If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
The federal law says 1000ft unless you have a state issued permit authorizing carry. The MA LTC authorizes such carry withing the school zone, but not on the buildings or grounds of school. See my next post for more details.I was curious about this because I pick my son up after school. The law says you cannot carry a firearm within 1000 ft of a school zone . including public walkways , roads and highways. Several years ago a woman was prosecuted for having a gun in her apartment .One of her neighbors ratted her out. she lived in a housing project that was less than 1000 ft from a school zone.
MGL 269-10j is clear - it is unlawful to carry a firearm or dangerous weapon on one's person on school property without formal permission from the administration of the school or police officer status. The "catch" is that "on one's person" is generally ignored by police and prosecutors until a well paid attorney gets involved.A coworker told me that his firearms lawyer said it is NOT illegal to carry at a school. The lawyer said he will take the case if my coworker wanted to test it but also asked my coworker if it was worth it to be the guinea pig.
Any thoughts?
MGL 269-10j is clear - it is unlawful to carry a firearm or dangerous weapon on one's person on school property without formal permission from the administration of the school or police officer status. The "catch" is that "on one's person" is generally ignored by police and prosecutors until a well paid attorney gets involved.
Unless the attorney was thinking about something like a gun in the trunk of a car, I can't imagine what legal theory (s)he would use to argue that 269-10j does not apply. Remember "will take the case" is lawyer speak for "will take your money with no guarantee as to outcome".
I'd be interested in hearing what interpretation you are alluding to.Rob - this has been discussed at length in another thread (can't locate). I was always under the impression (prior to being illuminated in that thread) that it was acceptable to have a firearm on school grounds PROVIDED it is locked in your trunk, unloaded, with the ammo secured in the locked trunk. But, there was particular MGL language that made that interpretation not acceptable.
I'll bet that pain did not result in a 269-10j conviction. But, expect an aggressive prosecutorial response. This is where you can expect the dismissal of charges to be followed up with a possible storage violation, and maybe even a MSP lab analysis of the mags to see if they can bring a post-ban mag charge. If you beat the system on the bogus "possession not one one's person" charge, it will be mad and will bite back.It was not on the person of the individual, but they still got a world of pain.
I'd be interested in hearing what interpretation you are alluding to.
There is one bit of dicta where the SJC mentions ammo on school property is illegal, however, they do not go into detail, and the issue of "on one's person" was not raised or addressed in that dicta.
The reason it is unacceptable lon a practice level is that police, particularly campus police, specifically refuse to accept the qualifier "on one's person" as having any meaning. I do know of cases where the 269-10j charge once defense counsel pointed this out (and, in one such case, it was refiled as a storage violation since the unattended gun was in the passenger compartment of the car, not the trunk, when stored). I also know of a case where the judge in a campus in-the-car possession case started out with "not interested in hearing any argument challenging the validity of the warrant".
I have seen a search warrant application, that was accepted by the court, in which the police stated that "possession of a gun in the car by a person known to possess a valid LTC was a crime" - in effect, issuing a warrant based on suspicion of lawful behavior.
I believe the Whitehead case contained dicta stating possession was illegal on school grounds, however, that was not the basis for his conviction and the "on one's person" exemption was neither applicable or addressed.Here's the thread - great info: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...-a-pistol-in-the-car?highlight=school+grounds
I'll bet that pain did not result in a 269-10j conviction. But, expect an aggressive prosecutorial response. This is where you can expect the dismissal of charges to be followed up with a possible storage violation, and maybe even a MSP lab analysis of the mags to see if they can bring a post-ban mag charge. If you beat the system on the bogus "possession not one one's person" charge, it will be mad and will bite back.