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

[KMaurer]

The GFSZ law was ruled unconstitutional in US v Lopez as not being related to interstate commerce. Congress turned around a passed a new version of the lw with a section basically saying "Oh yes it is too related to interstate commerce." AFAIK, there hasn't been another appeal similar to Lopez, though I seem to recall an appellate case in which the court backed the government's interpretation that the 1000 feet was "as the crow flies", not as a human could actually traverse it.

Ken

 

[terraformer]

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.

Lopez did do that, but Congress rewrote it to apply only if the states don't have a policy in place on the subject or some other such stupidity. In effect making the crime a crime in the absence of clear legislative intent by the states. I don't know more beyond that it doesn't really apply in MA because of the MA statute on guns ON school property.

Now, 269 § 10 is an interesting one.

(j) Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and notwithstanding any license obtained by him under the provisions of chapter one hundred and forty, carries on his person a firearm as hereinafter defined, loaded or unloaded or other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization of the board or officer in charge of such elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. For the purpose of this paragraph, “firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.

for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

Here is the text of the old federal law. Asides from the school zone v. school property difference, what else is different?

 

[OfficerObie59]

Lopez did do that, but Congress rewrote it to apply only if the states don't have a policy in place on the subject or some other such stupidity. In effect making the crime a crime in the absence of clear legislative intent by the states. I don't know more beyond that it doesn't really apply in MA because of the MA statute on guns ON school property.

Appears that the prosecution would have to prove the firearm in question has actually moved or been used in interstate commerce...*Sigh*

Rational Basis Test + Commerce Clause = Too Much Government Power

 

[garandman]

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

No. Do you have any reason to believe he would knowingly disseminate false information, or is wrong?

 

[drgrant]

No. Do you have any reason to believe he would knowingly disseminate false information, or is wrong?

Glidden has made dubious statements like "Once a gun is an AW its always an AW, you can't make it compliant" (not the exact words, but what he said basically was that) which we know is a bunch of crap. He's typically right most of the time, but obviously far from perfect. People just treat what he says as gospel because he writes "the manual". What actually flies in court or not, however, is another story.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

No. Do you have any reason to believe he would knowingly disseminate false information, or is wrong?

I'm not in any way suggesting that Glidden is disseminating false information. The law itself is vague. Glidden has an opinion about what it means. As far as I know, there has been no precedent that clarifies the definition of a "locked case or other secure container." But Glidden wouldn't be deciding your fate -- a judge would. Will a judge have the same opinion about soft cases as Glidden? I don't know. Maybe yes. Maybe no.

Without a precedent, there is no way to say Glidden is "right" or that he is "wrong." We just don't know.

It is my opinion that a locked hard case is the more conservative legal approach than a softcase with a lock on it. YMMV.

 

[DickWanner]

I'm not in any way suggesting that Glidden is disseminating false information. The law itself is vague. Glidden has an opinion about what it means. As far as I know, there has been no precedent that clarifies the definition of a "locked case or other secure container." But Glidden wouldn't be deciding your fate -- a judge would. Will a judge have the same opinion about soft cases as Glidden? I don't know. Maybe yes. Maybe no.

Without a precedent, there is no way to say Glidden is "right" or that he is "wrong." We just don't know.

It is my opinion that a locked hard case is the more conservative legal approach than a softcase with a lock on it. YMMV.

I thought soft-sided case with a lock through the zipper was determined to be a secure container through case law? Paging GSG...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Appears that the prosecution would have to prove the firearm in question has actually moved or been used in interstate commerce...*Sigh*

.... or that the ore for the raw material was mined in another state, or the CNC machine used to machine a part, etc. moved in interstate commerce. Original intent on the "interstate commerce" clause has been all but completely lost in practice.

 

[vellnueve]

It is my opinion that a locked hard case is the more conservative legal approach than a softcase with a lock on it. YMMV.

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.

 

[doey59]

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.

I don't post much, Im more of just a reader but I had to chime in on this one. Ofc. Obie is right. Im a local LEO and theirs nothing I know of in regards to 1000 feet of school. And if it is federal then its not ours to enforce. Im not sure who told you this story or what but i spell a BIG CHUNK missing.

Not saying this story is false or anything but I would like to know the full story before passing judgement cause this is the kind of story that gets good gun people turned against LE.

 

[M1911]

I thought soft-sided case with a lock through the zipper was determined to be a secure container through case law? Paging GSG...

I'm not aware of any case law on that, only Chief Ron Glidden's opinion. If you or GSG can give me a citation, I'm all ears.

 

[DickWanner]

I'm not aware of any case law on that, only Chief Ron Glidden's opinion. If you or GSG can give me a citation, I'm all ears.

I've just heard it quoted as backed by case law by other instructors I work with. I'm hoping he can help clarify this for us (he's good about that stuff

 

[GSG]

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?

Your method is legal. I'm posting details below.

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:

The OP has a Class A, the subsection you referenced is for Class B LTC holders. If you have a Class A, there is no restriction on how you can carry an unloaded handgun in a vehicle, although storage laws will come into play depending on the location of the licensee. Class B holders have to have it locked up, not Class A.

I don't expect one cop in 100 to be able to pick up on that detail in MGL, which is why I tell everyone I know to have the gun in a locked, hardsided case that's kept out of sight when transporting in Mass.

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

GFSZ doesn't apply to people on private property unrelated to the school.

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.

You're right, no MGL mentions 1,000 feet. 269-10(j) also only applies to guns carried on the person on school grounds, not properly stored in the vehicle. Still not something I'd recommend trying though with the way the Master Crime List was misleadingly written.

I don't know more beyond that it doesn't really apply in MA because of the MA statute on guns ON school property.

On school property is fine per MGL, just not on the person. I think doing so is suitability suicide, but by the letter of the law it's legal, and other caselaw can be used to reinforce that.

I thought soft-sided case with a lock through the zipper was determined to be a secure container through case law? Paging GSG...

No. When an exempt non-resident is transporting non-large cap rifles and shotguns in Mass., they only have to have the gun enclosed in a case. There is caselaw on that where the courts said it can be anything that encloses it, even if it's not a case specifically desgined for a gun, as long as the jury buys it (the defendant had a rifle in a cardboard box). But that's only for exempt non-residents. In the Lojko case he had a trigger lock through the Glock box itself, which by design of the tupperware put it through the trigger guard of the gun, so that doesn't really apply either.

For the most part, the courts have only identified improper storage when they see it, and haven't issued a binding blanket statement on what is proper storage.

 

[GSG]

I've just heard it quoted as backed by case law by other instructors I work with.

Maybe an obscure District Court level case. There is caselaw on 140-131C, but none of it involved any kind of locked case (one was in the glove compartment, one was a handgun under the front seat), and in both cases, the person never should have been charged in the first place, because they didn't have an LTC, and 131C only applies to LTC holders.

 

[OfficerObie59]

You're right, no MGL mentions 1,000 feet. 269-10(j) also only applies to guns carried on the person on school grounds, not properly stored in the vehicle. Still not something I'd recommend trying though with the way the Master Crime List was misleadingly written.

In general, be careful when using the Master Crime List. Keep in mind it's written by the MA Sentencing Commission, and thus only includes crimes punishable by incaceration and does not include crimes punishable by fines only.

I don't expect one cop in 100 to be able to pick up on that detail in MGL, which is why I tell everyone I know to have the gun in a locked, hardsided case that's kept out of sight when transporting in Mass.

My John Scheft law text has eight--that's right, 8--pages of tables trying to make some sense of the MA gun laws. I concentrate on the biggie offenses--as far as transport, many cops I know don't even bother because it's so damn complicated. 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?

They're as complicated for us cops as they are for everyone else, which is one of the many reasons I wholly support H.2259.

 

[GSG]

In general, be careful when using the Master Crime List. Keep in mind it's written by the MA Sentencing Commission, and thus only includes crimes punishable by incaceration and does not include crimes punishable by fines only.

Good point, I know there's a lot missing and things incorrectly labelled on it. My point is that the courts (especially the lower courts) tend to use blunt logical instruments when dealing with gun cases; they catch the big stuff, but the details often escape them. I can show you cases where even the SJC misread MGL and totally screwed up rulings because of it, or missed very important details.

They're as complicated for us cops as they are for everyone else, which is one of the many reasons I wholly support H.2259.

I didn't mean that as a dig against cops in Mass. Most of the ones I know and have met are pro-gun, especially the ones who went through the academy pre-'98. All I'm saying is if the gun is locked up unloaded in a hardsided case, you're in compliance with all the laws (transport, storage, GFSZ). It just means you're putting yourself in a position where the cop doesn't have to sort out the bizarre details of MGL. There's always the risk of running into Rodney Farva.

 

[OfficerObie59]

I didn't mean that as a dig against cops in Mass. Most of the ones I know and have met are pro-gun, especially the ones who went through the academy pre-'98. All I'm saying is if the gun is locked up unloaded in a hardsided case, you're in compliance with all the laws (transport, storage, GFSZ). It just means you're putting yourself in a position where the cop doesn't have to sort out the bizarre details of MGL. There's always the risk of running into Rodney Farva.

I didn't take it as a dig at all. My point was simply that the firearms laws in this state are as complicated and as mind boggling for LEO's as they are for the citizens. Of the almost 20,000 LEO's in MA, it would be follish of me to assume there isn't one who wouldn't try to jam an improper trasport charge up some completely law-abiding gun owner's keister. And while it's certainly not a reason to let one's guard down, by and large, most cops either don't care or don't have the patience to wade through the stupid restrictions and the mess that the legislature has made out of the state's gun statues.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I don't expect one cop in 100 to be able to pick up on that detail in MGL, which is why I tell everyone I know to have the gun in a locked, hardsided case that's kept out of sight when transporting in Mass.

GFSZ doesn't apply to people on private property unrelated to the school.

Sorry, I see NO NEED for "hardsided" cases. I have them and they take up tons of space in Honda's trunk. Much prefer my soft cases and as long as they are locked they are in COMPLIANCE (uber compliance in a trunk, but my point stands for an SUV/truck too)!! Yes, after the recent case (locked case in cooler) there are some cops that want to see a trigger lock, then locked in a hard case, then locked in a bolted-down safe! That just isn't in the law . . . period! As has been pointed out, the law is not an anti-theft law, it is to keep someone from picking it up and shooting it IMMEDIATELY! All locks, boxes, hard cases, etc. can be defeated with simple tools and a bit of time.


I keep telling people if Glidden takes 450 pgs to explain MA gun laws, don't expect any street cop to be reading and understanding it! There are a lot more laws that officers have to deal with and they can't be expected to be walking encyclopedias on all things.

My John Scheft law text has eight--that's right, 8--pages of tables trying to make some sense of the MA gun laws. I concentrate on the biggie offenses--as far as transport, many cops I know don't even bother because it's so damn complicated. 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?

They're as complicated for us cops as they are for everyone else, which is one of the many reasons I wholly support H.2259.

I'd really like to see what John wrote on the subject. I've never seen his work in cop shops, only those by other authors (Collins, Whelan, etc.). I rarely stop in on AAA Police Supply, but I am sometimes in their area (and Mark is a member at MF&G).

Yup, if you aren't familiar with a particular gun, it's easy NOT to know if it is large capacity or not. There are probably plenty of long guns out there that I'd have no idea w/o doing some research on that particular model. Now think of the disadvantage a cop has on the street trying to make that determination!

Now with all that said, some TV station just showed an "arsenal" that Boston PD picked up . . . guy & gal had 4 "rifles" (one is a 12 ga "rifle" ), ammo, $21K in cash and drugs. Since they were in an apt across the street from a school and a daycare center, the reporter (?) announced that they were being charged with being within 1000' of a school (implying the guns, but reality is probably dealing drugs), possession without an FID, etc. I tried finding it on the Web and no luck, sorry.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

You're right, no MGL mentions 1,000 feet. 269-10(j) also only applies to guns carried on the person on school grounds, not properly stored in the vehicle. Still not something I'd recommend trying though with the way the Master Crime List was misleadingly written.

I would bet that not one cop in a dozen understands the "on one's person" nuance of 269-10j. Also, a "not one one's person" case can change into admission of guilt with an imprudently chosen statement like "I put the gun in the trunk before going into the school" ... which is why one almost needs a law degree to fully comply with MA gun law.

 

[DickWanner]

Maybe an obscure District Court level case. There is caselaw on 140-131C, but none of it involved any kind of locked case (one was in the glove compartment, one was a handgun under the front seat), and in both cases, the person never should have been charged in the first place, because they didn't have an LTC, and 131C only applies to LTC holders.

Thanks for the correction bud

 

[GSG]

Sorry, I see NO NEED for "hardsided" cases. I have them and they take up tons of space in Honda's trunk. Much prefer my soft cases and as long as they are locked they are in COMPLIANCE (uber compliance in a trunk, but my point stands for an SUV/truck too)!! Yes, after the recent case (locked case in cooler) there are some cops that want to see a trigger lock, then locked in a hard case, then locked in a bolted-down safe! That just isn't in the law . . . period!

I tell people that because most gun owners are casual in their understanding of the law. That advice makes sure they're good to go with transport, storage, and most LE perception. Some of us here on NES could spend 10 minutes giving a cop a friendly roadside class on MGL & CMR, but like you said about cops, most people aren't encyclopedias. People learn "no guns in schools," "lock it up when it's not under your control," not the intricate web woven by 269-10(j)/18 USC 922(q) & 140-131L & the courts in their explorations of the limits of those laws. It's extremely difficult to be anything but a studious gun owner in Massachusetts if you want to stay in compliance with the law, but keeping it simple like that makes it possible for the everyday kind of person to stay legal and out of most trouble altogether.

When I lived in Mass., I transported guns as I described above when convenient, although when space became an issue, I followed the letter of the law. It could be your ticket out of a nightmare in one of those perfect storm situations if you left a case in your driveway or something while loading up the car too.

Also, a "not one one's person" case can change into admission of guilt with an imprudently chosen statement like "I put the gun in the trunk before going into the school" ... which is why one almost needs a law degree to fully comply with MA gun law.

Exactly. It's those kind of details that are the difference between legal and illegal activity.

Thanks for the correction bud

No problem. I remember us talking about transport laws at length just recently, sorry if I muddled things in your head with my meandering conversation style.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It could be your ticket out of a nightmare in one of those perfect storm situations if you left a case in your driveway or something while loading up the car too.

I understand your point perfectly.

The blessings of having an attached garage is nobody sees anything!

Anyone that would leave a gun case of any sort in their driveway unguarded deserves to be hit upside the head. Just the thought of doing that somewhere like where MFS is located gives me the creeps!

 

[Maxspeed]

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?

I live in Mansfield and would be interested in the outcome. 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?

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I live in Mansfield and would be interested in the outcome. 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?

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.
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.

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.

 

[drgrant]

I live in Mansfield and would be interested in the outcome. 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?

Glove box in MA w/handgun = really bad idea under ANY conditions.

 

[Maxspeed]

Hi dr

I never plan on doing that. I am new to carry so it will either be in my pocket in a holster or in my trunk. Just want to make sure I understand the legality.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Hi dr

I never plan on doing that. I am new to carry so it will either be in my pocket in a holster or in my trunk. Just want to make sure I understand the legality.

HEy, sorry to thread hijack, did you ever get my PM?

 

[Maxspeed]

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?

 

[glockshooter]

There are more facts to this story... If not then this is typical MA BS.

 

[RichM]

I live in Mansfield and would be interested in the outcome. 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?

Dr. Grant pointed out that a loaded handgun in a glove box is not permitted.

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.

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

Please don't get these three sets of circumstances mixed up.