting paid during it.
 
He didn't assault anyone or steal anything. Two courts and the PD agreed with him and his actions. If the courts had found in favor of the lawyer, there would be not a single soul on here saying the courts made a mistake. Because they didn't and sided with the cop, the courts made a mistake and you all know better sitting 3000 miles away and having half the story posted in a gun rights newspaper in Georgia. Sounds a little silly doesn't it?

Common does have everything to do with it. Police look for things that don't fit or seem out of the ordinary. When I worked nights I knew everyone and everything moving in my patrol area. If the liquor store always has a van parked behind it, so what thats normal. If there is never a van parked behind the store, now it needs to be looked into. See, like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top