This is what I don't understand. there is a law, but it's not really a law?
That's actually the best way to describe it, another way would be "unintended consequences." They've changed the laws so many times that almost no one can make any sense out of them. You need to remember that criminals are pretty much only bound by the criminal laws, the most commonly applied being 269-10. Law abiding citizens have a myriad of other laws to follow, particularly the gun laws found in Chapter 140 of MGL.
The law is written in very simple English, and seems to suggest that carrying in the work place is protected, similar to how you can carry outside of restriction within your own home.
It's implied. I've heard anecdotes of people carrying in their place of business (i.e. a shop they own) with a restricted LTC without problems, or being told by licensing officers that it's OK. But MGL allows a police chief to basically set any restriction on an LTC s/he chooses.
If I were in your shoes, I'd try to get the LTC changed to "Employment" at the very least. ALP is obviously preferable, but there's not much gray area with Employment if you're working & carrying a gun.
The part I don't understand, AT ALL, is how there is this "defunct" law, and how it does or does not have anything to do with the scenario in the OP. This is the part I would GREATLY appreciate some more info on.
If you read the "fill in the blanks" worksheets issued to prosecutors in Mass., they are based on pre-GCA 1998 statutes. I explained this situation here in
this thread, I'll post the quote here:
Funny you should mention that. This guy was convicted for possession of a firearm without an FID card, which is legally incorrect and impossible in MGL. For many years now an LTC has been required to possess any handgun in the home in Mass., even a blackpowder one, an FID card doesn't cover it. But if you read current prosecutorial guidelines and recent SJC decisions, you'll see that the law is still being enforced as if an FID does cover a handgun.
I think there's two reasons for this. One, MGL is so confusing almost no one can make sense out of it, and two, the correct charge carries with it a mandatory minimum sentence if convicted, while the broken possession charge does not. That gives the judge & prosecution more leeway in sentencing so they can still get gun convictions without stuffing another prisoner into an already overcrowded system for a set amount of time. Johnny Felon can do 90 days in the HoC with some fines and the rest of his sentence suspended, or no time at all if there isn't enough space. #2 is a big reason why you won't see that change anytime soon, the system itself has to have leaks like this or it would be overloaded.
On top of that, the broken possession charge is a misdemeanor, while the correct one is a felony. No defense attorney in his right mind is going to complain that his client was charged with a lesser offense that gets him a lighter sentence because the law wasn't correctly applied. As you can see in this very case, the defense only challenged the broken prosecution of 269-10(n), because it would tack more time onto his client's sentence. The other legally incorrect charges were accepted with open arms.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Suffice to say almost no one wants to see 269-10 correctly enforced, other than the cops arresting criminals and the people still living with repeat offenders in their neighborhood.
That make sense? Legislative Jenga is what brought Mass. to this point.
You mean, make sure your employer doesn't disapprove! If they don't want you to carry, that information needs to be communicated to you,
It's pretty much a moot point, but if I were trying to push the limits of an LTC restriction by carrying at work (thankfully I've never been in that situation), I'd want the employer to be on board with it. It makes it look that much more legitimate.
Only reason for drawing a gun while working security is if someone's life is in danger. Even then, I would rather not draw a gun unless the BG was drawing a gun, or stabbing the hell out of somebody. A sober bouncer can typically employ restrictive force on at least twice his bodyweight in drunkards. There are also ASP batons which make excellent visual deterrents and provide a less extreme alternative to carrying/drawing a firearm for extreme emergency protection.
That's the only reason for drawing a gun period. Honestly though, in a crowded bar, a gun is a poor option. You should stick the armed guys outside, a metal detector at the door and bouncers inside with maybe OC/baton. That way it's a controlled environment, or somewhat more controlled.
In that scenario I wouldn't care about having to go through the system, I would only be concerned with the innocent life I attempted to protect. Especially if it was my own.
That can be easy to say in theory. In reality the post-shooting/post defensive use of firearm could be a worse experience than the event that triggered it. This is especially true in a state like Mass. where use of force isn't codified into law, and is judged on a case by case basis in a safe courtroom somewhere. Ever hear of
Linda Hamilton?
It appears that this law once provided unlicensed individuals a certain degree of "you can do this; you cannot do this"
Sort of. Back in the day, an FID let you possess guns (including pistols) in the home or place of business. An LTC was only needed to carry outside the home. 269-10 was written to reflect that. The law has since changed, so an LTC is required to even possess a handgun in the home. They only updated part of the law, and there's leftovers in 269-10. In the crossbow thread I linked to above you can follow that yellowbrick road.
I want to understand the transition, and the actual significance of the law in its current form. I'm surprised more people aren't asking this question.
Don't take offense at this, but most of the people here have been involved in the confusion of MGL for so long that this is old news.
How and why can the provisions for carrying firearms as outlined in c269 s10 be functionally obsolete?
What Kevlar meant is that the plain reading of 269-10(a)
alone reflects obsolete legal facts. When you piece it all together some parts of 269-10(a) still apply, some don't. But you have to look deeper than that brief paragraph, it ties in several other areas of law. I'd suggest doing some extensive searching in the Mass. law section of this forum.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
