Budget Bill and Pepper Spray

Rob Boudrie said:
Campus cops are beholding to different overlords than muni cops and are part law enforement; part enforcer of school policy.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? My contacts at UMPD have told me repeatedly they only have the authority to uphold applicable LAWS, school policy is none of their business.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
crazymjb said:
Are you sure? My contacts at UMPD have told me repeatedly they only have the authority to uphold applicable LAWS, school policy is none of their business.

Mike
Click to expand...

Mike,

Both of you are right.

For instance, parking tickets on school property is "school policy" and not MGL. Campus police write these tickets and tow cars too. If students fail to pay the fines, their grades are withheld until they do so. If a visitor gets ticketed and refuses to pay they can't do anything about it (told to me by my Det. Lt. friend). [NOTE: UMass Campus Police may well have power over non-students being that they work for a state entity, but private colleges can't do anything.]

When it comes to actual discipline, the police write up the report and the Dean of Students usually handles it from there (expulsion from the school), while the campus police may choose (or not) to prosecute on the MGL violations.
 
crazymjb said:
Are you sure? My contacts at UMPD have told me repeatedly they only have the authority to uphold applicable LAWS, school policy is none of their business.
Click to expand...
The two overlap when it comes to discretionary items. If the administration makes it clear to the campus PD that they want OC violations prosecuted, doing so is both enforcement of the law and enforcement of school policy.

Also, campus cops are often used for access control (Len S provided an example) when on their primary payroll - a service that consists of enforcing school policy as to who can go where.

So both your contacts at UMPD and me are concurrently correct.
 
Right but thats only in situations of overlap... and I imagine in the situation you mentioned the school can do no more than simply "suggest" they are harsh on OC spray... the PD could ignore that suggestion, right?

For example UMass has a smoking ban... UMPD does not enforce that.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
crazymjb said:
Right but thats only in situations of overlap... and I imagine in the situation you mentioned the school can do no more than simply "suggest" they are harsh on OC spray... the PD could ignore that suggestion, right?

For example UMass has a smoking ban... UMPD does not enforce that.
Click to expand...
Follow the money. The school has hire/fire and budgetary authority over the PD.

There is no "hook" of a law to hang smoking enforcement on.
 
crazymjb said:
Right but thats only in situations of overlap... and I imagine in the situation you mentioned the school can do no more than simply "suggest" they are harsh on OC spray... the PD could ignore that suggestion, right?

For example UMass has a smoking ban... UMPD does not enforce that.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Click to expand...

Doesn't MGL 269 section 10j require reporting on possession of firearms and other "dangerous" weapons such as OC spray?

It looks like failing to report a violation is a misdemeanor and the responsibility falls on the police, faculty, and "administrative officer" (whatever that is).

So, not only can our staff and students not possess OC spray on campus but our campus police, faculty, and presumably staff have a legal obligation report it.
 
fshalor said:
Now I'm struggling to find it. The story I remembered was a female student at maybe Harvard? Or BU? had mace on her keychain. Swiped the key fob to enter her dorm in front of a campus cop. Result was her being arrested. (And should have been expelled based on their policy at the time.)

Looking it up now.. and... my google and NES fu is failing me.

I know Lens is aware of a few cases of prosecution, but I don't know if those ended up in expulsion.

I also know personally of an incident with an MIT graduate student from out of state. (No NR LTC, no ability to get an FID.) who was detained, but released. I think she got lucky, and I recall the incident was at some other schools event.

At least WHOI provides in writing permission for anyone affiliated with the school to carry pepper spray. (It's in writing on the "Violence Policy".) However, there was some confusion as to whether that extended to MIT.
Click to expand...
Keychain is a stupid place to carry OC. The cans are small, do not hold much product and are difficult to get a good grip on. Better off for a woman to carry a full-size can (police duty type; 3 or 4 oz.) in a Bianchi handbag that has that special compartment for quick access to concealed weapons.
 
Prepper said:
I hadn't thought of that yet... Is that other bill also making the "restricted FID" may issue also, not just the regular FID?

Not that it helps me any... As a non resident, I have no FID option.

Hey Massachusetts politicians, why do you hate women so much? You like seeing them raped or attacked by dogs? Only a psychopath would want that.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of women who carry OC without an FID, including my girlfriend. Concealed means concealed. I told her to just toss the empty can if she ever has to use it and do not tell the cops about it. I doubt if the attacker, who probably has a criminal record anyways, will go running to the cops, crying about how a woman sprayed him with OC after he attacked her.
 
Prepper said:
That could be. But, us guys are still screwed if we carry and ever get caught with it. Thing is, if you need to use on a human, you will likely get caught since someone is going to report the incident.
Click to expand...
Who will report it? The attacker, who probably has a record and/or outstanding warrants? Scumbags attack women who are alone, usually at night or in isolated places. They are not brave enough to attack a female in a crowd. Either way, all she has to do is dump the empty can after spraying the attacker and flee the scene.
 
TOM1960 said:
I know a lot of women who carry OC without an FID, including my girlfriend. Concealed means concealed. I told her to just toss the empty can if she ever has to use it and do not tell the cops about it. I doubt if the attacker, who probably has a criminal record anyways, will go running to the cops, crying about how a woman sprayed him with OC after he attacked her.
Click to expand...

Wipe sides of can on clothing or a napkin before tossing. This is MA we are talking about. They could go to great lengths to analyze the disposed of can. When I lived in that craphole state, I would always wipe down the empty cans before putting in the trash... Never know if it could find its way out of the trash and someone calls the police.
 
TOM1960 said:
Who will report it? The attacker, who probably has a record and/or outstanding warrants? Scumbags attack women who are alone, usually at night or in isolated places. They are not brave enough to attack a female in a crowd. Either way, all she has to do is dump the empty can after spraying the attacker and flee the scene.
Click to expand...

Hopefully no one, but you never know for sure. The attacker could be a dog with the owner nearby. I have encountered owners that stupid to let their Cujo merrily run around attacking people while out in a walk.

Anyway, dumping can is also my advice. Calling the police is always dangerous and should only be done if absolutely necessary.
 
Prepper said:
Hopefully no one, but you never know for sure. The attacker could be a dog with the owner nearby. I have encountered owners that stupid to let their Cujo merrily run around attacking people while out in a walk.

Anyway, dumping can is also my advice. Calling the police is always dangerous and should only be done if absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...
If the dog owner reports it, he/she will have to explain why their unleashed (illegal in most cities and towns in MA) dog was allowed to roam free and attack people.
 
The real problems occur if the attacker is caught and prosecuted. The first thing any competent defense counsel is file charges against the defender. If the defender is middle class, doesn't get a public defender, and has a clean record - but was illegally carrying OC - there is a good chance the aggressor will be offered immunity in return for his testimony.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The real problems occur if the attacker is caught and prosecuted. The first thing any competent defense counsel is file charges against the defender. If the defender is middle class, doesn't get a public defender, and has a clean record - but was illegally carrying OC - there is a good chance the aggressor will be offered immunity in return for his testimony.
Click to expand...

And that puts the victim in a very bad position. To avoid the pepper spray charges, you would basically have to deny the attack ever happened and act as if you have no idea what anyone is talking about. This will probably go badly as there may be evidence of the attack (security cameras, phone GPS, unseen witness)
 
From GOAL

GOAL has learned that a new version of the gun bill is being fast tracked through the Massachusetts State Senate.

The bill is now known as S.2265 and will be on the Senate floor for debate/vote this Thursday, July 17th.

Please call your State Senator TODAY and ask them to oppose this legislation as written.

The current version of the bill now has 105 sections, it has become a behemoth!

In particular we are opposed to multiple sections regarding suitability for FID cards, egregious changes to C140 s129D regarding seized firearms, and poorly written language regarding the legalization of Pepper Spray/Mace.

We are still going through the bill and will post more information soon.

Please note that amendments are due before 5:00 pm tomorrow, so please encourage your Senator to input changes without haste.

Contact your State Senator here.

Thank you,



Jim Wallace
Click to expand...
 
MA Legislator lookup: https://malegislature.gov/People/Search.

I called Senator Forry and expressed a concern that nearly one year after the Amy Lord abduction, my wife and daughters would still not be able to obtain pepper spray under the proposed laws in 2265. And that MA is the only state to regulate this, to what purpose?

Here it is.

SECTION 19. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in lines 6 to 8, inclusive, the words “chemical mace or any device or instrument which contains or emits a liquid, gas, powder or any other substance designed to incapacitate”.

SECTION 20. Said chapter 140 of the General Laws is hereby further amended by inserting after section 122B the following 2 sections:-

Section 122C. (a) As used in this section and section 122D, “self-defense spray” shall mean chemical mace, pepper spray or any device or instrument which contains, propels or emits a liquid, gas, powder or other substance designed to incapacitate.

(b) Whoever, not being licensed as provided in section 122B, sells self-defense spray shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in a house of correction for not less than 6 months nor more than 2 years.

(c) Whoever sells self-defense spray to a person younger than 18 years of age, if the person younger than 18 years of age does not have a firearms identification card, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $300.

(d) A person under 18 years of age who possesses self-defense spray and who does not have a firearms identification card shall be punished by a fine of not more than $300.

Section 122D. No person shall purchase or possess self-defense spray who:

(i) in a court of the commonwealth, has been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child as defined in section 52 of chapter 119 for the commission of: (A) a felony; (B) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 2 years; (C) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (D) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or (E) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession or sale of a controlled substance as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C including, but not limited to, a violation under said chapter 94C; provided, however, that except for the commission of a violent crime or a crime involving the trafficking of controlled substances, if the person has been so convicted or adjudicated or released from confinement, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever occurs last, for 5 or more years immediately preceding the purchase or possession, that person may purchase or possess self-defense spray;

(ii) in another state or federal jurisdiction, has been convicted or adjudicated a youthful offender or delinquent child for the commission of: (A) a felony; (B) a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 2 years; (C) a violent crime as defined in section 121; (D) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed; or (E) a violation of a law regulating the use, possession or sale of a controlled substance as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C; provided, however, that, except for the commission of a violent crime or a crime involving the trafficking of weapons or controlled substances, if the person has been so convicted or adjudicated or released from confinement, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever occurs last, for 5 or more years immediately preceding the purchase or possession and that applicant's right or ability to possess a rifle or shotgun has been fully restored in the jurisdiction wherein the subject conviction or adjudication was entered, then that person may purchase or possess self-defense spray;

(iii) has been committed to any hospital or institution for mental illness unless the person obtains, prior to purchase or possession, an affidavit of a registered physician attesting that such physician is familiar with the applicant's mental illness and that in the physician's opinion the applicant is not disabled by such an illness in a manner that should prevent the applicant from possessing self-defense spray;

(iv) is or has been under treatment for or committed based upon a finding that the person is a person with an alcohol use disorder or a substance use disorder, or both unless a licensed physician deems such person to be cured of such condition, in which case, such person may purchase or possess self-defense spray after 5 years from the date of such confinement or treatment; provided, however, that prior to such purchase or possession of self-defense spray, the applicant shall submit an affidavit issued by a licensed physician attesting that such physician knows the person’s history of treatment and that in that physician's opinion the applicant is deemed cured;

(v) at the time of the application, is younger than 15 years of age;

(vi) at the time of the application, is at least 15 years of age but less than 18 years of age unless the applicant submits with the application a certificate from the applicant’s parent or guardian granting the applicant permission to apply for a card;

(vii) is an alien who does not maintain lawful permanent residency;

(viii) is currently subject to: (1) an order for suspension or surrender issued pursuant to section 3B or 3C of chapter 209A or section 7 of chapter 258E; or (2) a permanent or temporary protection order issued pursuant to chapter 209A or section 7 of chapter 258E; or

(ix) is currently the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction.

Whoever purchases or possesses self-defense spray in violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in a house of correction for not less than 6 months nor more than 2 years or both such fine and imprisonment.
Click to expand...
 
So, it will still require FID? I did not see the point of that long list of amendments, other than to sound threatening.
 
I worked midnight till 8 am Friday and Saturday night as a CPD for 5 years in the late 80s.
And I could have cared less if somebody had pepper spray.
I was far too busy with all the alcohol issues going on during those nights.
 
garandman said:
The college staffs seem to be enforcing this but many Boston PD officers are of the opinion that the law is retarded, and ignore it. They have daughters too.

Amy lord was abducted and killed on 7/24/13 so there is going to be renewed focus on this as the anniversary approaches.
Click to expand...

+1 This, but.....

As if they give a sh*t about "renewed focus" on ANYTHING.....These gutless pukes simply have their own agenda and, as I've said repeatedly, until one cute, young, white yuppie type girl is abducted, raped and/or killed DAILY, they just seem to feel empowered to do whatevcer the hell they want to.

But if Amy Lord had been Amy DeLeo? Or Amy Linskey?
If Jennifer Martel (Remy's victim) had been Jennifer Naughton? etc etc.....
We wouldn't even still be talking about this. The INDIVIDUAL (not an add-on) bill probably would've been proposed, written and passed all in one week.

Or less.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
The real problems occur if the attacker is caught and prosecuted. The first thing any competent defense counsel is file charges against the defender. If the defender is middle class, doesn't get a public defender, and has a clean record - but was illegally carrying OC - there is a good chance the aggressor will be offered immunity in return for his testimony.
Click to expand...

My first thought on your post was "Oh, come on now...No way"
My second (immediately after the first) thought was "Wait, this IS the CommonPuke of LiberChusetts we're talking about"

Of COURSE this is possible. +1
 
GlockJock said:
+1 This, but.....

As if they give a sh*t about "renewed focus" on ANYTHING.....These gutless pukes simply have their own agenda and, as I've said repeatedly, until one cute, young, white yuppie type girl is abducted, raped and/or killed DAILY, they just seem to feel empowered to do whatevcer the hell they want to.

But if Amy Lord had been Amy DeLeo? Or Amy Linskey?
If Jennifer Martel (Remy's victim) had been Jennifer Naughton? etc etc.....
We wouldn't even still be talking about this. The INDIVIDUAL (not an add-on) bill probably would've been proposed, written and passed all in one week.

Or less.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. They would have gotten special protection for themselves and thrown the rest of us under the bus. Remember, most rich gun control freaks own guns or pay someone with guns to follow them around.
 
GlockJock said:
My first thought on your post was "Oh, come on now...No way"
My second (immediately after the first) thought was "Wait, this IS the CommonPuke of LiberChusetts we're talking about"

Of COURSE this is possible. +1
Click to expand...
It might be theoretically possible in the same way that it is theoretically possible that I will get the chance to sleep with Natasha Henstridge. But it's not very likely.

Most dudes who go around assaulting young women do not have high-speed low drag legal representation. They usually have public defenders who do the best they can to get a reasonable plea deal for their defendant given his lengthy criminal history.

Some years ago I broke up a fight between a dude and his GF while someone else called 911. The dude tried to walk away and I slugged him, knocking him down, and restrained him. Not only that, I told the uniformed officers and detective who showed up, and wrote up a statement noting the same.

The defense attorney (a public defender) was far more concerned that the Prosecutor had a credible witness to his clients assault than that I had technically assaulted the defendant. The guy plead out to 30 days and alcohol counselling.

Do the right thing.
 

Similar threads

Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Da_lucche
Da_lucche
Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
what is the best pepper spray to carry?
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
falcon123
falcon123
NBC news and Asian Americans
Replies
14
Views
373
1sern
1
Headspace and reloading
Replies
28
Views
525
PatMcD
PatMcD
Back
Top Bottom