Arrest for gun within 1000 feet of school, on Public Street

[vellnueve]

Because MA requires background checks for all firearms licenses, all legal firearms owners are exempt from the GFSZ act in MA. Scrivener would have a field day with this one.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Because MA requires background checks for all firearms licenses, all legal firearms owners are exempt from the GFSZ act in MA.

Legal firearms owners are exempt because they are issued a state license that allows them to carry in the SZ (but not on their person on school property). Although essentially the same result, the semantics and logic is a bit different.

 

[strangenh]

We need some free-staters to tell us to move to NH.

Why ever for? 'Cause it's not enticing enough on its own as a shining beacon of freedom just a short drive to your north?

Hey, no worries. Jose can pop in any time and tell you to move to Ohio.

On topic: Licensed owner? Firearms unloaded and locked in cases? How is this chargeable?

 

[theGringo]

Mugshot or it didn't happen.

 

[LoginName]

The story doesn't quite pass the sniff test, and if true... some PD/officer is in for a serious boot f**king.

Christ... I live directly across the street from an elementary school and could face 20-years to life just wheeling my range cart out to my car and pulling out of the driveway if there was any creditability to this.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Problems with story as told here:

- Local LEOs can NOT legally enforce Federal Laws, only state and local laws.

- GFSZ does not apply in MA as noted in prior reply, so having the guns in the car, as long as they meet MGLs on transporting them, is perfectly legal.

With that said, there is always the possibility of a LEO "playing cowboy" and doing something (making an arrest) that isn't lawful. If that is the case, the charges should be dropped post haste (the guy should refuse to sign any releases) and he should run to a lawyer post haste and start a Fed Civil Rights suit 42 USC 1983 IIRC. When he wins that, the LEO and town should set him up for life on easy street.

 

[dwarven1]

He had his pistols locked up in a case and locked in the trunk. His range bag with no weapons was on the back seat of his car.

THE USELESS "TRANSPORTATION EXEMPTION:" This extremely limited exemption would ONLY allow a motorist to transport an UNLOADED firearm in a LOCKED BOX or a LOCKED GUN RACK, assuming the motorist does not have a CCW permit as explained above.

 

[DickWanner]

Doesn't matter if he was waving a shotgun out the window while drunk with a blunt hanging out of his mouth, with the right lawyer GFSZ is basically unenforceable.

 

[drgrant]

With that said, there is always the possibility of a LEO "playing cowboy" and doing something (making an arrest) that isn't lawful. If that is the case, the charges should be dropped post haste (the guy should refuse to sign any releases) and he should run to a lawyer post haste and start a Fed Civil Rights suit 42 USC 1983 IIRC. When he wins that, the LEO and town should set him up for life on easy street.

How often are these actually successful, though? I doubt any attorneys are going to do that as a freebie up front, either. "The State" is granted stupid amounts of immunity by default. I can't imagine there are metric tons of successful cases based on 42 USC 1983 against police departments. For example, searches are often ruled illegal all the time. Worst thing that happens to the state is they get discarded from evidence, The state is never, or rarely ever held to the fire for violating someone's 4th amendment rights.

-Mike

 

[In God We Trust]

Sounds like BS to me. Only thing I can think of is it was used as a "contempt of cop" charge because the guy was a dick or something. Can't imagine any cop in his right mind thinking this was a legit charge, and I have known some real winners.

 

[terraformer]

How often are these actually successful, though? I doubt any attorneys are going to do that as a freebie up front, either. "The State" is granted stupid amounts of immunity by default. I can't imagine there are metric tons of successful cases based on 42 USC 1983 against police departments. For example, searches are often ruled illegal all the time. Worst thing that happens to the state is they get discarded from evidence, The state is never, or rarely ever held to the fire for violating someone's 4th amendment rights.

-Mike

No, but a bill from Dowd or a job loss could make it far more compelling. Keep in mind with searches, there is not just another penalty, the person would have to cop to having something in order to move forward on a civil suit. Two people have issues and the complainant has a credibility problem and is likely not sympathetic.

 

[GSG]

*sucks for the member (if it's true)... INAL, but i always thought it was no guns on school grounds / property (i.e. parking lot, inside the building ect)

Like atmay said, possession on school grounds is legal in some circumstances. However, the anti-gun EOPS attorneys have done a fine job of misdirecting LE on the law, and even if they hadn't, in the post Columbine/VT world, "let the judge sort it out" seems reasonable to a lot of people.

From what I understand the law does not include weapons in your vehicle while you are driving by. If I was your friend, I would have also waited until I was more than 1,000 feet away from the school before pulling over.

The federal law does apply if you're driving by, and waiting to pull over won't do you any good. But most legal gunowners in Mass. are exempt from the federal law.

If the story came from Texas, Florida or other gun friendly states, I would have my doubts. If it happened here, I would give it much more credibility.

Actually I think it's the opposite. In many free states it's perfectly legal to drive around with a loaded gun in the car without any kind of permit. The good thing about living in Mass. is state law has you so confined that if you follow it you'll rarely get in any kind of federal trouble, although it is possible to violate it while abiding by Mass. law.

Because MA requires background checks for all firearms licenses, all legal firearms owners are exempt from the GFSZ act in MA.

This isn't always true. New residents who've recently moved to the state, exempt non-residents and cops carrying under LEOSA could violate the GFSZ act while still complying with every aspect of MGL. This is why always transporting in a locked case is a very good idea.

On topic: Licensed owner? Firearms unloaded and locked in cases? How is this chargeable?

While what I laid out above is chargable by the feds, a local LEO is rarely allowed to enforce federal law, and the feds are rarely allowed to make warrantless arrests, even if they're riding in the car with the local. I'm guessing the OP is poorly translated, fabricated, or the beginnings of a massive lawsuit.

- GFSZ does not apply in MA as noted in prior reply, so having the guns in the car, as long as they meet MGLs on transporting them, is perfectly legal.

See what I posted above, it's possible to slip through the cracks.

"The State" is granted stupid amounts of immunity by default. I can't imagine there are metric tons of successful cases based on 42 USC 1983 against police departments.

There have been some.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I got further clarification, I am told it was in Mansfield, so I called Mansfield PD, the desk officer had never heard of it and in his opinion as long as I have a LTC All Lawful Purpose concealed carry I am fine, he wasn't sure about a "hunting and target" LTC.

The question I have on Mass Laws is handguns being transported have to be locked up ( I have a van so cannot put them in the non-existent trunk) or be on your person (LTC-A all lawful purpose).
I have an Uncle Mikes Range bag with two zippered compartments for my handguns that I put a padlock on when going to the range. I don't put a trigger lock on them since they are in a locked container, although the problem is that it is a soft-sided locked bag. Is that an issue, do I need trigger locks or a hard sided pistol case?

 

[scouter-rick]

So, Your friend is Spewing BS. Did you call him on it?

 

[M1911]

The question I have on Mass Laws is handguns being transported have to be locked up ( I have a van so cannot put them in the non-existent trunk) or be on your person (LTC-A all lawful purpose).
I have an Uncle Mikes Range bag with two zippered compartments for my handguns that I put a padlock on when going to the range. I don't put a trigger lock on them since they are in a locked container, although the problem is that it is a soft-sided locked bag. Is that an issue, do I need trigger locks or a hard sided pistol case?

Trigger locks are not suitable for transport. See MGL Chapter 140 Section 131c: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131c

Which reads, in part:

(b) No person carrying a firearm under a Class B license issued under section 131 or 131F shall possess the same in a vehicle unless such weapon is unloaded and contained within the locked trunk of such vehicle or in a locked case or other secure container. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of $500.

There is no definition of "locked case or other secure container." Some have suggested that a soft case with a lock meets the statutory requirements. I'm not aware of any precedent on this issue. A hard case with a lock would seem to be more conservative, but whether it is necessary or not is a matter of opinion. I could imagine a police officer thinking that a locked hard case is ok, but a lock on a soft case is not.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Ben, you are good with that setup.

 

[strangenh]

While what I laid out above is chargable by the feds, a local LEO is rarely allowed to enforce federal law, and the feds are rarely allowed to make warrantless arrests, even if they're riding in the car with the local. I'm guessing the OP is poorly translated, fabricated, or the beginnings of a massive lawsuit.

My thoughts exactly. My short response was w/r/t MA state and federal. As described there is nothing to charge.

 

[garandman]

what if you lived next to the school and owned guns? are you in violation? i seem to remember reading about this in anoither post some time ago, cant recall the details though. i call shenanighans, but stranger things have happened.

I'd guess a significant number of residents in Boston live within 1,000 feet of a school as the crow flies.

 

[Zarathustra11]

Trigger locks are not suitable for transport. See MGL Chapter 140 Section 131c: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131c

Which reads, in part:


There is no definition of "locked case or other secure container." Some have suggested that a soft case with a lock meets the statutory requirements. I'm not aware of any precedent on this issue. A hard case with a lock would seem to be more conservative, but whether it is necessary or not is a matter of opinion. I could imagine a police officer thinking that a locked hard case is ok, but a lock on a soft case is not.

Even if this original story turns out to be inaccurate, this thread was very informative to me and I'd like to thank everyone who contributed.

I was not distinctly aware of key elements of the MGL's brought up in this thread, and as a result, I've ordered as of last night new hard cases to transport my rifles to the range. As M1911 mentions above, I do have softcases and the rifles all have locks directly on them, but my car is a 350z and so the 'trunk' if you call it that is basically my backseat and if I were to be pulled over, it would be a difficult explanation without a hard case locked.

 

[garandman]

Chief Glidden evidently opines that a locked soft case does comply.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

If any thread keeps even one person from getting in trouble it is well worthwhile!

 

[bostonasphalt2]

I got further clarification, I am told it was in Mansfield, so I called Mansfield PD, the desk officer had never heard of it and in his opinion as long as I have a LTC All Lawful Purpose concealed carry I am fine, he wasn't sure about a "hunting and target" LTC.

The question I have on Mass Laws is handguns being transported have to be locked up ( I have a van so cannot put them in the non-existent trunk) or be on your person (LTC-A all lawful purpose).
I have an Uncle Mikes Range bag with two zippered compartments for my handguns that I put a padlock on when going to the range. I don't put a trigger lock on them since they are in a locked container, although the problem is that it is a soft-sided locked bag. Is that an issue, do I need trigger locks or a hard sided pistol case?

My neighbor has been stopped on that road while carrying with no problem, even after they asked him to get out of the car and he announced he had his LTCA and a firearm on him.

 

[M1911]

Chief Glidden evidently opines that a locked soft case does comply.

Yes, that is his opinion. Have you seen any precedent that confirms his opinion?

 

[M1911]

As M1911 mentions above, I do have softcases and the rifles all have locks directly on them, but my car is a 350z and so the 'trunk' if you call it that is basically my backseat and if I were to be pulled over, it would be a difficult explanation without a hard case locked.

As described above, trigger locks on handguns or large capacity long guns do not comply MGL C140 S131c. A soft case with a lock on the zipper, keeping the soft case closed, may meet the statute. A locked hard case clearly meets the statute.

Note that non-large capacity long guns do not need to be locked up to be in accordance with MGL C140 S131c. That said, I would not expect your average police officer to 1) realize that non-large capacity long guns do not need to be locked up or 2) be able to properly distinguish be a large capacity long and a non-large capacity long gun. So my recommendation is to transport all long guns in a locked case, even though that is not required by the MA statutes.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

it seems to come down to "soft or hard" I prefer my soft sided Uncle Mike case, but wonder if I were stopped... I would hate to be a test case

However most hard cases can be opened as easily as a soft case.

When I was flying to Florida last week I carried 4 handguns in a hard sided case in my checked luggage, usually TSA just wants the form you fill out to be put on top of the case, this time they wanted it inside with the guns so right in front of them I unlatched one side of my plastic hardsided case (the side away from the padlock) lifted it up about an inch or so, certainly wide enough to take out a gun, and put the index card inside with the guns. They thanked me as I latched it again (real secure but they were happy).

 

[Kevlar]

...When I was flying to Florida last week I carried 4 handguns in a hard sided case in my checked luggage, usually TSA just wants the form you fill out to be put on top of the case, this time they wanted it inside with the guns so right in front of them I unlatched one side of my plastic hardsided case (the side away from the padlock) lifted it up about an inch or so, certainly wide enough to take out a gun, and put the index card inside with the guns. They thanked me as I latched it again (real secure but they were happy).

You may want to get a new case for travel...

The container must be locked. A locked container is defined as one that completely secures the firearm from access by anyone other than you. Cases that can be pulled open with little effort do not meet this criterion. The pictures provided here illustrate the difference between a properly packaged and an improperly packaged firearm.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm

 

[Zarathustra11]

Not to derail this thread too much, but in case anyone's wondering, this is the case I purchased: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000P431BG/ref=oss_product

 

[OfficerObie59]

Problems with story as told here:

- Local LEOs can NOT legally enforce Federal Laws, only state and local laws.

- GFSZ does not apply in MA as noted in prior reply, so having the guns in the car, as long as they meet MGLs on transporting them, is perfectly legal.

With that said, there is always the possibility of a LEO "playing cowboy" and doing something (making an arrest) that isn't lawful. If that is the case, the charges should be dropped post haste (the guy should refuse to sign any releases) and he should run to a lawyer post haste and start a Fed Civil Rights suit 42 USC 1983 IIRC. When he wins that, the LEO and town should set him up for life on easy street.

This.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Federal GFSZ ruled unconstitutional in US v. Lopez?

Still, there's a MGL that restricts firearms posession within 1,000 feet of a school? That's news to me. There is the law that restricts fireamrs possession on school property (MGL 269/10(j)), but the only law I know if that has anything to do with "1000 feet" and "schools" is the increased penalty modifier for possession of 94C drugs with intent to distribute.

 

[highlander]

Not to derail this thread too much, but in case anyone's wondering, this is the case I purchased: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000P431BG/ref=oss_product

That looks like one of the cases I use has 2 holes for padlocks. to coment on an earlier statment Hardcases with a lock/locks are a deterent,if someone want the contents bad enough they'll get it open.

 

[LoginName]

This.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Federal GFSZ ruled unconstitutional in US v. Lopez?

Still, there's a MGL that restricts firearms posession within 1,000 feet of a school? That's news to me. There is the law that restricts fireamrs possession on school property (MGL 269/10(j)), but the only law I know if that has anything to do with "1000 feet" and "schools" is the increased penalty modifier for possession of 94C drugs with intent to distribute.

The current GFSZA came afterwards and was enacted as a result of Lopez being ruled unconstitutional...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990