Any pepper spray legal to publically carry in MA without any license?

Any pepper spray legal to publically carry in MA without any license?

How about court houses and schools?

1. All of them

2. Court houses are not banned by law, but by order of the judge in charge of the court - which has the force of law.

3. Dangerous weapons still banned on school grounds. I am not aware of any precedent for, or against, pepper spray being such a weapon(*)

*- Len can chime about knowing of "successful prosecutions"; I will then ask if these were convictions; guilty pleas, plea bargains of CWOFS and he will respond that he does not know the details.
 
Last edited:
Rob is right. I haven't seen my friend (ret prosecutor for BC PD) to ask about convictions, CWOFs, etc.

However I'll go out on a limb and say that you will likely be prosecuted if found out carrying OC on school property (public, private or college). They have no tolerance for self-defense.
 
I thought the only reason why pepper spray was legally actionable against on campus was the previous classification as ammunition? Other than a student code of conduct or employee policy on campus banning a specific item, how is a school going to have any legal standing against any other member of the public carrying OC other than asking that they leave?
 
I thought the only reason why pepper spray was legally actionable against on campus was the previous classification as ammunition?

No. You will get charged with carrying a dangerous weapon on school grounds, violating MGL Chapter 269 Section 10J:

(j) Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and notwithstanding any license obtained by him under the provisions of chapter one hundred and forty, carries on his person a firearm as hereinafter defined, loaded or unloaded or other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization of the board or officer in charge of such elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. For the purpose of this paragraph, “firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.
https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter269/section10
 
No. You will get charged with carrying a dangerous weapon on school grounds, violating MGL Chapter 269 Section 10J:


https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/partiv/titlei/chapter269/section10

Doesn't paragraph b cover "dangerous weapons", I don't see pepper spray in there. If so, I think it would just be a school policy situation.

I noticed that the fine/penalty is lower for carrying a dangerous weapon in a school than it is for out in public. Is this due to the fact that you aren't actually "carrying" as you are not in a public place. Is it possible that, with permission, you could carry any of the weapons considered dangerous according to MGL in a school? Paragraph j does seem to imply this.
 
Last edited:
Hope the college campus cafeterias don't have any chef's knives, steak knives, etc. in their kitchens, otherwise JAIL! Gotta love this state.

"...any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches,"

Only relevant to the knives mentioned before the length limit.
 
"...any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches,"

Only relevant to the knives mentioned before the length limit.

Okay thanks for the clarification, I interpreted that to mean any knife with a blade length of over 1.5 inches.
 
The way cases in MA are handled, I would expect any pepper spray on school grounds to be handled with a CWOF, unless there was some other charge, or the person made the system really want to get him/her (for example, by loudly announcing how (s)he is going to sue the PD and the school).

No matter how right the person feels (s)he is, when it comes down to it, it is very rare for someone to pay for, and accept the risk of a trial given an easy deal to get it over.
 
Doesn't paragraph b cover "dangerous weapons", I don't see pepper spray in there. If so, I think it would just be a school policy situation.

I noticed that the fine/penalty is lower for carrying a dangerous weapon in a school than it is for out in public. Is this due to the fact that you aren't actually "carrying" as you are not in a public place. Is it possible that, with permission, you could carry any of the weapons considered dangerous according to MGL in a school? Paragraph j does seem to imply this.

1) paragraph B does not cover carrying on school grounds.

2) paragraph J covers carrying on school grounds.

3) the phrase "other dangerous weapon" in paragraph J is not defined at all, let alone by an exclusive list. It is a catch all phrase. My understanding is that it has been used in the past to charge people found with OC spray on college campuses.

4) Don't assume there is some sort of logic as to why the penalty for one section is different than for another. They may well have been written at different times by different people and MA laws typically don't make a damn bit of sense.
 
4) Don't assume there is some sort of logic as to why the penalty for one section is different than for another. They may well have been written at different times by different people and MA laws typically don't make a damn bit of sense
This is no doubt why a non-resident LTC does not allow the purchase of ammo in MA.
 
Isn't a "shod foot" a dangerous weapon? Explains the flip flops I suppose...

Carrying pepper spray isn't a crime. Using it to commit a crime? https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section10C

"Section 10C. Whoever uses tear gas cartridges, or any device or instrument which contains a liquid, gas, powder, or any other substance designed to incapacitate for the purpose of committing a crime shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than seven years. "
 
1) paragraph B does not cover carrying on school grounds.

2) paragraph J covers carrying on school grounds.

3) the phrase "other dangerous weapon" in paragraph J is not defined at all, let alone by an exclusive list. It is a catch all phrase. My understanding is that it has been used in the past to charge people found with OC spray on college campuses.

4) Don't assume there is some sort of logic as to why the penalty for one section is different than for another. They may well have been written at different times by different people and MA laws typically don't make a damn bit of sense.

That makes sense. I just assumed that pepperspray was considered ammunition not a dangerous weapon according to MGL. I suppose it's both.
 
Rob is right. I haven't seen my friend (ret prosecutor for BC PD) to ask about convictions, CWOFs, etc.

However I'll go out on a limb and say that you will likely be prosecuted if found out carrying OC on school property (public, private or college). They have no tolerance for self-defense.

Situational. Having close contacts in the UMPD and having worked woth the school administration as well... last I checked the gun club was well on their way to getting pepper spray explicitly permitted on campus... furthermore it was made pretty clear off the record that the carrying of pepper spray or use in self defense would by no means result in suspension, expulsion, or prosecution of the situation warranted it.

Our main concern was the ambiguity with 269 10j, and getting rid of that ambiguity by having an official policy in place to allow for it.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Any pepper spray legal to publically carry in MA ...? ... How about ... schools?

3. Dangerous weapons still banned on school grounds. I am not aware of any precedent for, or against, pepper spray being such a weapon(*)

*- Len can chime about knowing of "successful prosecutions"; I will then ask if these were convictions; guilty pleas, plea bargains of CWOFS and he will respond that he does not know the details.

On 8-Feb'18, a Mass. appeals court issued a "persuasive but non-binding" decision
that pepper spray is a "dangerous weapon".

First, as noted above on 29-Jan'15 by @M1911,
MGL Ch. 269 §10(j): "Carrying dangerous weapons; ..." states in part:

Section 10. ...​
(j) ...​
Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer and notwithstanding any license obtained by the person pursuant to chapter 140, carries on the person a[n] ... other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization of the board or officer in charge of the elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or both. ...​

What is the definition of a "dangerous weapon"?
It is popular to cite the case Commonwealth v. Farrell, 322 Mass. 606, 614-615 (1948),
where the appeals court was perfectly satisfied with
the trial court having charged the jury in part that...

A dangerous weapon, in legal definition, is any instrument or instrumentality so constructed or so used as to be likely to produce death or great bodily harm. ...​

In fact, that exact language has been adopted by the Mass. Criminal Model Jury Instructions, No. 6.300, Commonwealth v. Fettes, 835 N.E.2d 639 (2005).

In the appellate case Commonwealth v. Lord, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 265, 267 (2002),
Massachusetts decided that mace (i.e., tear gas) was an inherently dangerous weapon -
per se dangerous right out of the box.

It concluded that was true for Massachusetts partly because
some Federal cases, and an Oklahoma state case, had already decided that.

1. ... The defendant argues that the Commonwealth did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mace-spraying device used here is a dangerous weapon. ...​
"Our statutes do not define the term 'dangerous weapon,' but we have consistently said that there are things that are dangerous per se and those that are dangerous as used." [cites snipped/AHM] We conclude that the mace-spraying device at issue here was dangerous per se. ...​
Weapons regarded as dangerous per se, such as firearms, daggers, stilettos and brass knuckles, are instrumentalities "designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm," and are classified in this manner "because they are designed for the purpose of bodily assault or defense." [cite snip/AHM]. ...​
At trial, the State trooper, who testified as an expert in the use of mace and other chemical sprays, examined the particular spray used by the defendant on Cathy. He described it as "old style mace," which he claimed differs from what is commonly known as pepper spray. [fn10: The facts of this case do not require us to determine whether pepper spray or any other aerosol products designed as weapons are dangerous per se.] ...​

Read the case for the logic involved.

So what about pepper spray, which is the new hotness?

On 8-Feb'18, a persuasive but non-binding decision Commonwealth v. Anthony D. Walcott
found pepper spray to be an inherently dangerous weapon:

... Because the statutes at issue do not define "dangerous weapon," we employ the common-law definition for our analysis. That is, "dangerous weapons include those objects that are dangerous per se -- 'designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm' and 'for the purpose of bodily assault or defense,' [cite snip/AHM] -- as well as those objects that are dangerous as used -- items that are not dangerous per se but 'become dangerous weapons because they "are used in a dangerous fashion."'" [cite snip/AHM].​
Here, the weapon at issue was pepper spray, and the question is whether there was sufficient evidence that it is dangerous per se. In Commonwealth v. Lord, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 265 (2002), we held that "[w]eapons regarded as dangerous per se, such as firearms, daggers, stilettos and brass knuckles, are instrumentalities 'designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm,' and are classified in this manner 'because they are designed for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.'" [cite snip/AHM]. With that in mind, we focused our analysis on the design of the device and its intended purpose and "whether it [was] capable of causing death or the requisite degree of bodily harm." Lord, supra. Although the quantum of the requisite harm has enjoyed a variety of labels, at bottom, we have held that the harm must be "calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the [victim]. Such hurt or injury need not be permanent, but must . . . be more than merely transient and trifling." Id. at 269 n.7, quoting from Commonwealth v. Farrell, 322 Mass. 606, 621 (1948).​
With that analysis in Lord, we held that "old style mace" was dangerous per se. Lord, supra at 269, 270. While we expressly left open the question whether pepper spray was dangerous per se, id. at 270 n.10, we now answer that question in the same manner, for many of the same reasons. Like conventional mace, a pepper spray canister is "dangerous per se because it was designed for the sole purpose of bodily assault or defense and was constructed to inflict serious bodily harm through incapacitation, and because, in these circumstances, the defendant used it in a manner consistent with its design." Id. at 269-270.​
...​

3) the phrase "other dangerous weapon" in paragraph J is not defined at all, let alone by an exclusive list. It is a catch all phrase. My understanding is that it has been used in the past to charge people found with OC spray on college campuses.

The phrase is defined in case law, not by statute.
As case law accumulates,
so does a list composed from binding (or persuasive) precedents.
 
Last edited:
Thankew.
By all means, read the case writeups to sanity check me,
but I think I captured the gist of it.


BTW folks, I found it particularly interesting
to read all of Commonwealth v. Lord -
not for the mace precedent, but for the subtext.

One of the victims was allegedly vaginally raped,
but apparently that's not rape-rape in Fall River,
because the jury let the defendant skate on that charge.

I think this pissed off the judge,
who decided that the defendant's various assaults on the two women
were three separate crimes.

So she sentenced the perp to three separate and consecutive jail terms.
(Successfully - the appeals court liked the judge's
work product, and let the sentences stand).
 
3. Dangerous weapons still banned on school grounds. I am not aware of any precedent for, or against, pepper spray being such a weapon(*)

*- Len can chime about knowing of "successful prosecutions"; I will then ask if these were convictions; guilty pleas, plea bargains of CWOFS and he will respond that he does not know the details.

The statute states that written permission can be given by the institution RE: carrying dangerous weapons on school grounds.

I was on the board at a state school until recently, which in light of the no-license pepper spray change, had written into their code of conduct that is acceptable for teachers and students to carry "small containers of self defense chemical sprays" (or something to that effect). In individual class code of conduct handouts there was a mandatory note that said specifically 'females' and I'm not sure that 1) that was legal in light of Title IX, or 2) it overrode the schools general code of conduct which was not gender specific.

Being so specifically worded, I did not carry pepper spray as I was not student or a teacher.
 
Last edited:
The statute states that written permission can be given my the institution RE: carrying dangerous weapons on school grounds.

No contest, concur.

I was on the board at a state school until recently, which in light of the no-license pepper spray change, had written into their code of conduct that is acceptable for teachers and students to carry "small containers of self defense chemical sprays" (or something to that effect). In individual class code of conduct handouts there was a mandatory note that said specifically 'females' and I'm not sure that 1) that was legal in light of Title IX, or 2) it overrode the schools general code of conduct which was not gender specific.
Boggle.
 

My board and the department didn't have any specific oversight on such things.

I do know that the school changed syllabus policy during my time to mandate including the academic honesty policy, course grading information, explanation of the Carnegie Unit, and professor contact information - and it refers students to view and agree to the entire code of conduct which is not included.

It's possible the gendered language has been removed entirely, or is offered by professors on a case by case basis, but I know that last I saw the code of conduct (a few weeks ago) it contained the terms "teachers and students" but said nothing of staff, board members, friends, parents, etc - only carve outs for staff using required tools, armored car drivers, uniformed police, etc.

Oddly enough they state something about objects not designed or intended as a weapon but used as a weapon being banned... which is weird, because ANYTHING can be weapon, and it would require an assault to have already happened for that change in status (from unassuming object to weapon) so what's the point of banning it? If someone assaulted someone else, you can kick them out for assault... if someone defended themselves with a pencil, would you kick them out for having "a weapon"?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom