Where can I and can I not carry?

[MisterHappy]

AHM:

Your post is not relevant to the OP's question: its about places, not what condition you're in. One may lawfully carry in a bar. You just can't be under the influence.

I don't drink....I'm legal to carry in a bar.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

AHM:

Your post is not relevant to the OP's question: its about places, not what condition you're in. One may lawfully carry in a bar. You just can't be under the influence.

I don't drink....I'm legal to carry in a bar.

But it's still important to make sure the right info is shared, so it is relevant to the overall discussion.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I picked up some .357 at dicks in saugus last week and got the perp walk to register where the clerk asked are you carrying that now ? "nope just happy to get my ammo" true story

"With all due respect, I will not discuss my security procedures with you."

 

[Wendell]

Yes, I did read the sticky regarding this issue. However, my fiancé thinks that its wrong. Does anyone have the exact law as it is written? With his issues, he was required to take an NRA safety course and in the course they are telling him it is absolutely illegal to carry in a store that has signage saying you can't carry. I believe that to be untrue but I can't find the law that specifically says so. Any help? Thanks!

http://handgunlaw.us/

 

[kalash]

OP, Texas law specifically addresses this issue - posted signs are binding and carrying right on past them is illegal. MA has no such provision; therefore, it is perfectly legal, since there is no law against it.

I think that you might find that out on a LGBT forum.

What exactly is wrong with purple shirts?

I picked up some .357 at dicks in saugus last week and got the perp walk to register where the clerk asked are you carrying that now ? "nope just happy to get my ammo" true story

Never got the walk over ammo at Dick's. As for the question - "none of your business".

Slight correction -
Massachusetts has enacted
a mutual exclusion principle
for alcohol and gunpowder:

Either your gun can be loaded,
or you can be loaded,
but not both simultaneously:



Sample application: I seriously considered for a while that they didn't charge Abington Man for packing while drunk on Nantasket Beach because his Walther PPK/S was in Condition Four. (The news stories can be interpreted to allow for that set of facts). But I decided that in reality he's in so much trouble that they got writers cramp before they got around to drunk carry.

Oh, and notice that the law I quoted makes carrying under the influence illegal only if you have a license. (Firearm license - not liquor license).

MA law does not define "under the influence". Some assume it's the same as driving - 0.08% - while others air on the side of caution and stick to 0.00%.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

OP, Texas law specifically addresses this issue - posted signs are binding and carrying right on past them is illegal. MA has no such provision; therefore, it is perfectly legal, since there is no law against it.

Only if they are posted on all public accessible entrances; use specific wording; are in Englis an dSpanish; and are of a font 1" high. Businesses wanting to ban concealed and open carry need two such signs (30.06 for concealed, 30.07 for open), each of which is about 3x4ft when done in compliance with the law. I've seen non-compliant signs in TX on the Dallas schoolbook depository museum and a medical faciltity, and only seen one compliant sign on the entrance to a hospital.

 

[Glockster30]

I think that you might find that out on a LGBT forum.

What exactly is wrong with purple shirts?

Who said that there is something wrong with a purple shirt?

 

[tjtoolbox]

You may lawfully carry anyplace that you are not prohibited: Federal buildings (including the post office); schools; most state courthouses.

There is no "binding signage" law - if a sign says "no gunz", and they find out that you're carrying, they can ask you to leave. If you don't you can be charged with Trespassing.

Whenever someone says, "That law says....," I reply, "Cite, please?"

Laws, (in general) prohibit, they don't permit. You will find no law that says, " You can ignore the sign."

RB beat me by seconds.

I agree, we are a conceal carry state, what the public does NOT know will not hurt them.

 

[Mike-Mike]

Some states have "binding signage" laws. MA is not one of them.

The areas codified in statute are school propertly (MGL 169-10j) and on the surface of the ocean within 500ft of the Logan airport. There are some CMRs providing for a very minor penalty for carrying in the non-sterile part of the airport.

Plus, of course, all federally prohibited places (federal buildings, post orifices)

There are some game laws about being afield with a gun in game areas ("where birds and mammals may be found") and no, humans are not mammals under that section of the law.

Couorthouses and the statehouse are administratively prohibited, however, there is no specific law (in the case of courthouses, you might be violating a judge's order by sneaking a gun in).

There is no "alcohol premises ban" in MA, but everywhere is prohibited if you are "under the influence of alcohol".

What about this little gem..

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/930

 

[bigblue]

What defines a lawful purpose to carry on Federal facilities?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rob Boudrie]

MA law does not define "under the influence". Some assume it's the same as driving - 0.08% - while others air on the side of caution and stick to 0.00%.

The late Darius Arbabi defended a case where someone was driving and carrying.

The driver was not charged with OUI since he was under .08, however, ht was charged with carrying under the influence.

Darius won, largely by getting the cop to admit the defendant was able to legally drive in his condition, but it actually went to trial.

What defines a lawful purpose to carry on Federal facilities?

I don't remember the name, but there was an unfortunate federal decision relative to this issue regarding post offices. The court rules that congress "obviously" intended it to include things like stepping foot on postal property while legally hunting, but "obviously" did not intend to allow CCW holders to carry as that would "render the law nearly meaningless".

 

[Beardy 508]

Just one Dick saying you can't.


Do they actually have a sign like that at a store? Maybe I've just never paid any attention to it, like most signs.....................

Cue the five man electrical band. Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.

I frequent 3 Dicks sporting goods (1 in Ma and 2 in NH) never seen a sign saying no carrying. The sign they do have says something along the the lines of "check your firearms/bows in if you are bringing them for service" similar to Cabelas and bass pro. They are not asking you not to carry (even though in Ma it wouldn't matter if they are

 

[Len-2A Training]

I don't remember the name, but there was an unfortunate federal decision relative to this issue regarding post offices. The court rules that congress "obviously" intended it to include things like stepping foot on postal property while legally hunting, but "obviously" did not intend to allow CCW holders to carry as that would "render the law nearly meaningless".

It was a CO case IIRC where the guy had to park on USPO property to get his Mail. Don't recall the case name either.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It's worth noting there are different levels or prohibition:

1. Prohibited by federal law (Post orifices, etc.)

2. Prohibited by state law (schools, surface of water within 500 ft of logan airport)

3. Prohibited by CMR (carry in the non-sterile area of Logan airport)

4. Prohibited by court order (courthouses)

5. Prohibited by private administrative fiat (Gillette statium), with or without a search point.

 

[MAJoe]

The late Darius Arbabi defended a case where someone was driving and carrying.

The driver was not charged with OUI since he was under .08, however, ht was charged with carrying under the influence.

Darius won, largely by getting the cop to admit the defendant was able to legally drive in his condition, but it actually went to trial.

Would that mean it's reasonable to assume that .08 is the law regarding firearms because of that decision?

3. Prohibited by CMR (carry in the non-sterile area of Logan airport)

Stupid question, but does the non-sterile area mean the areas before TSA security?

 

[kalash]

It's worth noting there are different levels or prohibition:

1. Prohibited by federal law (Post orifices, etc.)

2. Prohibited by state law (schools, surface of water within 500 ft of logan airport)

3. Prohibited by CMR (carry in the non-sterile area of Logan airport)

4. Prohibited by court order (courthouses)

5. Prohibited by private administrative fiat (Gillette statium), with or without a search point.

How am I expected to know any and all areas that fall under any or all of those? Ridiculous.

 

[M1911]

Would that mean it's reasonable to assume that .08 is the law regarding firearms because of that decision?

No, I would not assume that. That case was not appealed, so it never went to the SJC, so that is not a binding decision.

I think it is fair to say that over .08 would be considered illegal. But it wouldn't surprise me to see another person arrested for carrying under the influence even though they were under 0.08. They might win in court, they might not.

 

[M1911]

How am I expected to know any and all areas that fall under any or all of those? Ridiculous.

MA actually has far fewer exclusionary areas than many shall issue states. There are states that prohibit carry in a church, in bars, in restaurants that serve alcohol.

 

[mbullism]

There are states that prohibit carry in a church, in bars, in restaurants that serve alcohol.

What if I have the sash?

 

[MisterHappy]

Sash trumps all.

 

[mbullism]

Sash trumps all.

Nice...

 

[MAJoe]

No, I would not assume that. That case was not appealed, so it never went to the SJC, so that is not a binding decision.

I think it is fair to say that over .08 would be considered illegal. But it wouldn't surprise me to see another person arrested for carrying under the influence even though they were under 0.08. They might win in court, they might not.

Makes sense, and something I'd not like to be the test case for. Thanks.

 

[Next Level]

Hey Len
I found this - http://concealednation.org/2015/07/...u-s-postal-property-at-all-sorry-parking-lot/
Think this may be the case. Don't know if it's going up further.
Stay safe

It was a CO case IIRC where the guy had to park on USPO property to get his Mail. Don't recall the case name either.

 

[Next Level]

Excuse me sir it sounded like you asked me how I would like to pay for this today...cash ok or do you want to know how much I have in my bank?
Douches!

"With all due respect, I will not discuss my security procedures with you."

 

[Rob Boudrie]

What about this little gem..

18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

There was a federal court decision about this (in addition to the guy in CO who wanted to park on postal property and leave his gun in his car).

The federal court ruled that congress "obviously" intended the law to cover activities such as hunting on postal land, but "obviously" never intended to include licensed concealed carry as allowing such would render the law nearly meaningless in many areas of the country.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Hey Len
I found this - http://concealednation.org/2015/07/...u-s-postal-property-at-all-sorry-parking-lot/
Think this may be the case. Don't know if it's going up further.
Stay safe

Yes, that is the case I was referring to. Thanks.

Rob is referring to the same case above. 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled against him.

 

[AHM]

Belatedly...

AHM:

Your post is not relevant to the OP's question: its about places, not what condition you're in. One may lawfully carry in a bar. You just can't be under the influence.

I don't drink....I'm legal to carry in a bar.

(Just noticed this).

For the record, I disagree.

OP asked where she can "carry" without specifying what it was she wanted to carry.

Did she want to carry a loaded gun?
Did she want to carry an unloaded gun?
Did she want to carry a one-pound coconut, gripped by the husk?

Completely unstated.

Neither did your prior answers distinguish the object being carried.


Not only can teetotalers like you carry loaded guns with impunity in Massachusetts bars (or pretty much anywhere else besides a school, court or post office),
total drunken souses can carry unloaded guns in all those places too.

Because the law that forbids carry under the influence only forbids carry of loaded firearms.

The status of the gun is just as much an element of the crime as the inebriation of the gun's carrier.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

No, I would not assume that. That case was not appealed, so it never went to the SJC, so that is not a binding decision.

The ".08 not required for a CUI" was an appellate decision and is binding until overruled by the SJC. District court decisions do not set precedent. (corrections welcome)

 

[ChevyGuy91]

(Just noticed this).

dis post gon' get a thong/gun pic reply, or nah?

 

[spt_1955]

Rob and Mike covered it and Rob cited the MA statute. No law generally says "you can do this", they all stipulate what you cannot do.

Also, I have lived here all my life and have never seen or heard of any private establishment posting such.

Next time you are headed to the Cape stop at the Hanover Mall... It's posted on every entrance door.