Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Simkin is not responsible for alarm caused to others by his mere carrying....

  1. #1
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216

    Simkin is not responsible for alarm caused to others by his mere carrying....

    "Simkin is not responsible for alarm caused to others by his mere carrying of a concealed weapon pursuant to a license permitting him to do exactly that.”

    http://granitegrok.com/blog/2013/09/...ureau-v-simkin

    "Long story short, the state revoked his temporary nonresident Class A unrestricted license to carry firearms in Massachusetts on the grounds that he was no longer a “suitable person” because he had, in their view, exceeded his stated purpose for claiming to need the license and because…employees of the medical office where he sought treatment, and where the complaint leading to revocation originated, were “alarmed” and “concerned for their safety” at the sight of his weapons."

    SJC overturned this. Good for him. Currently have a good buddy who got his licensed suspended for being "unsuitable". It's something that should be reserved for rare/extreme cases. Not cases like this.

    Thought the above quote (from the SJC) was a good one that applies to OC is some other states. Obviously the SJC made sure they said concealed weapon as opposed to Open Carried, but it's getting closer.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    A rare exception it seems.....in MA.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •