Concealed Carry in a Post Ofiice

[Scrivener]

A related question, an off-duty cop (didn't get what city) and I were talking in a gun store recently when CCW came up. I had just run over to the ATM for some cash and he "wanted to let me know" I couldn't carry in a bank. Searching the MGL's didn't turn up anything on that topic -- did I miss something in my CCW education?

-= chuck

Yes: Don't take legal advice from cops, dispatchers and gun store "experts."

While the bank may certainly post its property, there is nothing illegal about carrying in a bank.

[LenS]

Chuck, you were smart to go check for yourself.

No such "law" in MA.

[Pilgrim]

note subsection (d) (3)

[codenamepaul]

Seems to me that 'other lawful purposes' would cover legal CCW especially since hunting is mentioned separately. If there is no metal detector, I'm carrying anyway.

[RKG]

Seems to me that 'other lawful purposes' would cover legal CCW especially since hunting is mentioned separately. If there is no metal detector, I'm carrying anyway.

See my post above. The only decided case I could find holds that simple carrying because you are licensed by the state to do so does not qualify for the "other lawful purposes" exception.

[ScottS]

See my post above. The only decided case I could find holds that simple carrying because you are licensed by the state to do so does not qualify for the "other lawful purposes" exception.

Do you have a link to US v Murray, cited above? I must be a spaz, because I can usually find this stuff, but my search foo is weak. I'd like to read the background.

Thanks for the help.

[codenamepaul]

Ditto here. Google and Findlaw are getting me crap.

[DR]

Do you have a link to US v Murray, cited above? I must be a spaz, because I can usually find this stuff, but my search foo is weak. I'd like to read the background.

Thanks for the help.

United States v. Murray, 271 F.3d 349

BugMeNot has some valid logins if needed.

[ScottS]

United States v. Murray, 271 F.3d 349

BugMeNot has some valid logins if needed.

Thank you. I don't know why the hell I couldn't find that.

I have a question for legal beagles. The only reference to the "other lawful purposes" portion of the law is in a footnote, which doesn't read as if it's a part of the decision, but rather as editorial comment for the reader. Can anyone familiar with this sort of thing tell me who wrote the footnote, and whether or not it's a part of the actual decision?

Thanks.

And thanks, again, for the link.

[Rob Boudrie]

What is most interesting is that the defense was based on "knowingly" and that the "incidental to lawful purposes" issue was not raised (or at least not mentioned in the on-line version of the case).