Places you can't carry in MA

So just to confirm, as long as you are only in RI for the day or evening , it's ok to ccw?
Click to expand...
The RI law says "without intent to detain yourself" and specifcally requires you are in a vehicle or conveyance The most commonly held view is that it means driving through RI with a concealed handgun is fine, but if you stop on your "day trip" you have "detained yourself" within the state and are no longer covered.
§ 11-47-8 License or permit required for carrying pistol – Possession of machine gun. – (a) No person shall, without a license or permit issued as provided in §§ 11-47-11, 11-47-12 and 11-47-18, carry a pistol or revolver in any vehicle or conveyance or on or about his or her person whether visible or concealed, except in his or her dwelling house or place of business or on land possessed by him or her or as provided in §§ 11-47-9 and 11-47-10. The provisions of these sections shall not apply to any person who is the holder of a valid license or permit issued by the licensing authority of another state, or territory of the United States, or political subdivision of the state or territory, allowing him or her to carry a pistol or revolver in any vehicle or conveyance or on or about his or her person whether visible or concealed, provided the person is merely transporting the firearm through the state in a vehicle or other conveyance without any intent on the part of the person to detain him or herself or remain within the state of Rhode Island. No person shall manufacture, sell, purchase, or possess a machine gun except as otherwise provided in this chapter. Every person violating the provision of this section shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten (10) years, or by a fine up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both, and except for a first conviction under this section shall not be afforded the provisions of suspension or deferment of sentence, nor a probation.

(b) No person shall have in his or her possession or under his or her control any sawed-off shotgun or sawed-off rifle as defined in § 11-47-2. Any person convicted of violating this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment for up to ten (10) years, or by a fine of up to five thousand dollars ($5,000), or both.

(c) No person shall have in his or her possession or under his or her control any firearm while the person delivers, possesses with intent to deliver, or manufactures a controlled substance. Any person convicted of violating this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two (2) years nor more than twenty (20) years, and the sentence shall be consecutive to any sentence the person may receive for the delivery, possession with intent to deliver, or the manufacture of the controlled substance. It shall not be a defense to a violation of this subsection that a person has a license or permit to carry or possess a firearm.
Click to expand...
 
SheepDog_B said:
So I CAN carry into VT and a day trip into RI. Otherwise, no deal.
Perhaps I'll bolt in a more solid structure in the truck than my cable around the seat trick for my pistol when traveling in the future.

Thank you sir.
Click to expand...

Well, having the pistol in the car at all would be a criminal offense in CT and RI (TTBOMK), even locked in a case in the trunk . . . if you STOPPED in either state for more than bathroom/gas/food!! ME and NH you don't need a permit to merely possess an unloaded gun locked in your trunk. Rob already covered VT.
 
LenS said:
Well, having the pistol in the car at all would be a criminal offense in CT and RI (TTBOMK), even locked in a case in the trunk . . . if you STOPPED in either state for more than bathroom/gas/food!! ME and NH you don't need a permit to merely possess an unloaded gun locked in your trunk. Rob already covered VT.
Click to expand...

Wow.
Thanks for the clarification folks.
 
Coyote33 said:
I'd say UMass Med Center might come pretty darned close to being a college type of setting in the police's eyes.
Click to expand...

If that is the case, I wonder what would happen if you showed up at the ER there, perhaps in an ambulance, while carrying. I am sure they wouldn't refuse care, but I expect that the police would be summoned and that it would turn in to a headache.
 
To "the_doctor" . . . wrt US Postal Property.

The same day I posted the above, someone filed suit against the USPS for that particular regulation. So, perhaps we might see some final resolution to this issue after all.

I am 99% certain that the USC that I've posted before (and you and some others claim is not relevant to USPS property) was specifically referenced on the USPO posters . . . but I can't verify that today. After reading various posts here and elsewhere I truly don't know what is correct wrt USPS property. I do know that no Reg is supposed to exceed the authority of an underlying Law.

So let's agree to wait out the Fed Case on the USPS and suggest caution in the mean time?
 
I am 99% certain that the USC that I've posted before (and you and some others claim is not relevant to USPS property) was specifically referenced on the USPO posters . . .
Click to expand...
You are correct, however, the section about carry "incident to lawful purposes" being permitted is conveniently left off the USPS posters.

I would not be surprised if a court were to find that "incidental" is intended to cover only things like hunting as any other interpretation would render the ban meaningless - and it's obviously not the intent of congress to write laws that don't have any meaning.
 
I don't believe that the USPO posters reference the USC, but CFR instead. They might have come up with new posters since the last time I looked carefully.

Ken
 
I don't believe that the USPO posters reference the USC, but CFR instead. They might have come up with new posters since the last time I looked carefully.
Click to expand...
The one I saw referenced both and was pretty inclusive except for the part of the USC they don't want patrons to read.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
You are correct, however, the section about carry "incident to lawful purposes" being permitted is conveniently left off the USPS posters.

I would not be surprised if a court were to find that "incidental" is intended to cover only things like hunting as any other interpretation would render the ban meaningless - and it's obviously not the intent of congress to write laws that don't have any meaning.
Click to expand...

Or withone meaning (or interpretaion).....after all, the Congresscritters are predominantly lawyers, and after they're voted out, they need to go back to work....and a simple law would cut down on business! [rolleyes]
 
OK, I am NOT going to pontificate on whether you can or can not carry/possess on USPS property. BUT, I did find a picture of the sign that I see up in each USPO that I've been in. It definitely references both the USC (that some contend does not apply, and contains the "for lawful purposes" exemption) and CFR (that says no way in hell!).
 
That's the one I recall having seen previously. Here's the current poster from the USPS web site. The USC is only cited for the possible punishment, but the text of the prohibition given is from the CFR. I note that there seems to have been some revision to the CFR since I last downloaded a copy. It currently provides an exemption only for official duties, as quoted on the poster, omitting the exemptions for both federal officers and members of the armed forces [18 USC 930(d)(2)] and incidental to hunting and other lawful purposes [18 USC 930(d)(3)].

Ken
 
LenS said:
Well, having the pistol in the car at all would be a criminal offense in CT and RI (TTBOMK), even locked in a case in the trunk . . . if you STOPPED in either state for more than bathroom/gas/food!!
Click to expand...

You're correct. CT has it's own version of FOPA written into state law though, nearly a mirror image of it, CT Statutes Chapter 529 Section 29-38d.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap529.htm#Sec29-38d.htm

TimMcG74 said:
If that is the case, I wonder what would happen if you showed up at the ER there, perhaps in an ambulance, while carrying. I am sure they wouldn't refuse care, but I expect that the police would be summoned and that it would turn in to a headache.
Click to expand...

Ron White ran into a similar situation. [wink]

The cop was like, "Mr. White, you are being charged with drunk in public-KA!" I was like, "Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey! I was drunk in a bar! They, threw me into public-KA! I don't want to be drunk in public-KA! I wanna be drunk in a bar, which is perfectly legal! Arrest them!"
Click to expand...

But in all seriousness, that is a valid concern, especially since some of the colleges that are run by schools have their own campus police force.
 
Ken, reading the new, revised copy, it's questionable if a municipal PO walks in the USPO to mail a letter (personal) whether it would cover him/her!

Certainly open to whatever interpretation suits them (NEVER!). [thinking]

The case recently filed should be interesting. Although I won't be surprised if the final ruling is "don't park on USPS property, lock up the gun, then enter USPS property unarmed"! [rolleyes]
 
How about State Forests? I'd hate to run into an angry Lynx or a Coydog only have a cell phone, keys and sticks to throw at one..
 
GSG said:
Beware of the stupid "guns in the woods" laws featured in my LTC DQ's thread.
Click to expand...

Oh no, not this again... [grin]

Yeah, but that would apply anywhere mammals are found, not just state forests. Basically, everywhere.

It does bring up an interesting discussion point, though.... I'd bet that MA is not the only place where CCW bumps heads with hunting regs. I'd imagine at some point or another, though, a question would be raised as to whether someone who was just plodding along in the forest with a concealed handgun was "hunting" or not.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
... I'd bet that MA is not the only place where CCW bumps heads with hunting regs. I'd imagine at some point or another, though, a question would be raised as to whether someone who was just plodding along in the forest with a concealed handgun was "hunting" or not.
Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty.
 
drgrant said:
It does bring up an interesting discussion point, though.... I'd bet that MA is not the only place where CCW bumps heads with hunting regs. I'd imagine at some point or another, though, a question would be raised as to whether someone who was just plodding along in the forest with a concealed handgun was "hunting" or not.

-Mike
Click to expand...

IIRC, I ran into this same sort of law for NH when doing some reading of RSAs a year ago.
 
So, has anyone found anything else regarding CC in banks in MA? I am still of the opinion that there is no law against it...
 
Emoto said:
So, has anyone found anything else regarding CC in banks in MA? I am still of the opinion that there is no law against it...
Click to expand...

What's to find? [rolleyes]

Since there is no law against it, it's legal and there is no law that lists places YOU CAN CARRY!

If you ask your local banker, I'm sure that they will tell you that it is forbidden, but that isn't because of any law.
 
Emoto said:
So, has anyone found anything else regarding CC in banks in MA? I am still of the opinion that there is no law against it...
Click to expand...

And that opinion would be 110% correct. Anyone who says you can't carry in a bank in MA (or any other new england state for that matter) is a flaming moron, or maybe on a good day, if the person is a noob, misinformed, likely by said flaming moron.

-Mike
 
I hate to open this up a bit more, but I'm having trouble finding it. Just got into mountain biking and hiking, planning on doing alot around here and up NH in franconia notch/pikerton/winnie, etc..... is ccw in national parks okay? I wasn't clear with the answers before. And is OC okay in NH state parks? I know MA isn't, I'd much rather OC while riding a bike or hiking up there though, ccw would be a pain.
 
Michael,

Here's the source:

http://www.nps.gov/nero/firearms/

Visitors may possess firearms within a national park unit provided they comply with federal, state, and local laws.

The role of the responsible gun owner is to know and obey the federal, state, and local laws appropriate to the park they are visiting.

Please remember that federal law prohibits firearms in certain park facilities and buildings. These places are marked with signs at public entrances.
Click to expand...

The back story is useful here.

The NPS was dead set against allowing anyone to possess firearms on NPS property, but Congress passed it into law (written poorly, as usual). Since the law did NOT change the prior prohibition law on carrying firearms into Federal Buildings, most all NPS buildings are "off limits" and illegal to carry a firearm in. This can also mean rest rooms on NPS property, so check for signage very carefully.

You also have to study the state laws and state hunting laws to make sure that you are not in violation of them, as the new Fed Law says you can carry ONLY if you are in compliance with applicable state and local laws!!
 
LenS said:
Michael,

Here's the source:

http://www.nps.gov/nero/firearms/



The back story is useful here.

The NPS was dead set against allowing anyone to possess firearms on NPS property, but Congress passed it into law (written poorly, as usual). Since the law did NOT change the prior prohibition law on carrying firearms into Federal Buildings, most all NPS buildings are "off limits" and illegal to carry a firearm in. This can also mean rest rooms on NPS property, so check for signage very carefully.

You also have to study the state laws and state hunting laws to make sure that you are not in violation of them, as the new Fed Law says you can carry ONLY if you are in compliance with applicable state and local laws!!
Click to expand...

That's incredibly annoying. So basically carrying in a state forest is going to be a headache no matter what
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Massachusets is a Constitutional Carry State for residents only
2
Replies
33
Views
778
Thunder Dump
Thunder Dump
Is the HK USP .45 legal in MA?
Replies
16
Views
500
drgrant
drgrant
Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
21
Views
555
67ray
67ray
New to MA
2 3
Replies
69
Views
2K
HooVooLoo
HooVooLoo
I open carried in Boston today
4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
4K
M1911
M1911
Back
Top Bottom