# Lucky S.O.B.



## MVS (Jul 2, 2003)

Man denies pointing gun at state troopers 
12/25/2003

PALMER - A Brimfield man accused of pointing a shotgun at two state troopers Monday was released on $500 bail after arraignment in Palmer District Court yesterday.

Timothy Pray, 33, of 68 Apple Road, Brimfield, pleaded innocent to one count of possession of a firearm without a firearms identification card and two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon.

Assistant District Attorney Craig J. Camerlin told Judge Patricia T. Poehler that police went to the home after a 911 caller said Pray was loading a shotgun and might be planning to hurt himself. When police arrived, Camerlin said, Pray was walking around the house with the gun, then pointed it at the troopers and refused to drop it.

Pray's court-appointed lawyer said Pray had recently lost his job and was "struggling with an alcohol problem."

Camerlin said Pray was fortunate that troopers "used discretion and cooler heads prevailed." Pray will be back in court Feb. 5.

_
VERY LUCKY GUY!!! Who would've blasted this guy?_


----------



## Finding Nemo (Jun 5, 2003)

me !!!!!!!!!

:twisted:


----------



## MiamiVice (May 2, 2002)

Typical call for that area. But of course the selectmen in Brimfield are anti-police, and if there even was an Officer from BPD on, he/she would have been working 6p-12a (yup only 6hrs a day there are cops on shift). And he/she would have been working alone.

Too bad the poss of firearm charge won't stick.
A. shotgun is not considered a firearm, per Ch. 140
B. You don't need an FID/LTC to posess a gun in your home.


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2003)

I thought you had to have either one FID/LTC to have a gun in your home? I thought prior to the law changes in 98 you didnt need a LTC/FID you simply had to be the home owner, I thought in 98 they changed that so you had to atleast had to posses a minimum of an FID, and if you hand a to purchase a hand gun for your home you had to get a permit to purchase from the chief ?


I'm foggy on that issue so dont hold me to it.


----------



## MVS (Jul 2, 2003)

SPDFITZ said:


> Typical call for that area. But of course the selectmen in Brimfield are anti-police, and if there even was an Officer from BPD on, he/she would have been working 6p-12a (yup only 6hrs a day there are cops on shift). And he/she would have been working alone.


You think that BPD Officer would've blew him away? I sure the hell would have. Clear cut for me, pointing a shotgun at me and refusing to drop it... I don't want a 6" hole in my chest (or head) do you?

Those Troopers deserve a damn medal!!! GREAT WORK!


----------



## Irish Wampanoag (Apr 6, 2003)

Ch 140 Sec129C Ownership or Possesion of Firearms

No person shall own or possess any firearm, rifle, SHOTGUN or ammunition unless he/she has been issued a firearms identification card.

exemptions:
-a licensed dealer
-one who has been issued a license to carry a pistol or revolver


Note: if said person's FID/LTC has expired it becomes a civil matter under (Ch140 sec 128B)


----------



## patsfan (May 7, 2002)

My first reaction when I read this was: Blow the guy away. But none of us were there to know the full circumstances of the situation and why the troopers chose not to fire. There is nothing worse than having someone second guessing or Monday morning quarterbacking a call after it is over. Especially if the person doing the second guessing wasn't there. Bottom line they got the gun away from the guy and locked him up, hopefully justice will prevail.


----------



## MiamiVice (May 2, 2002)

this is from the bottom of Ch 140 s 129c, the law has always allowed one to posess a gun in ones home without a permit. In fact for many years you could get a "permit to puchase" from a local police chief, so that if you did not have an LTC/FID you could buy a gun to keep in your residnce.

*Any person who, while not being within the limits of his own property or residence,* or such person whose property or residence is under lawful search, and who is not exempt under this section, shall on demand of a police officer or other law enforcement officer, exhibit his license to carry firearms, or his firearm identification card or receipt for fee paid for such card, or, after January first, nineteen hundred and seventy, exhibit a valid hunting license issued to him which shall bear the number officially inscribed of such license to carry or card if any. Upon failure to do so such person may be required to surrender to such officer said firearm, rifle or shotgun which shall be taken into custody as under the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-nine D, except that such firearm, rifle or shotgun shall be returned forthwith upon presentation within thirty days of said license to carry firearms, firearm identification card or receipt for fee paid for such card or hunting license as hereinbefore described. Any person subject to the conditions of this paragraph may, even though no firearm, rifle or shotgun was surrendered, be required to produce within thirty days said license to carry firearms, firearm identification card or receipt for fee paid for such card, or said hunting license, failing which the conditions of section one hundred and twenty-nine D will apply. Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from being prosecuted for any violation of this chapter.


----------



## Dr.Magoo (May 2, 2002)

patsfan said:


> My first reaction when I read this was: Blow the guy away. But none of us were there to know the full circumstances of the situation and why the troopers chose not to fire. There is nothing worse than having someone second guessing or Monday morning quarterbacking a call after it is over. Especially if the person doing the second guessing wasn't there. Bottom line they got the gun away from the guy and locked him up, hopefully justice will prevail.


Excellent point! As Brett Favre would have said..."I would have blown him away".... Nobody likes a Monday morning QB.

Excellent job Troopers! =D>


----------



## Finding Nemo (Jun 5, 2003)

:L: 

like the brett favre comment!


----------



## dfc2502 (Oct 28, 2003)

SPDFITZ
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last paragraph of 140-129C is in reference to displaying a FID/LTC upon demand of a PO. Prior to this paragraph subsections (a) through (u) list the exempted person and uses from the required FID/LTC. Guess what, a homeowner in his residence is not listed. Furthermore, I believe I read a thread on this board regarding carrying on your badge. Subsection (o) still allows for this practice.


----------



## csauce30 (Aug 23, 2002)

> In fact for many years you could get a "permit to puchase" from a local police chief, so that if you did not have an LTC/FID you could buy a gun to keep in your residnce.


A "permit to purchase" was developed so that a person who had an FID card but not an LTC, could apply to receive a permit to purchase from the Chief and the two combined would allow for the purchase of a handgun to be kept in the home.

A permit to purchase alone did not allow you to purchase anything. You had to have an FID to receive a PTP.

An FID alone would have, and still, only allows the purchase of a rifle, shotgun, airgun, or chemical agent.

At last check...
you can no longer keep a HANDGUN in your home if you only possess an FID. You must have at least a Class B LTC to possess a HANDGUN in your home or business. As far as residency goes, you can apply for a LTC in the town in which you live, or own a business.

To possess a RIFLE or SHOTGUN in your home, you must have at least an FID card.



> SPDFITZ
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last paragraph of 140-129C is in reference to displaying a FID/LTC upon demand of a PO. Prior to this paragraph subsections (a) through (u) list the exempted person and uses from the required FID/LTC. Guess what, a homeowner in his residence is not listed. Furthermore, I believe I read a thread on this board regarding carrying on your badge. Subsection (o) still allows for this practice


This is correct...


----------

