-
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/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
What you want GOAL to do for you this year.
- Thread starter Coyote33
- Start date
C-pher said:
We hand out applications to all our students. We tell them if they don't join, don't b*tch about the laws. Course...we're a little more diplomatic than that, but that's the end message.
Hi.. I would actually like to see some of the restrictions on where one can "carry" lifted or relaxed. For example, I have a Class A w/ no restrictions. Because I work at, what falls under the description of a "school", I am prohibited from carrying my weapon or even when traveling to and from work. This constitutes the majority of the time that I could/may need the ability to protect myself. Also, my employer has a "no weapons" policy, which if violated, could lead to me losing my LTC for "suitability" reasons. I've never worked for any organiztion(Or heard of one) that does not have a "no weapons" policy. Prohibiting workers from carrying at work is a "large" window that leaves then defensless.
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,106
- Likes
- 9,790
Unfortunately, that isn't law, but the rights of the property owners that keeps people unarmed at places of business. You have two options. Comply or not. However, non-compliance isn't a crime, the most that can happen is they ask you to leave. (Unless your chief wants to use that as a reason to deny you a LTC) Remember that one of the rules about concealed carry is that NOBODY KNOWS.
The law with schools in MA is that you can not have the gun "On Your Person" while on school grounds. So long as you unload and case it before entering the School Grounds, you are not in violation. Not that this is all that easy. Your only other option is to get a note from the Superintendant allowing you to carry on the property.
Well, I guess you could also join a police department that authorizes you to carry as there was a whole lot of talk in LE circles after the law was passed regarding cops who attend night school and the bulk of the solution was "Carry well concealed and not make it an issue".
One of the reasons I leaped at the chance of my current job was the fact that I can work from home. My office staff places some pretty strict rules on me like "let me out when I bark", "either leave the garage open or let me in when I bark.", and "I don't care if you are still working, feeding time is 5pm sharp". BUT, he doesn't mind if I have a loaded gun around.
We all make choices to do what's best for ourselves and our families. I'm still in MA mainly because I would hate to move too far from my family.
As for removing restrictions in the law, be VERY happy we have as few as we do. It's amazing the hoops that some states with CCW laws have their citizens go through to stay legal.
The law with schools in MA is that you can not have the gun "On Your Person" while on school grounds. So long as you unload and case it before entering the School Grounds, you are not in violation. Not that this is all that easy. Your only other option is to get a note from the Superintendant allowing you to carry on the property.
Well, I guess you could also join a police department that authorizes you to carry as there was a whole lot of talk in LE circles after the law was passed regarding cops who attend night school and the bulk of the solution was "Carry well concealed and not make it an issue".
One of the reasons I leaped at the chance of my current job was the fact that I can work from home. My office staff places some pretty strict rules on me like "let me out when I bark", "either leave the garage open or let me in when I bark.", and "I don't care if you are still working, feeding time is 5pm sharp". BUT, he doesn't mind if I have a loaded gun around.
We all make choices to do what's best for ourselves and our families. I'm still in MA mainly because I would hate to move too far from my family.
As for removing restrictions in the law, be VERY happy we have as few as we do. It's amazing the hoops that some states with CCW laws have their citizens go through to stay legal.
Last edited:
Hey Chris... Thanks for the info. I know the part about the property owner setting the rules for weapons. I was refering to the ability of the "Cheif" to revoke your LTC because you break them. I can only imagine that could be the "text book" definition of unsuitable? I also understand the whole idea of finding a new job that allows their employees to carry, but I think in this day and age, thats unlikely.
As far as the school aspect goes... I was under the impression, that having the weapon in your car is still a "BIG" no no? My employer is a reaserch organization that has graduate students and a joint program degree with a major university. The town that its located in is not CCW friendly and that makes things all the more troubling.
As far as the school aspect goes... I was under the impression, that having the weapon in your car is still a "BIG" no no? My employer is a reaserch organization that has graduate students and a joint program degree with a major university. The town that its located in is not CCW friendly and that makes things all the more troubling.
Chris
NES Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2005
- Messages
- 14,106
- Likes
- 9,790
Chapter 269 Section 10, paragraph (j)
Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and not withstanding any license obtained by him under teh provisions of chapter one hundred and fourty, 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, officer in charge of such elemantary or secondary school, or college shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by impisonmentfor more than one year, or both. For the purposes of this last paragraph, "Firearm" shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle, or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet, or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.
*Emphisis added*
Legally, "in your car" is not "on your person", but we all know how much actual words mean in this state.
Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and not withstanding any license obtained by him under teh provisions of chapter one hundred and fourty, 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, officer in charge of such elemantary or secondary school, or college shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by impisonmentfor more than one year, or both. For the purposes of this last paragraph, "Firearm" shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle, or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet, or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.
*Emphisis added*
Legally, "in your car" is not "on your person", but we all know how much actual words mean in this state.
I'm all in favor of having more consistent policies statewide, as long as that means other people get treated the way we are here (i.e., every applicant who isn't disqualified by statute gets an LTC-A for ALP), rather than us being treated the way some of them are.
Ken
Ken
"Get rid of the list" should have been one of the choices.
In the poll question, I meant more consistencies between the laws.
Wouldn't an overhaul be nice, where they clean out all the dreck and recognize a firearm, shotgun, pistol, revolver, etc. ?
There should just be one whole section devoted to definitions, and that in turn can be referred to from the other parts.
Maybe there should be a forum here where people could rewrite the MA gun laws.
Wouldn't an overhaul be nice, where they clean out all the dreck and recognize a firearm, shotgun, pistol, revolver, etc. ?
There should just be one whole section devoted to definitions, and that in turn can be referred to from the other parts.
Maybe there should be a forum here where people could rewrite the MA gun laws.
#1. No more Mag ban...
#2. let us buy pistols, regardless of how safe the AG says the need to be.
#3 If they let me buy Machineguns I don't see why they won't let me buy a suppressor.
#2. let us buy pistols, regardless of how safe the AG says the need to be.
#3 If they let me buy Machineguns I don't see why they won't let me buy a suppressor.
Nickle said:
I am lucky enough to have a place in Maine, so my suppressor lives up there, but it is lonely so I need more $$$ to buy it some friends to stay with it
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
I just always think its funny when I am driving home thinking, Mass is OK with me having the M16 and all my other toys, but a little can for a 22 is NOT OK???
securityboy said:
Because your .22 can sneak out at night and go out and kill little babies without anyone hearing. Haven't you seen the movies?? They don't make ANY sound.
Well...I'd like to see a consistant policy that would make Mass a "shall issue" state, and make ALP the standard the way I think it was meant to be due to the wording of the Gun Control Act of 1998.
The AG's list is something that we are going to have to live with ad infinitim.
>10 than ten round mags would be nice, but I would stick with the present law if we went "shall issue" (which ain't gonna happen).
Support GOAL, they not the NRA are our first line of gun owner defense here in Mass !!
Mark
The AG's list is something that we are going to have to live with ad infinitim.
>10 than ten round mags would be nice, but I would stick with the present law if we went "shall issue" (which ain't gonna happen).
Support GOAL, they not the NRA are our first line of gun owner defense here in Mass !!
Mark
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,087
- Likes
- 21,282
Moderators can edit the Poll and even null out the numbers, so if you want to add more items and start over, put the info in this thread and then ask one of us to reset the Poll, OK?
If "Work towards more consistency in the laws" means work towards "shall issue" then I'm all for it. But, that doesn't seem to be what was meant by that option. Nonetheless, I think the #1 priority is to get the wrong people voted out of office and the right ones voted in. Without getting the right people in the various offices up for grabs, GOAL will have a helluva time getting anything accomplished. So, what I want out of GOAL this year is knowledge of which candidates GOAL can work with to forward our agenda.Moderator said:
J
JellyFish
Ha, ha, ha!!!! Yeah, right. Not here in Meninostan!
derek said:
I'd like to see GOAL work for consistency by helping applicants in towns where chiefs abuse their authority; i.e., demanding so-called "doctor's letters," "letters of recommendation," range tests, "transportation contracts," and all the other BS that is outside the requirements set forth on the FA 25/26 and licensing statutes.
Cops get away with such crap because they don't get challenged. If GOAL helped pay for such challenges in key towns (think Brookline, Newton, Andover, Lowell, etc.), perhaps the costs of defending against multiple challenges will get the finance committees and selectmen to apply pressure where needed.
Cops get away with such crap because they don't get challenged. If GOAL helped pay for such challenges in key towns (think Brookline, Newton, Andover, Lowell, etc.), perhaps the costs of defending against multiple challenges will get the finance committees and selectmen to apply pressure where needed.
-Class B license eliminated. It serves no purpouse.
-Class A is only issued as ALP, and is shall issue, with a provision that says
if the locality cannot issue you a permit (like that problem on the cape where
truro or whoever they were didnt have some droid to do the permitting) then
you can go to the state and do it. (eg at a MASP station or something).
-Nonresident permit term goes up to at least 4 years. The way its set up
now is -INSANE-. Nonresidents can go to a MASP station to get photoed
and printed. (streamlines process).
-All permits issued inside of 30 days... period, end, no exceptions.
Pipe Dreams-
-Dump the mag capacity issue. The current law is basically unenforceable
anyways, so get rid of it.
-Revoke the AG's consumer safety regs. (Then we'll only have the EOPS
thing to worry about, making a "list" actually useable.)
-Modify the "surrender guns on RO" thing so that if a gun owner is served
an RO "just because" he won't lose his guns. This happens a TON in
this state, usually by women filing an RO "just because" theyre getting a
divorce. (There are many divorce lawyers that tell them to do it regardless
of wether its warranted or not, and nobody is ever punished for trying to
file an unwarranted restraining order).
-Modify the laws to clarify the "under your direct control" BS that is
ambigious and vague. (EG, this would make it imminently clear
that say, a loaded gun in a bag in your vehicle, while you are in "attendance"
of the gun, is a legal thing. Currently right now its subject to
interpretation. )
-Class A is only issued as ALP, and is shall issue, with a provision that says
if the locality cannot issue you a permit (like that problem on the cape where
truro or whoever they were didnt have some droid to do the permitting) then
you can go to the state and do it. (eg at a MASP station or something).
-Nonresident permit term goes up to at least 4 years. The way its set up
now is -INSANE-. Nonresidents can go to a MASP station to get photoed
and printed. (streamlines process).
-All permits issued inside of 30 days... period, end, no exceptions.
Pipe Dreams-
-Dump the mag capacity issue. The current law is basically unenforceable
anyways, so get rid of it.
-Revoke the AG's consumer safety regs. (Then we'll only have the EOPS
thing to worry about, making a "list" actually useable.)
-Modify the "surrender guns on RO" thing so that if a gun owner is served
an RO "just because" he won't lose his guns. This happens a TON in
this state, usually by women filing an RO "just because" theyre getting a
divorce. (There are many divorce lawyers that tell them to do it regardless
of wether its warranted or not, and nobody is ever punished for trying to
file an unwarranted restraining order).
-Modify the laws to clarify the "under your direct control" BS that is
ambigious and vague. (EG, this would make it imminently clear
that say, a loaded gun in a bag in your vehicle, while you are in "attendance"
of the gun, is a legal thing. Currently right now its subject to
interpretation. )
Last edited:
drgrant said:
Good idea on the state licensing. Maybe they should just incorporate into the RMV, and have LTC as another checkbox on your driver's license.
drgrant said:
Go back a couple posts where I was talking about definitions.
Last edited:
Coyote33 said:
I had thought about this briefly, but I don't like that idea because it proffers
on your DL that you (probably) own guns, and frankly I'd want those two things to be separate. If that box is on your DL, then everyone who sees your DL (which is potentially a bunch of different people) is going to know that you either own guns or are armed. I'd still rather have a separate
license. Course now with the new MIRCS thing theres a fingerprint on
it, so theyd have to put that on the DL somehow, too... which would give
you a really oddball looking DL.
True enough.... could be added to the list. But I'd rather see it
so that the whole "gun in car" thing is clarified. It -should- be legal
for instance, for an LTC holder to have a handgun in a bag or purse with
them in a vehicle, but it's not imminently clear as to wether or not that
would satisfy the "under the direct control" spiel. I've seen one piece of
case law where it didnt seem to matter, but that was that controversial
case where the "restriction" printed on the persons license didnt matter
either, so that was about as clear as mud. Maybe Scrivener or Cross-X
has a better idea of how this tends to pan out in MA courts.
-Mike
Similar threads
