• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Local article- guns not allowed everywhere

The writer is completely ignorant of MA state law and has stated a complete falsehood. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not and if so, what the intention is......
 
My guess is that the writer is trying to show support for the Mommies campaign to pressure businesses to become "gun free." That's the only reason I can see for the article, and even at that it really doesn't seem to have a point. Perhaps the writer really does believe that a sign actually has an effect on everyone who reads it, despite the overwhelming evidence that it doesn't. If it did, there would be zero shootings in "gun free" zones.

If it was a newspaper instead of a website, that article would be nothing more than a "filler."
 
ipscdrl said:
The writer is completely ignorant of MA state law and has stated a complete falsehood. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not and if so, what the intention is......
Click to expand...

Which is interesting, considering that the person quoted is an attorney.

The concept of "trespass via formula" has to the best of my knowledge never been tested. If successful, it would allow businesses to establish that violations of any of their rules (dress code, allowing a cell phone to ring, etc.) is a criminal offense. "911? I just asked a patron whose cell phone rang to leave. I have a no cell phone signs and his license plate number - can you send someone to arrest him?".
 
center442 said:
My guess is that the writer is trying to show support for the Mommies campaign to pressure businesses to become "gun free." That's the only reason I can see for the article, and even at that it really doesn't seem to have a point. Perhaps the writer really does believe that a sign actually has an effect on everyone who reads it, despite the overwhelming evidence that it doesn't. If it did, there would be zero shootings in "gun free" zones.

If it was a newspaper instead of a website, that article would be nothing more than a "filler."
Click to expand...

There was a local story of a NH woman that got caught with a firearm at the Big E and was arrested.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...5-NH-Woman-Arrested-at-Big-E-After-Losing-Gun

http://wwlp.com/2014/09/15/n-h-woman-arrested-after-losing-gun-at-the-big-e/

so now the local news is trying to find local "experts" to keep the anti-2A story going.

Pure garbage.
 
Right.. I don't understand how he's using that law. I've read it and it doesn't make any sense.

I mean if a business puts up a sign that said "no girls" allowed and I entered the business with my 10 month old daughter, is she trespassing?

****ing stupid.
 
Channel 22 is nothing but a trash news station. They love any story that puts firearms or firearm owners in a bad light. As long as they can get out a story on how bad guns are, they don't care if they're wrong or just outright lying.

Greg
 
Rob Boudrie said:
"911? I just asked a patron whose cell phone rang to leave. I have a no cell phone signs and his license plate number - can you send someone to arrest him?".
Click to expand...

Absolutely arrestable if he doesn't leave. Civilly actionable in any event.

You're violating a condition of the license te owner granted you to be present. If you don't comply, that license is revoked, and you become a trespasser.
 
But Rob's post stated he had the license plate number, insinuating the patron had left the establishment.
 
dgrafton said:
But Rob's post stated he had the license plate number, insinuating the patron had left the establishment.
Click to expand...

THat is my understanding of it. If a business askes you to leave and you DO......no criminal tresspass has been committed. Is that correct?
 
RDG said:
There was a local story of a NH woman that got caught with a firearm at the Big E and was arrested.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...5-NH-Woman-Arrested-at-Big-E-After-Losing-Gun

http://wwlp.com/2014/09/15/n-h-woman-arrested-after-losing-gun-at-the-big-e/

so now the local news is trying to find local "experts" to keep the anti-2A story going.

Pure garbage.
Click to expand...

I knew about the arrest of the woman at the Big E. What I still don't get is the point of the guy's article. The woman was arrested for carrying without a permission slip. The way the article is written, it implies that she was arrested for carrying in violation of Big E rules. Not true at all.

That's why I'm guessing that the point of the article was to give some weight to the stupid "No Guns" signs that the MDA is so fond of. Those signs and policies are virtually meaningless, at least in MA. They may give the gun-grabbers a warm fuzzy feeling, but they really don't do a damn thing.

If the author of that article is really an attorney, he could have done the public a service by pointing out that a licensed person, carrying a firearm on private property, is not a criminal offense. But that wouldn't fit the anti-gun agenda.
 
I understand the whole situation here in MA where the signage is not binding, and having to leave if asked, but I just had a thought... What if hypothetically you were involved in a defensive shooting in a place with a "no firearms" sign posted? Could you then be charged by the DA with criminal trespass, or some other BS charge "just because"?
 
How ridiculous is it that we are even having to discuss this. This state is insane.
 
Terminator03 said:
I understand the whole situation here in MA where the signage is not binding, and having to leave if asked, but I just had a thought... What if hypothetically you were involved in a defensive shooting in a place with a "no firearms" sign posted? Could you then be charged by the DA with criminal trespass, or some other BS charge "just because"?
Click to expand...

They do that already. You can be charged with whatever they feel like charging you with. You get your day in court, go broke, and you lose even if you win.
 
Terminator03 said:
I understand the whole situation here in MA where the signage is not binding, and having to leave if asked, but I just had a thought... What if hypothetically you were involved in a defensive shooting in a place with a "no firearms" sign posted? Could you then be charged by the DA with criminal trespass, or some other BS charge "just because"?
Click to expand...

More importantly, they would use the fact you were in violation of a rule to try to paint you in the most unfavorable light possible. Phrases like "carrying where prohibited" and "carrying in a gun free zone" would be used by the system, with you only having a chance to refute the implication in court, after the damage of both public perception, and the initial impression on the judge/jury (if there was a trial) was done. It's like a divorce when one party gets to say "There is a restraining order against him", with the fact that nothing was ever proved is all but ignored.
 
Where I see the "law by signage" concept unraveling is the police carry guns and they aren't evicted. As do the armored car drivers, etc. So if you believe the signage to be enforceable, it's only selectivity enforced at best.

Can I put up signs on my property that reads "no shoes on the carpet " and then whenever I feel like it have people with shoes on the carpet arrested?
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
More importantly, they would use the fact you were in violation of a rule to try to paint you in the most unfavorable light possible. Phrases like "carrying where prohibited" and "carrying in a gun free zone" would be used by the system, with you only having a chance to refute the implication in court, after the damage of both public perception, and the initial impression on the judge/jury (if there was a trial) was done. It's like a divorce when one party gets to say "There is a restraining order against him", with the fact that nothing was ever proved is all but ignored.
Click to expand...

Excellent points, and exactly the line of thought I was having. What you say makes perfect sense because it gives them the opportunity to paint you as something other than just a "law abiding citizen" in a self defense shooting. Wow, crap like this makes you rethink the merit of carrying at all in a commie state like MA.
 
Another_David said:
Where I see the "signage by law" concept unraveling is the police carry guns and they aren't evicted. As do the armored car drivers, etc. So if you believe the signage to be enforceable, it's only selectivity enforced at best.

Can I put up a signs on my property that reads "no shoes on the carpet " and then whenever I feel like it have people with shoes on the carpet arrested?
Click to expand...

Your post is spot on here. It's complete horse shite. Imagine if you had a sign up that said no gays, the you saw two guys kissing. You could bet hell would rain down on your business.

Though, legally, to answer your question, yes.
 
center442 said:
I knew about the arrest of the woman at the Big E. What I still don't get is the point of the guy's article. The woman was arrested for carrying without a permission slip. The way the article is written, it implies that she was arrested for carrying in violation of Big E rules. Not true at all.

That's why I'm guessing that the point of the article was to give some weight to the stupid "No Guns" signs that the MDA is so fond of. Those signs and policies are virtually meaningless, at least in MA. They may give the gun-grabbers a warm fuzzy feeling, but they really don't do a damn thing.

If the author of that article is really an attorney, he could have done the public a service by pointing out that a licensed person, carrying a firearm on private property, is not a criminal offense. But that wouldn't fit the anti-gun agenda.
Click to expand...

The article is just wrong in nearly every way.

The lawyer is almost right. It is also entirely possible the reporter misunderstand things the lawyer said.
Here is the lawyers firm's areas of expertise. Not sure if trespass law or firearms law factors in below:
http://www.lawyers.com/springfield/massachusetts/crevier-and-ryan-llp-691647-f/
  • Employee Benefit Litigation
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Insurance Defense
  • Disability Insurance Litigation
  • ERISA Litigation


  • Employment Planning and Litigation
  • Real Estate
  • Commercial Financing
  • Commercial Workouts and Foreclosures
  • Commercial Litigation and Personal Injury.
Click to expand...

The other blatant fail on the part of the reporter is the woman arrested at the Big E. was because she was from NH and didn't have a non-res permit. That is a pretty big part of the story to miss.


That being said, I don't really see a big problem with the antis and uninformed thinking we have some sort of binding signage rule.... because if they think it already works that way then we shouldn't have to worry about them actually demanding it for real....
 
I volunteered to do the GOAL booth at the Topsfield Fair again this year. I noticed that their web page for the fair touted enhanced security measures so I sent an email requesting info on CC. I've always carried there before while doing the booth but I was concerned that if I was wanded I would need to lock my gun in my truck, which I would not want to do. Return email is below. You draw your own conclusions.

JOHN, I discussed this matter with Tom Walsh Thursday afternoon. Our policy is a licensed to carry person is allowed by checking with a police officer at each gate. We don’t think a person has to carry to teach gun safety. Licensed to carry and not to be loaded is permissible after reporting to the police. WES
Click to expand...
 
yanici said:
I volunteered to do the GOAL booth at the Topsfield Fair again this year. I noticed that their web page for the fair touted enhanced security measures so I sent an email requesting info on CC. I've always carried there before while doing the booth but I was concerned that if I was wanded I would need to lock my gun in my truck, which I would not want to do. Return email is below. You draw your own conclusions.
Click to expand...

That's a bit confusing. Almost like a yes, no, and maybe so.
 
Serapis said:
Your post is spot on here. It's complete horse shite. Imagine if you had a sign up that said no gays, the you saw two guys kissing. You could bet hell would rain down on your business.

Though, legally, to answer your question, yes.
Click to expand...

Gays are a protected class, so that's not a great example.

I'd wonder about a sign that said "No bras allowed". Seems to me it's pretty much the same as a concealed gun. They both serve a serious purpose and are both normally concealed from public view. Either could be left at home and it's highly likely that in each case about 50% of the population would prefer it that way.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Which is interesting, considering that the person quoted is an attorney.

The concept of "trespass via formula" has to the best of my knowledge never been tested. If successful, it would allow businesses to establish that violations of any of their rules (dress code, allowing a cell phone to ring, etc.) is a criminal offense. "911? I just asked a patron whose cell phone rang to leave. I have a no cell phone signs and his license plate number - can you send someone to arrest him?".
Click to expand...
Well, you can't have institutional racism without such a pretext to provide for law enforcement to bolster a racist who would otherwise just be a jerk on his own.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
More importantly, they would use the fact you were in violation of a rule to try to paint you in the most unfavorable light possible. Phrases like "carrying where prohibited" and "carrying in a gun free zone" would be used by the system, with you only having a chance to refute the implication in court, after the damage of both public perception, and the initial impression on the judge/jury (if there was a trial) was done. It's like a divorce when one party gets to say "There is a restraining order against him", with the fact that nothing was ever proved is all but ignored.
Click to expand...

Great point not to be overlooked.
 

Similar threads

  • Poll
Local shooting and gunsmithing classes
Replies
0
Views
123
Darkslide
Darkslide
Soon, they will be everywhere.
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
RKG
R
Interesting Article on the "Notching" of Firearms to Keep Track of "Kills"
Replies
8
Views
356
clampett
clampett
Cleaning your guns
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
Buck F
Buck F
Local Dealers who Sell on Consignment Through GunBroker?
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
alan226
alan226
Back
Top Bottom