Gun locked in car on school grounds, legal?

Rob Boudrie said:
Given the state you are in, and the political climate, you probably already recognized that getting caught (including a break-in of your car) will result in termination and it is unlikely your union (if any) can protect you.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But if I'm within the law, termination would be difficult and the union would have to provide legal representation. That said, it's a situation to be avoided. Where I work, the odds of theft, particularly of a well secured firearm, are very small.
 
LenS said:
Well Rick, et al:

The problem (alluded to above) is that Bridgewater State College (or whatever they call it these days) has a STATE HWY that literally runs right thru the campus and BSC's PD does patrol it and IIRC they do give out tickets to violators (including non-students) as they are specifically allowed to by statute (state school, etc.).

So are some advocating that they can't drive on the State Hwy thru the campus with guns in the trunk?

Each has to make their own decision on something like this.

[Although I've never heard/read it mentioned, one could make the same case wrt NU and Rte. 9 and perhaps BU and Comm Ave. However, being private schools they don't do traffic stops and give out tickets, search cars driving by.]
Click to expand...

Um.. Last time I checked Route 28 is a little bit away from BSC.

Route 104 goes by the edge of the campus. It really doesn't have BSC buildings on either side. They are only on the south side of the road. You don't go through any BSC gates.

The big problem is that east-west traffic through Brockton is tricky, there are very few direct routes for many east/west destination and origination pairs. Many people use Massasoit as a short cut to get over to certain stuff in West Bridgewater like Everett's.

bill
 
Maybe. But if I'm within the law, termination would be difficult and the union would have to provide legal representation. That said, it's a situation to be avoided. Where I work, the odds of theft, particularly of a well secured firearm, are very small.
Click to expand...

Better check your employee manual, and ask an attorney what chance you would have prevailing in an action if you bring a weapon onto school grounds in direct violation of the published policy.
 
the_doctor said:
Um.. Last time I checked Route 28 is a little bit away from BSC.

Route 104 goes by the edge of the campus. It really doesn't have BSC buildings on either side. They are only on the south side of the road. You don't go through any BSC gates.

The big problem is that east-west traffic through Brockton is tricky, there are very few direct routes for many east/west destination and origination pairs. Many people use Massasoit as a short cut to get over to certain stuff in West Bridgewater like Everett's.

bill
Click to expand...

My info came from some LEOs on Masscops, I have no first hand knowledge of that college's boundaries, etc. I left Masscops ~3 years ago, but specifically recall that discussion (about tickets, stops, etc.) from that source.
 
Last edited:
jdubois said:
18 USC 44 § 922(q) only applies to people who don't have a CCW license and are carrying loaded guns on public or school property.
Click to expand...
I'll reread the statute again. I didn't see a CCW license exception in past readings. Public is different than school ( i.e., post office). I'll check with ATF and see what their interpretation is. And, of course, just yesterday, English High School was locked down because of a WEAPON. Don't know the details but usually the cops lock the place down, nobody comes in and nobody goes out. Everybody gets a walk through the metal detector and some may even be searched. All vehicles are searched as they now have probable cause. They send for a warrant if you refuse. They find your gun. It's not even the one they should be looking for! You are arrested by Barney Fife (who does not know the law). An aggressive DA charges you. You make a mental note to set aside 30K to 50K of your hard earned savings for your defense/lawyer's fees, etc. Your employer terminates you because of the criminal charges against you. Your local chief takes your LTC and all your guns. Carl picks up your guns and sells them to help pay your bills. The family unit starts to come unraveled-----the nightmare continues and you're only in the spin mode of spin, crash, and burn. Melodramatic? Yes, but it's happened. Let's be careful out there.
 
The Federal Gun-Free School Zone act DOES have an exemption for anyone licensed by their local law enforcement agency, having guns on private property not part of school grounds, and others. There is not an exemption for carry on school grounds in MA law.
 
All vehicles are searched as they now have probable cause. They send for a warrant if you refuse.
Click to expand...

Any cite of this actually happening? I'm not talking about a staff member consenting a a condition of employment, or a student who is considered to check some of their rights at the schoolyard gate, but someone with lawful business at the school who declines a consent search.
 
the_doctor said:
Um.. Last time I checked Route 28 is a little bit away from BSC.

Route 104 goes by the edge of the campus. It really doesn't have BSC buildings on either side. They are only on the south side of the road. You don't go through any BSC gates.

The big problem is that east-west traffic through Brockton is tricky, there are very few direct routes for many east/west destination and origination pairs. Many people use Massasoit as a short cut to get over to certain stuff in West Bridgewater like Everett's.

bill
Click to expand...

right. Even Tufts in Medford/Somerville, there are roads with college buildings on either side, but the road is a public road and is patrolled by Somerville PD. Same idea, it is safe, I just wouldnt get out of my car and go into the Tufts building with a gun on my hip.
 
vellnueve said:
The Federal Gun-Free School Zone act DOES have an exemption for anyone licensed by their local law enforcement agency, having guns on private property not part of school grounds, and others. There is not an exemption for carry on school grounds in MA law.
Click to expand...
Checked ATF Pub. 5300.4 again. You are correct. Those from other states should check for state and local laws/regs that may trip them up. On the storage thing--I wouldn't do it just in case there's some sort of incident such as a bomb threat etc., which could lead to vehicle searches. Even though a person is in the right, things don't always go as we'd like and it may cost them to prove it. Then there's the chief of the town the school is in and your chief to consider. They may view you a little differently after an incident should your name come up. Incidents like Columbine are still fresh in the minds of some. Steering clear of potential problems (derailing of one's life) is something I advocate. Just my view however.
 
My apologies for resurrecting this thread- it was the most recent discussion of transporting to/from a campus. I'm in much the same situation- I would really like to be able to transport to school but am afraid that if my car were searched (I don't doubt that cops can come up with arbitrary probable cause), but am afraid of the repercussions if a cop were to misinterpret the MGL.

Have there been any new developments or new case law to further define the laws? So far, from what I see, it's okay to transport onto campus if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container.
 
MAshooter1 said:
I would really like to be able to transport to school but am afraid that if my car were searched (I don't doubt that cops can come up with arbitrary probable cause), but am afraid of the repercussions if a cop were to misinterpret the MGL.
Click to expand...
The only prevention from the cops screwing up is to prevent the underlying circumstance that triggers the screw up. No new case law on this AFAIK.

You can sue, but then much of the damage is already done and your suitability is long out the window.
 
This is one area where the law as written, and as how cops understand it, diverge greatly. There have been multiple cases where police acted as if a gun in the car was illegal, without any attention to the "on one's person" qualifier. I read an article in a newspaper recently where someone was caught with a gun, not on their person, and when interviewed the police spokesman mentioned that charges of "possession of a gun on school grounds" may be forthcoming.

When the police apply for a search warrant, there is no advocacy for your side, and you will not be given the chance to remind the judge that they police are asking to search for something that is not a violation of law. If the police state "we have XYZ reason to believe there is a gun in the subject's car which is a violation of 269-10(j)", there is an excellent chance the judge, who is used to dealing with criminal matters and not the subtle nuances of gun law, will accept the officer's word the gun is illegal and approve it in a heartbeat. Furthermore, even if the judge knows about the 10j nuance, and the subject is known to have an LTC, all the police have to do is state they have reason to believe there is a post-ban assault weapon in the car and the judge gets to choose: risk having a warrant he issued ruled improper, or be the judge in the news who turned down a search that would have prevented a school shooting. No brainer.

It is VERY important that anyone in such a situation never say anything that is an admission of "on one's person" - even for an instant. For example, stating that you "locked it in the trunk before going into the school" is an admission you carried on school grounds, though briefly.

I discussed this issue with the licensing officer for a solid green town (and this officers is also a "green" one in the gun licensing sense). I asked his though about the school grounds "on one's person" limitation and, even though the limitation was mentioned (but not emphasized) in Ron Glidden's class (that this officer attended - I saw him there), he did not understand the "one one's person" limitation and explained that I was wrong. When I mentioned the "one one's person" qualifier in 269-10j, he responded with "well, it's in there somewhere". And this is from an officer who is a good guy, solidly pro gun, issues unrestricted, and does not abuse the "suitability" clause.

I suspect that the imprecise and incomplete training of police, especially of campus police, on this aspect of 269-10(j) is not unintentional, and I am not aware of any training (outside the passing reference in Glidden's course) that goes beyond "guns are illegal on school grounds without a badge or permission from the school". It's an omission that supports the public policy agenda of those who do the training.

The other issue is break-in/theft. You can get lost in a crowd of one and reduce the chance of a police search to near-zero, however, you still have an issue to deal with if your car is burgled. The son of State Rep Sannicandro is going to one of the state schools, so that in and of itself presents a risk. (he got caught for vehicular B&E).
 
Last edited:
road glide 08 said:
ZERO tolerance at schools in my area, POSTED no drugs,weapons,firearms on school grounds! You lose your rights at the school entrance to the pkg. lot!
Click to expand...

A sign cannot cause something legal to be illegal, but it can be indicative of the hassle the system will try to cause.

Another bit about 269-10j - It bans any dangerous weapon "on one's person", and also defines a firearms as something that shoots a projectile by any means (so airsoft, bb, etc. is a firearm for the purpose of this subsection).
 
So answer me this then, my genious sons vehicle gets a hit from the five police dogs in the school parking lot due to the weed allegedly smoked the night before, they drag him out of the school already on lockdown in front of everybody in the whole school creating a false positive due to the fact that they didnt even find a seed after stripping the vehicle, which he does not even own its registered and titled to us his parents so i dont even know if it was legal to search it. But they found a two dollar buck lnife in the console which they measured his hand and blade length,which was legal, they made a huge deal out of it sending him to a school for problem kids, all over the newspapers(weapons seized at public school) and a meeting with us parents which the outcome was already carved in stone before we even arrived, needless to say i was pretty pissed off, they even tried to tell him that if he was pulled over driving on reg. roads that he would have been arrested for the knife which my answer was Bullshit the kids old enough for a F.I.D!
 
Last edited:
road glide 08 said:
But they found a two dollar buck lnife in the console which they measured his hand and blade length,which was legal, they made a huge deal out of it sending him to a school for problem kids, all over the newspapers(weapons seized at public school) F.I.D!
Click to expand...

Nothing of which you speak addresses any "violation of law". Schools have tremendous latitude to F kids over for violations of policy that are in no way criminal offenses and also, unfortunately, tend to have leeway for searches that would be clear violations of law if done against a non-student adult.
 
I have read through this thread and others and I understand that:

1. MA law forbids that a gun be "on one's person" while on school grounds.
2. Police officers may interpret (correctly or incorrectly; there is no case law) that "on one's person" may be in the car they are traveling in or have parked.
3. GOAL and others recommend that regardless of storage, etc., it isn't a good idea to bring a gun on school grounds.

What I would like to add to this old thread is this: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts itself may interpret this language in the most stringent form. On this web page ( http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/ciswel/weltomas.htm), which is entitled "Welcome to Massachusetts," in the section on gun laws, they state:

"No one may possess, transport or store any type of gun in a building or on the grounds of any school without prior authorization by the board in charge of the school."

It appears that someone in the Office of the Secretary of State felt that the language needed clarification, and they did.
 
pbleic said:
I have read through this thread and others and I understand that:

1. MA law forbids that a gun be "on one's person" while on school grounds.
2. Police officers may interpret (correctly or incorrectly; there is no case law) that "on one's person" may be in the car they are traveling in or have parked.
3. GOAL and others recommend that regardless of storage, etc., it isn't a good idea to bring a gun on school grounds.

What I would like to add to this old thread is this: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts itself may interpret this language in the most stringent form. On this web page ( http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/ciswel/weltomas.htm), which is entitled "Welcome to Massachusetts," in the section on gun laws, they state:

"No one may possess, transport or store any type of gun in a building or on the grounds of any school without prior authorization by the board in charge of the school."

It appears that someone in the Office of the Secretary of State felt that the language needed expansion for their agenda's purpose , and they did.
Click to expand...

FIFY


Stretching the law to a new shape, then letting it rest at that size, then stretching it again, is an old, old, policy
 
pbleic said:
I have read through this thread and others and I understand that:

1. MA law forbids that a gun be "on one's person" while on school grounds.
2. Police officers may interpret (correctly or incorrectly; there is no case law) that "on one's person" may be in the car they are traveling in or have parked.
3. GOAL and others recommend that regardless of storage, etc., it isn't a good idea to bring a gun on school grounds.

What I would like to add to this old thread is this: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts itself may interpret this language in the most stringent form. On this web page ( http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cis/ciswel/weltomas.htm), which is entitled "Welcome to Massachusetts," in the section on gun laws, they state:

"No one may possess, transport or store any type of gun in a building or on the grounds of any school without prior authorization by the board in charge of the school."

It appears that someone in the Office of the Secretary of State felt that the language needed clarification, and they did.
Click to expand...

That's not a misinterpretation. It's a blatant lie. Just because many well-educated people to include the police can't distinguish between the various types of possesion is no reason for the Secretary of State to come up with it's own logic for what that choose to say it means.

If they really want to adopt GOAL's position, they should say so. Don't lie to the sheeple because you think the people are too stupid to make the correct judgements.

At least this page is slightly more accurate. The parts of the decision in Runyan technically aren't correct anymore (though the holding still is, unfortunately), and it was nice to see Fletcher got a shout out:
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/weapons.html
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, this language has been picked up and used in many places:

Orleans Police Department Brochure on Guns: http://www.town.orleans.ma.us/pages/orleansma_police/admin/gunlaw.pdf
Town of Watertown: http://www.ci.watertown.ma.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1629
BU EE/CS Information for Students: http://www.bu.edu/ece/resources/student-resources/orientation-guide/guide-to-massachusetts/
and various places on private company websites and on other Secretary of State Websites (info for students, etc.)

Wasn't it Lenin who said: A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
 
That's not a misinterpretation. It's a blatant lie. Just because many well-educated people to include the police can't distinguish between the various types of possesion is no reason for the Secretary of State to come up with it's own logic for what that choose to say it means.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's "choose to" rather than "can't".

Just imagine the pushback a campus police chief would get if (s)he told the administration "There is nothing we can do if we learn a student has a gun in the car, as it is not a violation of law, and we are not allowed to use our police powers to get a warrant to search based on suspicion someone is breaking as school rule.".
 
vellnueve said:
Me, I'd never even try it.
Click to expand...

Me, neither. Especially not here in Mass., where they all want to take our guns away as fast as possible. Why give them any inroad or any access into our hard-earned right to carry?

If you can envision trouble down the road, avoid that situation entirely. Just my two cents.
 
vellnueve said:
Different situation for those who are students or employees. It's not just the MGLs, it's the policies of the school.

As for being near a school, I used to live across the street from two of them. Literally less than 30 yards away, with another less than a block away.. No big deal, thanks to the exemptions in the federal Victim Disarmament Zone Act (private property, and licensed by local LE)
Click to expand...

The federal law is irrelevant. There has never been a prosecution under this law, and the first one that occurs will end with the law being declared unconstitutional. Under the law, everyone in VT or AZ who carries a loaded handgun without a permit is breaking the law when they drive by a school.

Don

p.s. I know this is a MA discussion board, but I thought I'd mention how CT law differs.

1) the gun is not prohibited unless it is in a condition from which a "shot may be discharged". So if if the gun is adequately broken down, it is not illegal. The law does not have any language to the effect of "or parts from which a firearm may be assembled"
2) the person must KNOW that his actions are prohibited. (Its nice to see a malace clause in a law)
3) the person is allowed to traverse school grounds while on his way to a hunting area provided the gun is unloaded.

For reference:
Statute: http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2005/title53a/sec53a-217b.html
Standardized Jury Instructions: http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/Part8/8.2-10.htm
 
Last edited:
dcmdon said:
...There has never been a prosecution under this law, and the first one that occurs will end with the law being declared unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

There have been prosecutions resulting in conviction.

Unfortunately, upon appeal the statute has been found to be constitutional (e.g. US v. Danks (1999), US v. Dorsey (2005)).
 

Similar threads

Is the HK USP .45 legal in MA?
Replies
16
Views
514
drgrant
drgrant
Mass Legal Combat Shotguns
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
Knob Creek
Knob Creek
I open carried in Boston today
4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
4K
M1911
M1911
A real "hmm" on duty to retreat in a mass-shooting...
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
2K
HooVooLoo
HooVooLoo
Question on LTC's
2
Replies
37
Views
999
drgrant
drgrant
Back
Top Bottom