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

[bostonasphalt2]

Hi BA

You mean the one about the Mrs? Yes I responded as soon as I got it. Did you not get my repsonse?

I know I typed a long reply but now it's not in my sent folder.

I wrote a letter to chief explaining I wanted to renew my LTC-A "for all legal purposes". I explained I was a resident of Mansfield for X years, trained at ABC gun school and belong to XYZ gun club.

My ref letters were just basic good character, known him for X years, responsible, safe gun owner, family man, etc etc. They did not say anything about my class to renew. The letters will need the writers address and phone number on them. you can google gun ref letters and help the writer~

Hope that helps?

Yeah, I didnt see anything in the inbox. Thanks for the help, I appreciate it!

 

[Maxspeed]

A loaded handgun MUST be under your direct control (generally interpreted as within your reach or on your person). Any other possession in a car is TRANSPORT, and guns MUST be unloaded for transport.


Thanks Rich

Dr G said it was a bad idea, I just thought maybe he was expressing an opinion. Which I would agree with. I am not trying to split hairs but if its in the glovebox and it's with in reach wouldn't that constitute "in my control"?

Also I forgot to mention that they will never be loaded in my trunk. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[RichM]

Using the glove box for carry / transport is a bad idea in MA because many uninformed gun owners assume that it can fill two niches: both appropriate for carry and appropriate for transport (and maybe even for storage).

It's problematic for carry because it's really not in your reach (questioning the "direct control" argument), and for the prevention of use by others (it's MORE accessible to your passenger than it is to you).

I believe that there has been precedent set as to the adequacy of using the glove box for transport or for storage, and the court ruled that it IS NOT acceptable, and it does NOT constitute a locked or secured container. I'll look for that link again in a moment.

ETA: I've done some looking; I see several references saying that the glove box has been ruled as inadequate for (either) transport or for storage. I found no reference pointing to a specific decision to review.

I also found a post by the late Atty. Darius Arbabi (RIP) saying that he has seen several cases involving transport in a glove box, indicating that charges will be filed.

I found several posts by Atty. Keith Langer strongly advocating that carry, transport, and storage in a glove box are illegal.

I am not a lawyer. I will neither carry, transport, nor store a loaded or an unloaded firearm in neither a locked nor an unlocked glove box in Massachusetts. In other states, I will follow their laws.

Here are just a few of the threads I looked at:

In-Car-Storage-Question

Definition-of-Direct-Control
Transportation-in-Your-Vehichle [sic]

is-it-legal-to-lock-gun-in-glove-box-unloaded

Unattended-storage-in-auto

 

[Maxspeed]

Thanks again Rich. Like I said I am new to Conceal Carry and just want to make sure I cover all bases. I took my NRA course in'05 and for some reason I remember the instructor say it was legal. My memory could be wrong though.

 

[GSG]

As I understand it, under my LTC-A ALP, I can carry a loaded handgun in my pocket, glove box, or unlocked range bag in my trunk legally and drive through a school zone or by a courthouse? Am I correct?

Short answer, you are correct except for the loaded handgun in the trunk part.

I am probably wrong on this, but my understanding in Mass the only way to carry a loaded handgun is if you have it on your person, a glove box wouldn't work, the key being loaded.

The issue is that this drifts into some gray area of MGL. Don't test your limits in Mass. unless you have a lot of time and money to devote to the court process that will follow.

In Florida where I was 2 weeks ago that is true, actually according to the Florida laws you can have a loaded or unloaded gun in a holster on the back seat in plan view and that without a carry license, their law is that it has to take you a second to pull the gun to give you time to consider. You cannot have a loaded gun just laying next to you, it has to be either in a holster (not on your person as that would require a concealed carry license) or in the glove box or in anything that you have to take it out of.
Down in Florida we would not be talking soft vs. hard cases.

To clarify a few things on the law in the state of Florida.

Without a FL license/reciprocity, a handgun or long gun must be "securely encased" if carried while accessable in the vehicle in FL; it can be loaded while it's "securely encased." Basically that means any kind of case or snapped in a holster that's not on your person; the courts have ruled that carry in a zippered bag, center console and other methods all meet the requirements of the law, but people have been arrested/hassled for it anyway. The center console seems to be a big issue with some cops, since they think that if a gun is there then it's basically carried on or about the person of the driver. The FL courts have clearly ruled that it's legal, but not every cop knows every law. It's legal for anyone over 18 to have it in the vehicle like this, even if it's a handgun. The GFSZA still applies though, so without a permit you need to comply with that while within 1,000 feet of a school.

With a FL license/reciprocity, you can carry any type of weapon (guns, brass knuckles, Class 3, prison shiv...but no ballistic knives or incendiary ammo though) any way you want in the vehicle, between seat cushions, stuck under the front seat, glove compartment, on the seat, etc. The Serbu Super Shorty shotgun is actually sold in FFL's down here with a pancake holster for CCW. There is some gray area as to whether or not guns must be concealed in the vehicle in FL (with or without a permit), so I'd recommend keeping them out of sight even if "securely encased." There's a bill in the works to legalize open carry in FL though, so if that passes it won't be an issue at all.

It is believed that the intent of the FL laws are to give you time to consider before drawing something when in the vehicle without a license, but that's not what the law actually requires. Lots of people think that there's a "3 step law" or something similar for transport, but that's not the law and never has been in FL.

Vehicle carry is extremely common down here, especially with the "take your gun to work" law that allows you to keep a gun in your vehicle at your work even if your company policy doesn't allow it. Like anywhere else in the world, not everyone knows the law, but John Gutmacher's book is to Florida what Glidden's is to Mass., so you can use it to show you're good to go if you get stopped by a cop who doesn't know any better. There are also some exemptions that allow carry on the person without a license in FL, but that's another topic (one that's covered in Gutmacher's book though).

Again, to be clear, this is the law in Florida, not Massachusetts.

Why is it that it is legal to have guns in a glass fronted gun cabinet and that meets the letter of the law without trigger locks, but we are unsure if a locked soft side gun case may not? It is easier to break the glass on that cabinet than to cut into the soft sided case.

It is not legal to have guns in a glass fronted cabinet in Massachusetts, that's a gunstore rumor that's been shot down by court cases on storage.

If you leave the guns unattended in the vehicle, then it becomes STORAGE, and all of those laws apply.

But many LEO's will hold you to both the transport and storage laws for a gun stored in a vehicle. It's not legally correct IMO, but to avoid a lot of problems, you should comply with both the safe storage and the transport requirements anytime a gun is in the vehicle in Mass., unless of course it's on your person.

I believe that there has been precedent set as to the adequacy of using the glove box for transport or for storage, and the court ruled that it IS NOT acceptable, and it does NOT constitute a locked or secured container.

No court has ruled on the legality of carry, transport or storage in the glove compartment, but people have been charged with different law violations and/or lost their LTC for doing so.

I took my NRA course in'05 and for some reason I remember the instructor say it was legal. My memory could be wrong though.

No offense intended to instructors, but not all of them know the law. They're human like everyone else, and I've gotten bad legal info from a few of them both in Mass. and down here in FL. The ones who are the most wrong are also the most vocal about how right they are in my experience, and will often refer to "what the law says" without being able to back it up with cites.

 

[drgrant]

Dr G said it was a bad idea, I just thought maybe he was expressing an opinion. Which I would agree with. I am not trying to split hairs but if its in the glovebox and it's with in reach wouldn't that constitute "in my control"?

I said it's a bad idea as a matter of fact not opinion. It's a bad idea because there is CASE LAW saying it is a bad idea. There's no waffle room on it, even if you have a good lawyer, because it's 100 times harder for them to say the law is wrong when people have already been whacked by the courts for doing the same thing. Judges like legal precedent because it gives them cover for their actions. Judicially, the court doing the same thing that happened the last X times in
the same kind of case is "safest" for them.

In theory, an unloaded handgun in a locked glovebox should be legal, but it's not. I think the crux of the issue is that the courts do not consider a glove box to be a secure container under any circumstance... and the loaded direct control thing doesn't apply, because you can't claim that you have a gun under your direct control in a vehicle if its all the way on the other side of the car. That certainly isn't "direct". Direct to me means "on your person" or " within immediate arms reach". IMHO if you couldn't stop someone from taking the gun from you wherever it is at, then you're not directly controlling it. (This part is just my opinion, FWIW, just to be clear. )

Also note that MA law appears to be more absurd involving cars than home or locations not in vehicle. For "regular" possession I believe the law states "control" for vehicles it states "direct control".

Section 131C. (a) No person carrying a loaded firearm under a Class A license issued under section 131 or 131F shall carry the same in a vehicle unless such firearm while carried therein is under the direct control of such person. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of $500.

vs:

Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

Highlights for emphasis...

-Mike

 

[GSG]

I said it's a bad idea as a matter of fact not opinion. It's a bad idea because there is CASE LAW saying it is a bad idea. There's no waffle room on it, even if you have a good lawyer, because it's 100 times harder for them to say the law is wrong when people have already been whacked by the courts for doing the same thing. Judges like legal precedent because it gives them cover for their actions. Judicially, the court doing the same thing that happened the last X times in
the same kind of case is "safest" for them.

There's only broken caselaw on glove compartment carry. It's never been tested in a higher court with an LTC holder; most probably just plea it out to avoid the insane cost of fighting it to the SJC, since they know their LTC is toast anyway.

Also note that MA law appears to be more absurd involving cars than home or locations not in vehicle. For "regular" possession I believe the law states "control" for vehicles it states "direct control".



vs:



Highlights for emphasis...

An excellant point.

 

[Maxspeed]

I said it's a bad idea as a matter of fact not opinion. It's a bad idea because there is CASE LAW saying it is a bad idea. There's no waffle room on it, even if you have a good lawyer, because it's 100 times harder for them to say the law is wrong when people have already been whacked by the courts for doing the same thing. Judges like legal precedent because it gives them cover for their actions. Judicially, the court doing the same thing that happened the last X times in
the same kind of case is "safest" for them.

In theory, an unloaded handgun in a locked glovebox should be legal, but it's not. I think the crux of the issue is that the courts do not consider a glove box to be a secure container under any circumstance... and the loaded direct control thing doesn't apply, because you can't claim that you have a gun under your direct control in a vehicle if its all the way on the other side of the car. That certainly isn't "direct". Direct to me means "on your person" or " within immediate arms reach". IMHO if you couldn't stop someone from taking the gun from you wherever it is at, then you're not directly controlling it. (This part is just my opinion, FWIW, just to be clear. )

Also note that MA law appears to be more absurd involving cars than home or locations not in vehicle. For "regular" possession I believe the law states "control" for vehicles it states "direct control".



vs:



Highlights for emphasis...

-Mike

Thanks Mike. Hope you didn't think I was insulting you by thinking it was your opinion. for the record I only have, and plan on carrying loaded on my person, unloaded in my trunk. I was just asking the glove box question because I seem to remember from gun ground school that it was considered in direct control. But that was 6 years ago so my memoery mmay be cloudy on that.

 

[piman]

The school question is always on top of my mind and I brought this up at the concealed carry course at GOAL. Here is my strategy FWIW. I always have a small hard case container, about $30 at any gun store, and an empty factory ammo box in the car. If the ride is just to the school, eg dropoff, then I don't carry. If I'm already carrying, eg pickup, then I unload the gun, put ammo in the box and the gun into the case, lock the case and put into the glove box.

 

[dwarven1]

Plus, why screw with a gun owner whose TRYING to do the right thing, but because his legislators have written a law that God Himself couldn't make sense of has failed b/c of some minor, unintentional oversight?

I wish more MA cops had your attitude, OfficerObie! +1 to you for having uncommonly good common sense.

Traditional soft cases, yes. However, cases like my Waller & Sons lockable soft safes are going to be much more difficult to break into than a cheap Plano or Doskocil plastic case, and I think would hold up to legal scrutiny much better than a Doskocil case with a padlock that I can pull a rifle out of without unlocking.

IIRC, Waller & Sons advertised that their SoftSafes were certified for air travel. Wish I'd thought to get a copy of such a cert before they went out of business, as I'm sure that most TSA clowns won't be aware of that.

It is not legal to have guns in a glass fronted cabinet in Massachusetts, that's a gunstore rumor that's been shot down by court cases on storage.

And now it's my turn to ask YOU for a citation for that. I've never heard that before.

 

[GSG]

And now it's my turn to ask YOU for a citation for that. I've never heard that before.

To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been tried in court. But based on other storage caselaw which requires a securely locked container, a glass fronted case wouldn't fly.

http://masscases.com/cases/app/64/64massappct846.html

We likewise conclude that G. L. c. 140, § 131L, requires guns to be maintained in locked containers in a way that will deter all but the most persistent from gaining access. Even a door locked with a key is not secure if the key is hanging next to the lock. Assuming the defendant's bedroom to be a container, and further that it was locked at the time of the theft, [Note 4] the defendant was in violation of G. L. c. 140, § 131L, because the lock was easily defeated by anyone with access to a bobby pin and did not prevent ready access by anyone other than the lawful owner. Because the evidence supports a finding that the room was not a securely locked container, denial of the defendant's motions for a required finding of not guilty was proper.

How persistant does one have to be to break glass?

The next case wasn't for a improper storage prosecution, but the SJC did state that the cabinet involved was not properly secured.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/447/447mass141.html

Rivers was a hunter and had a collection of approximately thirty firearms. He had a license for and was the owner of each of these guns. Kask assented to Rivers storing the weapons in her basement in a gun cabinet he would eventually build. Rivers constructed the gun cabinet from particle board. It was secured with a padlock and hasp. The hasp had exposed screws, apparently observable by anyone who inspected the cabinet, which allowed someone without a key to the lock to remove the hasp and thereby gain access to the guns.

The investigation led the police to the Kask residence the morning after the shooting. According to Kask, "they wanted to know if we had any [guns] and if any were missing." Although Rivers initially checked the gun cabinet and reported no guns missing, a second inspection by him revealed that a .357 magnum handgun was in fact missing and that the gun recovered from the shooting was the gun removed from his collection. Rivers then showed Kask that the screws in the gun cabinet's hasp were incorrectly positioned, and realized that someone had circumvented the lock by unscrewing the screws and removing the hasp, later replacing the screws to cover up the theft.

[Note 17] The decision of the judge below could be read to rely on an inaccurate assumption -- that the gun cabinet was securely locked

This was a cabinet made entirely out of wood, and the bad guy had to use tools to gain access. He could've opened a glass cabinet with his fist. If this wasn't secure, then there's no way a that a door made out of glass is secure.

 

[dwarven1]

This was a cabinet made entirely out of wood, and the bad guy had to use tools to gain access. He could've opened a glass cabinet with his fist. If this wasn't secure, then there's no way a that a door made out of glass is secure.

Hell, based on YOUR interpretation of these, a Stack-on locking cabinet isn't good enough since it can be defeated with a crowbar or a drill. Even a SAFE can be opened with a circular saw.

While I don't have to worry about a glass-fronted case (as SWMBO would pitch a fit if I brought one into the living room), I question how severe you're getting in your [strike]paranoia[/strike] interpretations. The cases you cite are of home-made cases or ones with the keys hanging next to the cabinet. I question if a commercially made glass-fronted case would be found to be inadequate or not.

 

[M1911]

And some people wonder whey I question whether a soft case with a lock on it will stand up in court

 

[drgrant]

And some people wonder whey I question whether a soft case with a lock on it will stand up in court

It depends on how far one things the claim will go....

Oh wait, you had a hard case but it wasn't attached to the vehicle with a chain! NEIN! UNCLEAN!

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

This was a cabinet made entirely out of wood, and the bad guy had to use tools to gain access. He could've opened a glass cabinet with his fist. If this wasn't secure, then there's no way a that a door made out of glass is secure.

Isn't that a civil case?

I though the summary version of Jupin v Kask was "If you have fruit loops living in your house, and guns, and you store them in a crappy cabinet, and the fruitloop does something bad with one of your guns, then you are liable. " The case does not directly address safe storage under MGL as we're talking about in this thread, but rather whether or not the storage was "negligent" given the known fruitloop having access to the home and the gun cabinet.

On the other hand at least with home based safe storage laws the "intent" behind these laws was to prevent children from having access to firearms, to prevent injuries, not to prevent theft. This is exemplified by the fact that a trigger lock or a cable lock is also sufficient for safe storage at home.

Vehicles,, on the other hand, the rationale there could vary quite a bit.

-Mike

 

[DickWanner]

Hell, based on YOUR interpretation of these, a Stack-on locking cabinet isn't good enough since it can be defeated with a crowbar or a drill. Even a SAFE can be opened with a circular saw.

While I don't have to worry about a glass-fronted case (as SWMBO would pitch a fit if I brought one into the living room), I question how severe you're getting in your [strike]paranoia[/strike] interpretations. The cases you cite are of home-made cases or ones with the keys hanging next to the cabinet. I question if a commercially made glass-fronted case would be found to be inadequate or not.

I saw a display case at Shot that had a layer of plexiglas under the regular glass so that the plexiglas would not scratch, but if the outer glass was broken then you couldn't just smash the plexiglas. Maybe something like this would be GTG in MA.

 

[timbo]

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 have a friend that has an FFL (and class III as well) and he lives right next door to a public school. IIRC he had to get a special exemption from the feds.

 

[terraformer]

Isn't that a civil case?

I though the summary version of Jupin v Kask was "If you have fruit loops living in your house, and guns, and you store them in a crappy cabinet, and the fruitloop does something bad with one of your guns, then you are liable. " The case does not directly address safe storage under MGL as we're talking about in this thread, but rather whether or not the storage was "negligent" given the known fruitloop having access to the home and the gun cabinet.

On the other hand at least with home based safe storage laws the "intent" behind these laws was to prevent children from having access to firearms, to prevent injuries, not to prevent theft. This is exemplified by the fact that a trigger lock or a cable lock is also sufficient for safe storage at home.

Vehicles,, on the other hand, the rationale there could vary quite a bit.

-Mike

Jupin was civil and it was a sane decision. He is referring to Parzick which was criminal and was an abomination. It is where the "all but the most determined" standard came from. As far as I am concerned, Lojko reversed Parzick's evilness but the SJC now has to tie break those two.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I saw a display case at Shot that had a layer of plexiglas under the regular glass so that the plexiglas would not scratch, but if the outer glass was broken then you couldn't just smash the plexiglas. Maybe something like this would be GTG in MA.

If they can pop the hinges, pry off the hasp/lock, etc. a MOTIVATED PROSECUTOR (or competent ambulance chaser in a civil case) may well go after the owner.

This is where having a top-notch FIREARMS ATTORNEY (not the guy who wrote your Will or closed on your house). He'll defend against the shark with expert knowledge of the actual law on storage.

On the other hand, if you have a mental case or criminal living in the house (or you give him access), expect to be held to a higher level of responsibility. I think that was the "motivating factor" at play in the case of the wooden cabinet being declared "inadequate".

 

[yanici]

I would think that a wooden case, even with glassfront should be more than sufficient storage if the guns had trigger locks, since trigger locks alone are allowed.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I would think that a wooden case, even with glassfront should be more than sufficient storage if the guns had trigger locks, since trigger locks alone are allowed.

This was going to be my next question, is it legal to hang a gun on your den wall or have it on your desk IF it has a trigger lock?

and if it is in a glass fronted cabinet and has a trigger lock would that be legal?

 

[atmay]

This was going to be my next question, is it legal to hang a gun on your den wall or have it on your desk IF it has a trigger lock?

and if it is in a glass fronted cabinet and has a trigger lock would that be legal?

Trigger locks (or cable action locks) meet the requirements of safe storage. What you do with firearms after putting locks on them is more or less irrelevant.

 

[Mark from MA]

How about having bolt guns with the bolts locked in the safe but rest of gun on the wall? Technically it's disabled.

 

[atmay]

How about having bolt guns with the bolts locked in the safe but rest of gun on the wall? Technically it's disabled.

This has been discussed at length many times. IIRC, the answer is usually "it might be, but I wouldn't want to be the test case"

 

[GSG]

Hell, based on YOUR interpretation of these, a Stack-on locking cabinet isn't good enough since it can be defeated with a crowbar or a drill. Even a SAFE can be opened with a circular saw.

While I don't have to worry about a glass-fronted case (as SWMBO would pitch a fit if I brought one into the living room), I question how severe you're getting in your [strike]paranoia[/strike] interpretations. The cases you cite are of home-made cases or ones with the keys hanging next to the cabinet. I question if a commercially made glass-fronted case would be found to be inadequate or not.

I didn't say that if you can get into it with tools then it's not secure, and neither did the SJC.

Isn't that a civil case?

I though the summary version of Jupin v Kask was "If you have fruit loops living in your house, and guns, and you store them in a crappy cabinet, and the fruitloop does something bad with one of your guns, then you are liable. " The case does not directly address safe storage under MGL as we're talking about in this thread, but rather whether or not the storage was "negligent" given the known fruitloop having access to the home and the gun cabinet.

On the other hand at least with home based safe storage laws the "intent" behind these laws was to prevent children from having access to firearms, to prevent injuries, not to prevent theft. This is exemplified by the fact that a trigger lock or a cable lock is also sufficient for safe storage at home.

Vehicles,, on the other hand, the rationale there could vary quite a bit.

-Mike

It was a civil case based on different standards than we're discussing, but one where the safety of the storage was touched on by the court in the details (and they said all over that case that the storage wasn't proper). They also didn't differentiate between stored to keep away from kids vs. stored to prevent theft, since the criminal involved stole the gun.

I saw a display case at Shot that had a layer of plexiglas under the regular glass so that the plexiglas would not scratch, but if the outer glass was broken then you couldn't just smash the plexiglas. Maybe something like this would be GTG in MA.

That might work.

Jupin was civil and it was a sane decision. He is referring to Parzick which was criminal and was an abomination. It is where the "all but the most determined" standard came from. As far as I am concerned, Lojko reversed Parzick's evilness but the SJC now has to tie break those two.

They quoted Parzick in Lojko, but I agree that in a roundabout way their ruling tamed the line of thought put forward in Parzick, and that it'll take a tiebreaker to say for sure.

How about having bolt guns with the bolts locked in the safe but rest of gun on the wall? Technically it's disabled.

I doubt that would suffice. We discussed it in the below thread.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/115161-Another-Storage-Securing-Question/page2

 

[OfficerObie59]

The legal standard that "all but the most persistent would be deterred from gaining access" has been reaffirmed time and time again now, most recently in Lojko . The issue I have with these cases is that they're used to punish gun owners who are unfortunate enough to have their guns stolen when the clear intent of the the law is to prevent access by children. While I don't with that either (and it's obviously unconstitutional when taking Heller via McDonald), but the fact is this is being used well beyond what even the moonbat legislators intended.

An example? Most police departments in Massachusetts hand out free cable locks as part of "Project Childsafe" that are clearly in compliance with the statute. Well, once a criminal steals the gun, he can just make a trip over to Home Depot and invest in a set of bolt cutters. Lot of good that law did for preventing criminal access. Apparently if you're willing to by bolt cutters, you are "most persistent".

Just to note, I'm not pitching an opinion--just trying to show how assinine some of this stuff is.

I wish more MA cops had your attitude, OfficerObie! +1 to you for having uncommonly good common sense.

I tend to find that a majority of cops I know are either very pro-RKBA or simply don't care one way or the other. I think making CLEO's the licensing authority in municipalities has set back the perception of police by law-abiding gun owners to such a degree that I'll be lucky to ever see recover before I retire in 30 years.

EDIT: In additon to the glass case issue, I seem to remember there's is a statute out there that restricts any firearms from being viewed from the exterior of a building...seeing if I can find the law now... Disregard, thinking of the 140/123 restriction on gun shops.

 

[MisterHappy]

The intent of the law (thinking of the children!) is no longer relevant. Witness the poor SOB in Lowell (a "Very secure" (as described by one of the cops) vault) and the guy in Manchester-by-the-Sea.

Safe storage complinace makes no difference....if you're a victim, it's your fault.

 

[Greschner 4]

Thread resurrection focusing on "firearms on school property".

Reviewing Glidden's book, specifically C.269 10(J) (Carrying Firearms on School Grounds), it is very clear a citizen cannot carry on their person a (loaded or unloaded) firearm on school property.

My questions are:

1) in MA, can you have in your car an unloaded/properly stored firearm on school property?
2) Is there any distinction in the rules among the different schools (ie grammar, secondary, high school, colleges & universities)
3) If properly stored firearms (in cars/trucks) are not allowed on school property, does the law allow for properly stored ammunition?

 

[M1911]

Thread resurrection focusing on "firearms on school property".

Reviewing Glidden's book, specifically C.269 10(J) (Carrying Firearms on School Grounds), it is very clear a citizen cannot carry on their person a (loaded or unloaded) firearm on school property.

My questions are:

1) in MA, can you have in your car an unloaded/properly stored firearm on school property?
2) Is there any distinction in the rules among the different schools (ie grammar, secondary, high school, colleges & universities)
3) If properly stored firearms (in cars/trucks) are not allowed on school property, does the law allow for properly stored ammunition?

1) Yes. That said, I seriously doubt that any police officer would know that distinction. If they find a gun properly stored in your car on school property, count on being arrested and having to fight it out in court. Note that if you were carrying, you must unload and store the gun prior to entering school property. And if anyone sees you while you are doing this, you will likely be in deep doo-doo. This is one of those "yes it is legal, but I'd never do it" things.

2) No.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Thread resurrection focusing on "firearms on school property".

Reviewing Glidden's book, specifically C.269 10(J) (Carrying Firearms on School Grounds), it is very clear a citizen cannot carry on their person a (loaded or unloaded) firearm on school property.

My questions are:

1) in MA, can you have in your car an unloaded/properly stored firearm on school property?
2) Is there any distinction in the rules among the different schools (ie grammar, secondary, high school, colleges & universities)
3) If properly stored firearms (in cars/trucks) are not allowed on school property, does the law allow for properly stored ammunition?

Read the law carefully and you'll have the answers you seek, it's right there in black and white in Glidden's book.

Then do a search here in MA Law forum and you'll find a thread or two with more info on what really happens (very different than the law). It's been discussed many times (maybe in this thread too, no time to look right now) and the info is here.