I wish we could do this here in MA...

[Dave_W]

Hi All,

I was reading an interesting story on the JPFO website (http://www.vcdl.org/Tonys/mcpd.html) about an incident in Virginia.

There was a line at the bottom of the page about open carry that made me think about MA law.

The comment was (at the end of the page under refrences):

Virginia does NOT have a law authorizing "open carry" anymore than it has a law authorizing you to wear a red shirt or green pants. The key concept is "what isn't prohibited is therefore allowed". In Virginia, open carry is legal in most places with or without a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP)​

Does anybody think we could get the same kind of turnout for opening a few peoples eyes in Massachusetts?

I can only hope.

Also, under the MA law (Chapter 140: Section 131) how is this for ambiguous bs: "use or carrying of such firearm as the licensing authority deems proper"

Who do we have to push in order to get a definition of what's 'proper'?

David

 

[jar]

I've posted it before, and I'll keep posting it every time it's brought up. There are far bigger fish to fry in MA than open carry. Get rid of CLEO discretion as to who can OWN a handgun, and then we'll talk about open carry.

 

[jcr]

Virginia's State Constitution has a "right to keep and bear arms" type right declared that doesn't have the possibly ambiguous phrase "for the common defense" that Massachusetts Declaration of Rights does.

Moreover, VA has had court decisions that have stated that the VA right means what it says, whereas the MA the SJC, in Commonwealth v Davis (1976), stated that they don't care what our MA DoR says, there is no individual right to own a gun.

So in VA, even if the hysterical public whines when they see an open carried gun, they cannot get a law passed that would violate the right to bear arms there. They might be able to ban all concealed carry, but the people would always have the right to open carry.

In MA, if you open carry (which is theoretically legal), your chief could revoke your license (on suitablity grounds), or restrict it so severely (as he deems reasonable) and you will lose any appeal in court.

That is why Open Carry events work in some states, but not in Massachusetts.

 

[jpattersonnh]

I carry open most of the time. Most people don't even notice.

 

[Dave_W]

Preaching to the choir?

Guess I'm just venting.

Can't wait until I can move to a 'free' state.

David

 

[Palladin]

I've posted it before, and I'll keep posting it every time it's brought up. There are far bigger fish to fry in MA than open carry. Get rid of CLEO discretion as to who can OWN a handgun, and then we'll talk about open carry.

Seriously. This has to be a # 1 issue.

 

[terraformer]

Seriously. This has to be a # 1 issue.

Exactly, and here is why:

Woman plans lawsuit in gun case
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
BY MONICA VON DOBENECK
Of Our Lebanon County Bureau
LEBANON - Meleanie Hain's attorney says the Lebanon woman has endured the ridicule of neighbors and lost baby-sitting jobs since she achieved notoriety for openly, and legally, carrying a gun to her 5-year-old daughter's soccer game.

And it's Sheriff Michael DeLeo's fault, according to a malicious-prosecution lawsuit that civil rights attorney Matthew Weisberg said he plans to file Monday.

"The sheriff should have known Meleanie had the right to openly carry," the Philadelphia-area attorney said.

Since DeLeo tried to take away her permit to carry a concealed weapon, "she has become a pariah in her small community," Weisberg said.

Hain achieved national attention after she took a gun, holstered on her hip, to a soccer game Sept. 11 at Optimist Park in Lebanon. After some other parents complained, DeLeo revoked her concealed weapons permit, saying she showed poor judgment.

Lebanon County Judge Robert J. Eby reversed the sheriff's decision on appeal during a court hearing attended by about 60 gun rights activists.

Eby also lectured Hain, telling her that what is legal is not necessarily right. He asked her to conceal her gun if she carried it to soccer games. But Hain said after the hearing that she planned to continue carrying it openly since it is her right under the Second Amendment.

Weisberg said the parents who sent their children to her in-home baby-sitting service knew she openly carried a gun, but didn't care until after the sheriff revoked her license.

"She lost those jobs because of the negativity surrounding her prosecution," he said.

Weisberg said the lawsuit will seek damages for Hain's pain and suffering, as well as money for her attorney fees.

George Christiansen, attorney for the Lebanon County Sheriff's Department, acknowledged he has received a letter from Weisberg about the intention to sue, and he has turned it over to the county's insurance company.

"I don't know the legal basis for the lawsuit," Christiansen said. "Mike DeLeo exercised what the state statute put upon him regarding the issuance of permits. I'm convinced it was a valid judgment call. Everybody can sue anybody for anything."

DeLeo revoked Hain's permit under the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act, which gives sheriffs the right to deny permits to anyone "whose character and reputation is such that the individual would be likely to act in a dangerous manner to public safety."

"I just did my job," DeLeo said Tuesday. "The courts have ruled, and we respect that ruling."

The interesting thing here is, if she is able to get money out of the county, then this may cause insurance companies to force licensing agents (towns) to follow laws or established guidelines.

 

[T3andme]

Going to NH? or somewhere else? Just wondering because my husband keeps talking about Montana (too cold...althought today...)

 

[doobie]

I've posted it before, and I'll keep posting it every time it's brought up. There are far bigger fish to fry in MA than open carry. Get rid of CLEO discretion as to who can OWN a handgun, and then we'll talk about open carry.

Get rid of the need for a permit to OWN/possess and only have a permit to conceal carry.

 

[jar]

Get rid of the need for a permit to OWN/possess and only have a permit to conceal carry.

How about no permits for anything? That's what I really want. That said, I liked the bill GOAL filed last year as a good step. IIRC, it eliminated licensing for pepper spray, made an FID (which is shall issue) good for possession of anything that's legal, eliminated the LTC-B and made an LTC-A good for carry. That would be a step in the right direction, and is saleable as a simplification of the existing regs without substantially loosening them.

 

[Ripach]

How about no permits for anything? That's what I really want. That said, I liked the bill GOAL filed last year as a good step. IIRC, it eliminated licensing for pepper spray, made an FID (which is shall issue) good for possession of anything that's legal, eliminated the LTC-B and made an LTC-A good for carry. That would be a step in the right direction, and is saleable as a simplification of the existing regs without substantially loosening them.

+1 while that Bill is not the "solution", it is a huge step in the proper direction.