Gould v O'Leary - Comm2A Carry Case v. Boston / Brookline

Rob Boudrie said:
You are correct. Precedent established that differences in various sections of the law are construed to have meaning(*),

<snip>

* - This logic is why the "one one's person" clause in 269-10(j) has been construed to have meaning, despite the fact that virtually everyone in the justice chain from local cop to persecutor to court would prefer it not be so.
Click to expand...

I can't find "one one's person" in 269-10(j), is that the right section?
 
milktree said:
I can't find "one one's person" in 269-10(j), is that the right section?
Click to expand...
It is section 10, part j - not section 10j.

General Law - Part IV, Title I, Chapter 269, Section 10

The relevant text is:

(j) For the purposes of this paragraph, ''firearm'' shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged.

Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer and notwithstanding any license obtained by the person pursuant to chapter 140, carries on the person a firearm, 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 the elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or both. A law enforcement officer may arrest without a warrant and detain a person found carrying a firearm in violation of this paragraph.
Click to expand...
 
milktree said:
Kinda... there's a bunch of terms that are used differently in different places that aren't in that list. And that list doesn't apply to *all* laws, just the ones it applies to.

I can't think of specific examples off the top of my head, but I've run across them.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say that the definitions there were well written or complete...
 
(j) For the purposes of this paragraph, ''firearm'' shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged.
Click to expand...

So electronic weapons are gtg on school grounds if they don't fire the barbs?
 
No, there is an other dangerous weapon clause that acts as a catch all.

ETA: here is a portion of text of the law about school grounds. Note the “other dangerous weapon” language, which is a catch all that allows them to arrest and charge people for carrying OC spray and the like on campus:

Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer and notwithstanding any license obtained by the person pursuant to chapter 140, carries on the person a firearm, loaded or unloaded, or other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Not sure if that is what was meant by "zoobow" or if its existence even pre-dated MA law on the subject. Safest to just carry a gun to be compliant with MGL.
 
One of the biggest issues with MGLs is that they don't use formatting (indentations, headers, bold text) on the legislature's website, or really in any publicly available source, and they're organized on the website in a really stupid way, section by section.

That might sound like a silly complaint, but compare the NH, VT, or CT legislature's website to the MA one. The NH and CT websites look like they're straight out of 1996, but they're way more readable than MA's. And you can generally find the definition of terms without leaving the page.

VT: Vermont Laws
NH: CHAPTER 159 PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS
CT: Chapter 529 - Division Of State Police

Compare to this clusterf***: General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131

I bet MA spent 100x what NH or CT spent on their websites, and you can't figure out what the hell the MA laws say without 30 minutes of searching.
 
Knuckle Dragger said:
Not much to report from today's hearing. We had 10 minutes, they had ten minutes. Boston, Brookline, and the Commonwealth split their time 3-3-4. For the most part the judges didn't allow any extra time.

We should have audio tomorrow.
Click to expand...
How soon after the hearing to they decide?
 
Did the victims of the Orlando nightclub or Aurora movie theater anticipate a need to be carrying a gun ? What clowns some of these so called intellectual judges are. I’m a plumber an$ have more common sense in my pinky that 5hose mouthpieces!
 
In the unlikely event that we actually win in CA1, would the defense then ask for an En banc? I know that the first circuit doesn't grant them easily but that would be their next logical step correct?
 
So let me see if I have this right. Comm2A argues (rightfully) that RKBA is a core human right, as exemplified by 100's of years of first British, then American case law, and as enshrined in our 2nd amendment. Comm2A then argues (rightly) that our licensing scheme strips away that core right. Somewhere in the late 1800's/early 1900's, individual states start to pass laws restricting this right. SCOTUS, via Heller, then re-affirms RKBA, not just in the home but outside the home. But, the 3-judge panel argues that America has always had a "regional" interpretation of RKBA, i.e. permissive south/west vs restrictive N.E. And the 3-judge panel argues that our "unique" security and public safety concerns here in the urban N.E., and our 80+ years of restrictive case law, are "OK" and hence pave the way to allow for more restrictions on 2A?
 
cjroot said:
So let me see if I have this right. Comm2A argues (rightfully) that RKBA is a core human right, as exemplified by 100's of years of first British, then American case law, and as enshrined in our 2nd amendment. Comm2A then argues (rightly) that our licensing scheme strips away that core right. Somewhere in the late 1800's/early 1900's, individual states start to pass laws restricting this right. SCOTUS, via Heller, then re-affirms RKBA, not just in the home but outside the home. But, the 3-judge panel argues that America has always had a "regional" interpretation of RKBA, i.e. permissive south/west vs restrictive N.E. And the 3-judge panel argues that our "unique" security and public safety concerns here in the urban N.E., and our 80+ years of restrictive case law, are "OK" and hence pave the way to allow for more restrictions on 2A?
Click to expand...
I, for one, think this is a fantastic ruling. Now we can change the level of 4A that the police have to comply with in the inner cities because of their long history of stop and frisk and their "unique" security and public safety concerns that we in the suburbs don't have.

ETA: And we don't have to worry about racial civil liberties either in case some of you may want to argue that this disproportionally impacts minorities.
 

Similar threads

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals overturns dismissal of CT's Nastri v. Dykes (CT park carry ban)
Replies
0
Views
130
sbhaven
S
LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
269
M1911
M1911
Pdp v canik
Replies
7
Views
340
wcorey
W
Carry in Post Office
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Boston Police Officer Shot
Replies
21
Views
701
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom