Does "no trespass order" hurt your firearm rights in MA

[CAESAR]

I thought I was knowledgeable in the firearms laws but was asked by a friend and embarrassingly couldn't answer right away. So, turning to you - my scholars database.

"no trespass" - Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 266, Section 120.

I know restraining order hurts one's rights. But one cannot issue restraining order from a business (rather than a person or am I wrong?). How about "no trespass" issued by a private business?

Anyone knows?

 

[Len-2A Training]

You won't find any MGL dictating confiscation of an LTC and all guns/ammo. However, a chief can definitely use the no trespass order to deem someone "unsuitable" and do the aforementioned confiscation.

 

[nstassel]

While I don't disagree that a chief might use a no trespass order to deny on suitability grounds, I don't think they would be able to sustain their burden to show a potential risk to public safety if there was an appeal of the denial. The other issue is how would they know if an applicant has a "no tresspass".

 

[42!]

While I don't disagree that a chief might use a no trespass order to deny on suitability grounds, I don't think they would be able to sustain their burden to show a potential risk to public safety if there was an appeal of the denial. The other issue is how would they know if an applicant has a "no tresspass".

Presumably the police were involved. When they run your ID it will include that they have an LTC, then it just depends on if the PO running the check wants to be an a**h*** and call you LO.

 

[Len-2A Training]

While I don't disagree that a chief might use a no trespass order to deny on suitability grounds, I don't think they would be able to sustain their burden to show a potential risk to public safety if there was an appeal of the denial. The other issue is how would they know if an applicant has a "no tresspass".

As a retired MA Constable, I can easily answer the 2nd part of your post.

Each time I served a no trespass order (MA PDs called it a "letter of disinvite" IIRC), I was also required to serve a duplicate to the local PD. That allowed the PD to arrest on sight if the person was seen on the property.

As for your first part, I think that it would depend on the reason for the no trespass order. If someone destroyed another person's property or some other violent act, I could easily believe that a court would allow the unsuitability actions.

 

[nstassel]

As a retired MA Constable, I can easily answer the 2nd part of your post.

Each time I served a no trespass order (MA PDs called it a "letter of disinvite" IIRC), I was also required to serve a duplicate to the local PD. That allowed the PD to arrest on sight if the person was seen on the property.

As for your first part, I think that it would depend on the reason for the no trespass order. If someone destroyed another person's property or some other violent act, I could easily believe that a court would allow the unsuitability actions.

Interesting about the notification to the police. However the mere fact of a no trespass I don't think are valid grounds without credible evidence of why an order was issued. That can be just a property owner not wanting their grass walked on possibly.

 

[MadatMarek]

My own experience is similar to what Len has said a letter is written to the person and the local pd how that is filed or kept is possibly a local issue. I can see most of them maybe making the circular file.

 

[kevin9]

While I don't disagree that a chief might use a no trespass order to deny on suitability grounds, I don't think they would be able to sustain their burden to show a potential risk to public safety if there was an appeal of the denial. The other issue is how would they know if an applicant has a "no tresspass".

True, but that doesn't necessarily (or rarely?) stop a chief from issuing a denial/revocation to begin with. It simply means one has a chance of getting their LTC (and maybe guns) back eventually, once it gets to court.

 

[CAESAR]

OK so the answer to every gun question in MA stays the same: "Get out of MA to a red state" . Thanks guys.

 

[CAESAR]

As a retired MA Constable, I can easily answer the 2nd part of your post.

Each time I served a no trespass order (MA PDs called it a "letter of disinvite" IIRC), I was also required to serve a duplicate to the local PD. That allowed the PD to arrest on sight if the person was seen on the property.

As for your first part, I think that it would depend on the reason for the no trespass order. If someone destroyed another person's property or some other violent act, I could easily believe that a court would allow the unsuitability actions.

Interesting.... How long does it usually take to serve the order from time of the initiation?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Interesting.... How long does it usually take to serve the order from time of the initiation?

I would get a phone call, either they Fax me the papers (remember this was years ago) or I meet them. I go and serve the papers (usually same day) and stop at the PD immediately afterward to serve them as well. If they use the sheriff's office it could take multiple days.

 

[556USER]

OK so the answer to every gun question in MA stays the same: "Get out of MA to a red state" . Thanks guys.

This is the correct answer, however the quintessential question is why do we have to even ask questions about guns with regard to MA? Once you ponder that one it should dawn on you that you are in the wrong place.

 

[Hogie1]

My own experience is similar to what Len has said a letter is written to the person and the local pd how that is filed or kept is possibly a local issue. I can see most of them maybe making the circular file.

I would disagree about the circular file. An embarrassingly large amount of paperwork is filed/kept within a police dept (at least the one I previously worked for). Not only in what was filed, but logged and attached to parties involved & location. Especially with restraining orders under MGL 209A and the newer Harassment Prevention Orders under MGL 258E (which need 3 or more committed acts), accurate record keeping/data compilation is a must.

 

[RKG]

By itself, the fact that a property owner issued a “No Trespass” order against an individual should have no effect at all on an LTC. As someone observed, such orders arise under ch. 266, § 120. Such an order is the result of action by an individual, not the police or any other governmental body, and the owner of land can order someone not to trespass for any reason at all, or for no reason. The only legal significance of having been issued such an order is that the person so ordered who later enters the property (or having entered, refuses to leave) can be arrested by a police officer without a warrant, and is subject to criminal penalties. Police departments keep a record of such orders, if at all, solely to be sure that any such arrest is authorized by § 120.

So the question is, as Len points out, whether having been issued a No Trespass order, a person could be denied an LTC or, possibly, have an existing LTC revoked. As Len suggests, any such action would have to be based on whatever underlying facts preceded the No Trespass order. It could be for as little as some dude walking his dog on the wife’s prized lawn. Or for as much as serious malicious damage to property.

A subsidiary issue is what the significance of the “suitability” requirement of ch. 140, § 131 remains after the Supreme Court Bruen decision. Subject for another day.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A subsidiary issue is what the significance of the “suitability” requirement of ch. 140, § 131 remains after the Supreme Court Bruen decision. Subject for another day.

It was changed to dangerousness or potential for dangerousness instead of "unsuitable to be so licensed", however, that has not prevented some district courts from continuing to apply the old standad of helburne vs Moyer which was much broader.

When the standard was changed, there was a backk room deal that pulled the majoc two words "de novo" from the section regarding LTC denial reviews. This was a critical loss, and GOAL was silent on the issue. I consider "nobody knew who did it" or "a friend stabbed us in the back and GOAL did not want to piss him/her off" as the reason for this silence.

 

[PaulR]

Woops.
I once served a No Trespass order against someone who kept dumping garbage in our dumpster.
I hope I didn't deny them their 2A rights!

 

[Len-2A Training]

Woops.
I once served a No Trespass order against someone who kept dumping garbage in our dumpster.
I hope I didn't deny them their 2A rights!

I hope his/her chief didn't make a big stink about it. That type of no trespass order shouldn't raise to the level of being unsuitable and I don't think that any court would support such an action.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I hope his/her chief didn't make a big stink about it. That type of no trespass order shouldn't raise to the level of being unsuitable and I don't think that any court would support such an action.

Coming from Lens of all people, that is quite a statement of confidence in the MA judiciary.