Gun locked in car on school grounds, legal?

[Rob Boudrie]

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)).

1. The federal law exempts persons licensed to possess the gun on school grounds.

2. An LTC is a license to possess, but not carry "one one's person" on school grounds in MA, and is thus a credible defense to the federal charge.

3. I don't know if the feds proscute for the "non-crime" of license possession on school grounds the way MA pd's and ada's tend to.

 

[dcmdon]

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)).

I should have said that there has never been a prosecution for an otherwise law abiding person under this law. There's no stopping some prosecutor from heaping it on top of other items they charge a person with.

Danks shot at a car, not exactly a case of someone being entrapped by the law.

The Gun Free Zone act was actually declared unconstitutional once, but then amended in 1996 by Congress to correct the problem. If memory serves me right, it ran afoul of the commerce clause somehow and didn't really have anything to do with the substance of the law. I think it has to do with the fact that the gun had to have been involved in interstate commerce i.e. made in a different state than it was used, for the law to be applicable. Thats why the current law says:

It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

Which is interesting, because if you have a S&W made in MA and you live in MA, the law actually doesn't apply.

But back to my main point, the law, if it was actually enforced has the potential to turn literally millions of people into Felons.

1) The law exempts persons with firearm who "are licensed to do so by the state in which the school zone is located". Well, this has literally millions of problems. This means that everyone who goes within 1000 ft of the school who is not licensed by their state is breaking the law.

Not a problem in the Peoples Republik of Massachusetts since you need a license to have an empty piece of brass here. But it means that any person in CT or any other state that does not license long gun owners, who drives by a school on a public road, who does not have a license is breaking the law. It also means that anyone in VT and AZ and NH who allow the unlicensed carry of handguns, who drives by the school with that handgun is in violation of the GFSZA.

2) The ATF does NOT recognize reciprocal agreements between states as being "Licensed to do so by the state in which the school zone is located".

So if you have your non resident FL license with you on a trip down south on I95, unless the gun is

a. Unloaded
b. In a locked container or a locked rack.

You are in violation of the GFSZA every time that I95 passes within 1000 ft of a school.
Please note that this can exceed the requirements of the Safe Passage portion of FOPA, which does not require a locked container if the firearm is in a vehicle where the cargo area is not accessible from inside the car.

So lets get even more imaginative. You are a NH resident. You are going hog hunting in TX. You do not have a NH concealed carry permit because you prefer to OC. You have nothing more than a bolt action rifle in a soft case in the trunk of your car. EVERY time you pass within 1000 ft of a school on your trip to TX, you are committing a Felony. Hmm. bad law.

It gets worse. The law has no exceptions for off duty LEOs or retired LEOs carrying withing the requirements of LEOSA.

Its just crazy.

So, in summary. Ignore the law. You've already broken it if you travel at all with guns. If you happen to take a shot at someone inside a school zone, be warned that this charge will probably be piled on top of the other charges.

But if you are just minding your own business trying to live a law abiding life, then pay attention to the state laws as they apply to schools and you will be fine.

But that's just free advice from some guy on the internets, so do with it what you please.

 

[NetDoc]

But if you are just minding your own business trying to live a law abiding life, then pay attention to the state laws as they apply to schools and you will be fine.

This still doesn't address the interpretation of the law in Massachusetts. The law forbids a gun may not be "on one's person" which suggests locked and stored in a trunk would be ok. But the Secretary of State is interpreting the law to read: "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."

Obviously, the most conservative course is always safest.

 

[Chet0729]

Why take the chance. Personally I would not leave my gun in the car anywhere. They are to easy to get into. Most take only a few seconds, trunk included.
Too much of a potential shit storm

 

[dcmdon]

pbleic - I have an ethical problem with leaving firearms in my car for the reasons given by Chet. I'm not saying it can't be done properly, i.e. with some kind of safe inside the car, but thats not the case with most people.

pbleic, also, thanks for bringing up that distinction. I didn't notice that the text of the law references the gun being "on your person".

Do you have a link to the actual MA law?

Don

 

[dcmdon]

Here's a link to the statute.
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section10

Its VERY clear. It doesn't matter what the Secretary of State says. Its not even open to interpretation.
If I was in a situation where it mattered to me. I would not hesitate to bring a gun onto school property in the trunk of a car if it was properly secured.

(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,

 

[M1911]

Some years back I read about a fellow that got arrested for carrying on school grounds. IIRC, it happened in Framingham. There had been some disturbance at the school around this time. A father was there to pick up his kid. He had an LTC and was carrying in a fanny pack. He got out of his car and was on school grounds (just off the sidewalk, IIRC). A police officer noticed the fanny pack and asked him if he was carrying. He answered yes, and his adventure through the justice system began.

All I read about was the arrest in the Globe. Chances are he plead out.

 

[Racenet]

Some years back I read about a fellow that got arrested for carrying on school grounds. IIRC, it happened in Framingham. There had been some disturbance at the school around this time. A father was there to pick up his kid. He had an LTC and was carrying in a fanny pack. He got out of his car and was on school grounds (just off the sidewalk, IIRC). A police officer noticed the fanny pack and asked him if he was carrying. He answered yes, and his adventure through the justice system began.

All I read about was the arrest in the Globe. Chances are he plead out.

Now, you see, it is his own fault. First of all, he should have kept his damn mouth shut. It is none of the officers business why a person decides to use a fanny pack. Period! He is only fishing by asking about it and the guy gave it to him hook, line and sinker. Why can't people grasp the concept of shutting the hell up when an officer or anyone for that matter, starts poking their nose in places it doesn't belong. You are only screwing yourself.

 

[M1911]

Now, you see, it is his own fault. First of all, he should have kept his damn mouth shut. It is none of the officers business why a person decides to use a fanny pack. Period! He is only fishing by asking about it and the guy gave it to him hook, line and sinker. Why can't people grasp the concept of shutting the hell up when an officer or anyone for that matter, starts poking their nose in places it doesn't belong. You are only screwing yourself.

Yes, he did screw up. But the net result was that a law abiding citizen who mistakenly violated a malum prohibitum law wound up in a huge amount of trouble while a police officer and a DA both got another notch on their belt.

The point is you don't have to be a dirtbag to get jacked up on such laws.

 

[Roscoe]

I think you may find that the "cold dead hands" poster are not necessarily the same posters who are recommending the belt-and-suspenders approach to avoid attracting the attention of the local gendarmes.

Haha. "gendarmes".

 

[dcmdon]

Yes, he did screw up. But the net result was that a law abiding citizen who mistakenly violated a malum prohibitum law wound up in a huge amount of trouble while a police officer and a DA both got another notch on their belt.

The point is you don't have to be a dirtbag to get jacked up on such laws.

Interesting. CT law stipulates that you must know you are breaking the law for you to be breaking the law. Absence of malice means absence of crime. A

This seems to be one of the main differences between CT and MA. People get arrested in CT for stupid gun stuff. But they are almost never prosecuted.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Some years back I read about a fellow that got arrested for carrying on school grounds.

Actually, he was "cited", not "arrested". A violation of 269-10j by an LTC-A/unrestricted holder is not an arrestable offense.

A police officer noticed the fanny pack and asked him if he was carrying.

Not only that, but he actually stopped to engage the police officer in unnecessary casual conversation that led to "is there a gun in there"?

If I was in a situation where it mattered to me. I would not hesitate to bring a gun onto school property in the trunk of a car if it was properly secured.

True, but also be aware of the practical costs such a dealing without your guns for a couple of years, hearing the words "my retainer is" and then "the bonded warehouse fee is", plus trying to get a district court judge to side with you against a police chief who is going on about "protecting the children" and making blatant mis-statements about the law to a judge who has little interest in actually checking the subtle nuances of 269-10j for him/herself.

Furthermore, you need to be VERY careful if you are even encountered with guns in a car on school property that you lay the groundwork for "not on your person" - like not saying something stupid like "I locked the gun in the trunk after parking the car so I wouldn't take it into the school" (thus admitting to a 269-10j violation).

 

[DavidC77]

I started a Thread kind of like this one.

-When-is-a-School-a-School-(In-MASS)

Most agreed, it's not a good idea to have a gun stored in your vehicle while on school grounds.

I decided I'm not going to be the test case for MASS Law on this subject, I just don't go to that cruise night now.............

I worked at a major private college, I asked them once if I could store my gun in my vehicle and couldn't get an answer from them..............

 

[Rob Boudrie]

II decided I'm not going to be the test case for MASS Law on this subject, I just don't go to that cruise night now.............

The problem is that the "test cases" on this one tend to get resolved at a low level that are of little precedental value, and do absolutely nothing to reduce the chances of bogus prosecutions. The are either won at a low court level, or plead out by someone who cannot afford the aggravation, risk and legal fees of trial. It's a non-starter for pushing the issue, as any precedent setting victory would almost certainly result in unpleasant legislative action.

 

[DavidC77]

Originally Posted by DavidC77

II decided I'm not going to be the test case for MASS Law on this subject, I just don't go to that cruise night now.............

The problem is that the "test cases" on this one tend to get resolved at a low level that are of little precedental value, and do absolutely nothing to reduce the chances of bogus prosecutions. The are either won at a low court level, or plead out by someone who cannot afford the aggravation, risk and legal fees of trial. It's a non-starter for pushing the issue, as any precedent setting victory would almost certainly result in unpleasant legislative action.

Ya I understand that MASS is messed up and doing things at the low level doesn't help.

What I meant more by my statement is I don't want to be the "test" and lose my LTC, my money, my freedom and everyother bad thing that would happen if I got nailed with the gun in my vehicle on school grounds.

Ya the law looks like it is OK to store a gun in your vehicle but as Jesse (and other stated) all it takes is one Campus Cop (or anyother LEO for that matter) to read the law as they want to and slap the shackles on me and start all kinds of trouble for me.

So I just don't go to that school parking lot were that cruise night is held.

 

[dcmdon]

Would it be unwise to ask Campus Police if I may store an unloaded and secured firearm at there station? I have an unrestricted LTC A and would like to keep that right for the rest of my life so I don't want to ask the wrong question and have it blow up in my face. I do not have a firearm on campus now nor do I plan on having one there unless I get the green light from the Campus Police.

There's certainly no legal risk to it. But I'd bet you a cup of coffee that it won't get you anything.
They are going to say no.

 

[ColdDayInHell]

Nah. The less people know about the firearms you legally own the better. Sad but true, I would never bring any gun to school. The shitstorm that could arise from doing so could be horrible.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There's certainly no legal risk to it. But I'd bet you a cup of coffee that it won't get you anything.
They are going to say no.

It may very well get you on a list of people to be watched carefully, and have this "gun info" added to departments file on you so they know about every time you have any interaction when that PD.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Maybe a little extreme, but I still would not do it.

Not really. Departments have very good systems to track ALL interaction with members of the public. I had a dealing with one department in RI some time ago, and I was told that the report of the interaction would come up every time that dept ran my name. It is not "extreme" to conclude that if you were to ask about getting "gun permission", the interaction would be placed in their files and would show up every time they pulled up the master file on you.

I know if my hometown PD runs my name, they will find a report of a vandalized mailbox and a noise complaint. It's probably the only noise complaint they ever received with a 14 page engineering study with time and frequency domain graphs over a multi-week period, certificates of calibration for the instruments used, and the professional certifications of the expert who wrote the report. I'll be the PD didn't even know there was a 5db penalty for pure tone noise where one octave was at least 3db above adjacent octaves (and we had the readings to prove such was the case). Ok, so it was overkill - but as Scrive once said, preparation is the essence of success.

 

[dcmdon]

I know my local PD in CT kept a simple searchable database of all interactions. Even if no report was filed and no arrest was made.

It sounds crazy, but that's why when the cops came onto private property when we were shooting machine guns and asked for ID, I not only refused to give ID, I refused to give him my name.
I'm fully cognizant that this is not how things work in MA. If I remember correctly there is case law where a judge upheld the revocation of a LTC based on someone's refusal to give ID to the police.

Don

 

[Len-2A Training]

My PD keeps an "incident number" in their Master File when you go in for fingerprints for your FL permit/renewal!! If you called about a barking dog (at 2AM) 10 years ago, that's in there too! I'll bet they also have me tagged for the day I called in a house fire too!

 

[dcmdon]

One could certainly FOIA any incident database kept by a PD.

Jesse - how strong are FOIA laws in MA?