MA Senate Bill 2235 Draft - Banning carry of loaded firearms on Snomobiles & ATV's

[SecondAmdFirst]

This is already a law folks. No loaded guns while snowmobiling or ATV riding.

I've never seen that anywhere before. Do you have a link? I've heard of no loaded shotguns or rifles, but nothing about handguns carried directly on your person.

 

[HTRN]

This is already a law folks. No loaded guns while snowmobiling or ATV riding.

Crazy:

Chapter 90B sec 26

"No one shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or on a snow vehicle or a recreation vehicle or on a trailer or sled attached thereto unless such firearm, rifle or shotgun is unloaded and in an enclosed case, unless he is a law enforcement officer or other person authorized to carry arms as specifically described in section thirty-two, or a paraplegic as provided in section sixty-five of chapter one hundred and thirty-one."

 

[arlow]

This is already a law folks. No loaded guns while snowmobiling or ATV riding.

I beleive that you are confusing the hunting regs with a holstered pistol for the purposes of self defense. For that matter, you cant have a loaded shotgun in your car, but you can have a loaded pistol, if duly licensed in both cases.

I think he was saying the game laws already cover this pretty well so that would make the new law duplicate and unneccesary. Other than the fact they are trying to sneak handguns in there.

 

[pernox]

Crazy:

Chapter 90B sec 26

"No one shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or on a snow vehicle or a recreation vehicle or on a trailer or sled attached thereto unless such firearm, rifle or shotgun is unloaded and in an enclosed case, unless he is a law enforcement officer or other person authorized to carry arms as specifically described in section thirty-two, or a paraplegic as provided in section sixty-five of chapter one hundred and thirty-one."

So the mythical section 32 nonwithstanding, if a person is not "authorized to carry arms" in Massachusetts (implying a licensed person...) then they're breaking the law no matter what sort of vehicle, house, or open freakin' field they're carrying arms in ALREADY. Why the extra verbiage? Unless of course section 32 slips in there later and provides specifically AGAINST an LTC holder being a "person authorized to carry arms."

This state's law books need to be burned and re-created by a gang of rational people that aren't under the influence of heavy sedatives.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

So the mythical section 32 nonwithstanding, if a person is not "authorized to carry arms" in Massachusetts (implying a licensed person...) then they're breaking the law no matter what sort of vehicle, house, or open freakin' field they're carrying arms in ALREADY. Why the extra verbiage? Unless of course section 32 slips in there later and provides specifically AGAINST an LTC holder being a "person authorized to carry arms."

This state's law books need to be burned and re-created by a gang of rational people that aren't under the influence of heavy sedatives.

Yeah, in the words of the great George Carlin "It's all bullshit and it's bad for ya". GSG brought up an interesting stupid MA law a couple of weeks ago. Apparently you can't carry at all 30 minutes after sunset if there are mammals within a certain distance. Doesn't that make a whole lot of sense? Especially since WE are mammals. I swear these people on Beacon Hill must think 2 + 2 = Jello....the stupidity is just blinding.

 

[MrSparkle]

They are not stupid, don't make that mistake. They have an agenda. They want to limit your rights as much as possible. The more confusing the laws are...the more hoops you have to jump through, in their opinion, the better.

THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE GUNS, THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO CARRY CONCEALED. why is this so hard to understand. If they could outright ban them, they would.

What is the penalty for carrying on a snowmobile or atv?

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

They are not stupid, don't make that mistake. They have an agenda. They want to limit your rights as much as possible. The more confusing the laws are...the more hoops you have to jump through, in their opinion, the better.

THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE GUNS, THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO CARRY CONCEALED. why is this so hard to understand. If they could outright ban them, they would.

What is the penalty for carrying on a snowmobile or atv?

Sparkles, we're talking about a state where oral sex is still illegal between a husband and wife. THEY ARE STUPID. I would agree the laws passed in the past 10 - 25 years have had a sinister aim, but there are many laws that just haven't been removed or updated. Also, please don't get insulting, we all know they want to ban guns outright. We will be the force that keeps things as balanced as possible. Not only insisting on more lenient gun laws, but they should all be put in one place. You have a gun law section containing all restrictions and rules, and that is it.

 

[MrSparkle]

No disrespect intended. The rules are a hodge podge and it's way past time to get some reform. I just hope it's reform in our favor. I have written my Reps but it falls on deaf ears.

The sad truth though is the gun control advocates have been at it way longer then 10-25 years. All you need to do is look at history, both here and abroad. The intent is clear.

Sorry for the thread drift, It's just more of the same old policy and politics that have been thrust on us in this state for far to long.

 

[Coyote33]

So, when is the hearing for THIS bill?

 

[GOAL C.M.]

It's on hold until the next term.

It's also now called S. 2251

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02251.pdf

This one popped up on our radar a while ago and we are working on it.

This is the line in question which needs to be amended.
Section 25I. No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun in or on a snow vehicle or
257 recreation vehicle or on a trailer or sled attached thereto unless such firearm, rifle or shotgun is
unloaded and in an enclosed case. This section shall not apply to a law e 258 nforcement officer or
259 other person with enforcement powers authorized in section 32, or to a paraplegic as provided in
260 section 65 of chapter 131.


Hoping to see lots of you out for H. 2259 tomorrow

 

[HTRN]

What is the penalty for carrying on a snowmobile or atv?

From the MGL

Section 34. Whoever violates any provision of sections twenty-one to twenty-four, inclusive, twenty-six to twenty-eight, inclusive, and thirty to thirty-three, inclusive, or any rule or regulation made thereunder, shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars.

 

[firestorm]

And of course Section 32 has nothing about it.

Chapter 90B: Section 32. Regulations; enforcement; reports of violations


Section 32. The provisions of sections twenty-one to thirty-four, inclusive, and of all the rules and regulations made under the authority thereof shall be enforced by the commissioner, his assistants, the director, deputy directors of enforcement, chiefs of enforcement, deputy chiefs of enforcement, environmental police officers and deputy environmental police officers of the department of fisheries, wildlife and environmental law enforcement, wardens as defined in section one of chapter one hundred and thirty-one, police officers, members of the state police and by city and town police officers. Whoever while operating or in charge of any snow vehicle or recreation vehicle, other than on property owned by him, refuses to stop such vehicle after having been requested or signalled to do so by any such officer, or whoever refuses to give his true and correct name and address or refuses to display the certificate of number of such vehicle and surrender to such officer for examination shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars. Such officers may, in the performance of their duty, enter upon and pass through or over private lands or property.

Every officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter, or any rule, regulation, ordinance or by-law made under authority hereof, shall report to the director, on forms provided by him and in such manner as he may prescribe, every violation of such chapter, rule, regulation, ordinance or by-law.

 

[HTRN]

And of course Section 32 has nothing about it.

Chapter 90B: Section 32. Regulations; enforcement; reports of violations


Section 32. The provisions of sections twenty-one to thirty-four, inclusive, and of all the rules and regulations made under the authority thereof shall be enforced by the commissioner, his assistants, the director, deputy directors of enforcement, chiefs of enforcement, deputy chiefs of enforcement, environmental police officers and deputy environmental police officers of the department of fisheries, wildlife and environmental law enforcement, wardens as defined in section one of chapter one hundred and thirty-one, police officers, members of the state police and by city and town police officers. Whoever while operating or in charge of any snow vehicle or recreation vehicle, other than on property owned by him, refuses to stop such vehicle after having been requested or signalled to do so by any such officer, or whoever refuses to give his true and correct name and address or refuses to display the certificate of number of such vehicle and surrender to such officer for examination shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars. Such officers may, in the performance of their duty, enter upon and pass through or over private lands or property.

Every officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter, or any rule, regulation, ordinance or by-law made under authority hereof, shall report to the director, on forms provided by him and in such manner as he may prescribe, every violation of such chapter, rule, regulation, ordinance or by-law.

More insanity.

 

[firestorm]

No, it states who will be enforcing the previous sections. It doesnt say anything about allowing those people to carry. Although it looks like the main enforcement would be EPO's who obviously can carry.

 

[HTRN]

yes, I edited to correct.

 

[TomH]

How about an open-carry ATV/snowmobile riding protest? MA laws are insanity.

 

[Talon3]

I've never seen that anywhere before. Do you have a link? I've heard of no loaded shotguns or rifles, but nothing about handguns carried directly on your person.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/districtcourt/trans976revisedcmviassessments.pdf

c90B §26 90B/26/A SNOW/REC VEH—FIREARM, OP WHILE CARRY *
90B/26/B SNOW/REC VEH—GROWING STOCK, DAMAGE * c90B §26
90B/26/C SNOW/REC VEH—HELMET VIOLATION * c90B §26
90B/26/D SNOW/REC VEH—OUI—DRUGS * c90B §26
90B/26/E SNOW/REC VEH—OUI—LIQUOR * c90B §26
90B/26/F SNOW/REC VEH—UNSAFE OPERATION * c90B §26
90B/26/G SNOW/REC VEH—WILDLIFE, HARASS * c90B §26

All of the above are 75 dollar fines.

 

[Knob Creek]

Guys go back and read it. (Line 94) The definition of Recreation Vehicle seems to include your street vehicles once you pull off road.

 

[GOAL]

As someone stated earlier, this is already in law. However if they are going to rewrite these laws then we will work to remove it.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Guys go back and read it. (Line 94) The definition of Recreation Vehicle seems to include your street vehicles once you pull off road.

Could they even try to stick in an RV (like a camper)?

 

[Coyote33]

related story in the news:

Snowmobile organizations seeking tougher laws

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Youngsters at the throttle
Snowmobile organizations seeking tougher laws
THE WORLD AROUND US


By Kim Ring TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
7 comments | Add a comment

When a 14-year-old boy on a snowmobile slammed into a lakeside house in West Brookfield and was seriously injured last month, some people wondered whether it is legal for someone so young to be operating a snowmobile.

The short answer is yes, but legislation that would change the requirements for youngsters to operate snowmobiles and other recreational vehicles is set to be voted on in the state Senate this week.

Currently in Massachusetts, “A person between the ages of 12 and 14 years old may operate a recreation vehicle or a snow vehicle if directly supervised (as defined in 323 CMR 3.02) by a person 18 years old or older,” according to 323 CMR 3.03.

In fact, a supervised 10-year-old can operate a snowmobile on property where they live. Anyone younger than 10 is prohibited from operating in Massachusetts.

As the legislation is currently written, youths ages 14 to 16 would need direct adult supervision to operate a recreational vehicle, and would only be allowed to operate a vehicle with an engine capacity of no more than 90cc. That would be a small engine.

Furthermore, the legislation eventually would require all individuals to complete a safety course to operate recreational vehicles. That requirement would be phased in over time.

Exactly what caused the West Brookfield crash on Lake Wickaboag that day may never be known. The state Environmental Police, which investigates most snowmobile accidents, won't release its findings in cases involving juveniles in accordance with state Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs policies. The boy's family declined to speak with a reporter.

But statistics for the last three snowmobile seasons show more adults than children die or are injured on snowmobiles in Massachusetts each year.

An average of three children under 17 were injured while snowmobiling during that time, and none of those was fatal. The oldest (two) were 16 and the youngest was 9, according to the information provided by the Department of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

During the same time period, eight adult riders were killed. Their ages ranged from 23 to 42. Three died on state or local highways, three on trails and two on private property. Another 28 adult riders were injured.

The 2009-2010 data up to Jan. 8, 2010, showed six accidents, one of which killed a 21-year-old Shirley man.

Although there were far fewer children injured, the statistics could be skewed because fewer juveniles ride.

Still, many snowmobile enthusiasts in the Bay State say young operators would be safer if they had to take a safety course, as their counterparts in Vermont, New Hampshire and New York do.

“The Snowmobile Association of Massachusetts teaches it in Mass.,” said Daniel Gould, president of the association, and a Telegram & Gazette photographer. “You have to take it if you want to ride in Vermont. Responsible parents have their kids take it anyway.”

Many parents don't seem to realize the dangers, Mr. Gould said. But with speed limits set at 50 miles per hour on a lake, there's no doubt a crash can be deadly.

“These aren't Xboxes,” he said.

The association issues permits for members to ride on local trails that are maintained. Mr. Gould said the sport is best enjoyed as a family recreation and most riders he sees are in groups, usually with children, headed to a restaurant or other destination. Most accidents don't occur under those circumstances, he said.

About 20 Massachusetts youngsters were at a recent session of a free safety class, which includes a test they must pass with an 80 score or better to ride in Vermont. The daylong session includes safety instructions and prepares the children not only for riding short distances but for trail rides of several hours or more and for emergencies that could happen far from help.

Camille A. Graves of Brookfield took the class in Leicester with her 12-year-old son, Cameron Laird. She thought it was required and said she wouldn't be inclined to let her child operate a snowmobile without passing the course even though it's not a must. She and Cameron passed the test.

Both are new to the sport, encouraged by her husband, who has been snowmobiling for years.

“They taught me a lot of things I didn't know, even just how to dress,” she said. “I'm from Jamaica, I'm a T-shirt kind of person, but now I know I need to wear layers.”

There were also plenty of safety tips that Mrs. Graves doubted most children would know.

“Like if you went through the ice, I would panic,” she said. “But they explained what to do. Not to panic, but to slide yourself out and roll or crawl. Don't get up and walk. I don't think a kid would know that.”

Cameron has yet to take his first ride solo on a snowmobile, but with the knowledge he has, his mother feels more comfortable.

“I learned signals and safety stuff and speed limits,” said Cameron, a student at Tantasqua Junior High School in Sturbridge.

Cameron also said he believes the class should be mandatory because he learned plenty that he didn't know before.

For years the Snowmobile Association of Massachusetts has worked with legislators to toughen snowmobile laws.

“Our biggest problem is the DUI law,” Mr. Gould said. “We've been trying to get that through for a decade.”

The penalty for driving drunk on a snowmobile is $50 and is not a criminal offense. Drunken boaters face much stiffer penalties. Thus far, stricter measures have never been passed.

It's not the first time there's been a proposal to require the training class, either. But this year the legislation covers both of those areas and many others in just one bill.

The Senate is poised to vote on the legislation tomorrow after it was reported out favorably by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. If it passes, it will head to the House and, proponents hope, eventually to the governor's desk.

7 comments | Add a comment

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

More big brother butting it's nose where it doesn't belong. There is such a thing as personal responsibility. Parents should be teaching their kids safety of any kind of equipment, tools, etc. What's next? Perhaps our children will need to attend state mandated potty training?