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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
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."
"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?".
But Rob's post stated he had the license plate number, insinuating the patron had left the establishment.
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.
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"?
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"?
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 "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?
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.
- 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.
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
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.
That's a bit confusing. Almost like a yes, no, and maybe so.
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.
So are gun owners.
I'm just going to start posting signs that read this everywhere and that should solve everything:
SIGNS THAT FORBID THINGS ARE PROHIBITED ON PREMISES
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.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?".
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.