Wayland - Limit Carrying of Weapons in Town Buildings and to Town Events

It's legal for towns to regulate firearm discharge, because state law is relatively unrestrictive on that issue. But carry is heavily regulated by a comprehensive system at the state level, which pre-empts local restrictions on carry. The same is true of restrictions on specific types of firearms - this is why Boston's local AWB required a home rule petition.

And the legislature rubber stamps the Boston Home Rule petitions!

Why not? It is the World's Second Oldest Profession...

And much less honorable than the first oldest profession.
 
It's legal for towns to regulate firearm discharge, because state law is relatively unrestrictive on that issue. But carry is heavily regulated by a comprehensive system at the state level, which pre-empts local restrictions on carry. The same is true of restrictions on specific types of firearms - this is why Boston's local AWB required a home rule petition.

Do you have a reference for this?
 
I'd have no objection to Comm2A using some of our donations
to drag Wayland interminably through the Federal court system.

Someone remind them that LTC holders are, as a whole, more law-abiding than any other constituency, including law enforcement, who they so graciously excuse.

So does Duane Galbi's house encroach on any vernal pools
filled with endangered salamanders?
 
Someone remind them that LTC holders are, as a whole, more law-abiding than any other constituency, including law enforcement, who they so graciously excuse.

Tell them no exemptions for police, then see how far it gets.
 
Last edited:
And the legislature rubber stamps the Boston Home Rule petitions!

Most home rule petitions are ignored, believe it or not.

Do you have a reference for this?
Not directly, but I have a strong understanding of the SJC's pre-emption doctrine. Restrictions on carry or on particular types of guns wouldn't even be a close call without a home rule petition.

The SJC basically looks at how comprehensively the state has legislated and regulated in an area, then looks at the state's interest in a uniform regulatory mechanism and the confusion that would be caused by a patchwork. That determines whether an issue is pre-empted from local regulation.

The state has comprehensively regulated in these areas, and there's a strong statewide interest in a uniform regulatory scheme because you pass from one town to the other routinely when traveling. There's no way for an LTC holder that's carrying to constantly compare the details of each town's laws on what guns they can carry against where they are and what they're carrying.

I suspect these sorts of gun-related bylaws were tried many decades ago, but MA requires AGO approval for local bylaws, and they apply the SJC's pre-emption principles. That would explain the dearth of case law, the bylaw dies unceremoniously if the AGO disapproves a bylaw unless the town sues to overturn their decision.
 
It seems the good people of Wayland (including some members here) have good experience countering this lunacy. So at the risk of stating advice you already know:

- The FinCom will likely care about financial impacts to the town. If the proposed bylaw were to pass, is a legal challenge likely? What would be the typical costs to the town to defend against a legal challenge?
- The police, presumably, would need to enforce this. Are they on board with it? How do they plan to enforce it? Is there additional costs or training? How will people know about this unusual bylaw? Will they need to make a post signage? Do we really want such obtrusive signage on every entrance to a town building? How much will that cost?
- What actual problem is this trying to solve, and will it be effective at solving it? If someone intends to do harm, will a sign stop them? Since you are proposing to disarm law-abiding citizens at the door, do you propose additional security to keep them safe? (at what cost?)
- If someone is exercising their rights and wants to attend a public meeting, are you suggesting that they, in public view, take their firearm off their body and lock it in their car? Won't that create more problems? You're asking people to choose between their first amendment rights and their second amendment rights.


Something similar was proposed in Natick several years ago. They received enough offline correspondence that they decided to publicly announce they will not go forward with it. However, this was originally sponsored by a town entity and not a citizen, I believe.

Wow, so many good points. How does Finance Committee get this power? Is it from the Town Charter?
 
Most home rule petitions are ignored, believe it or not.


Not directly, but I have a strong understanding of the SJC's pre-emption doctrine. Restrictions on carry or on particular types of guns wouldn't even be a close call without a home rule petition.

The SJC basically looks at how comprehensively the state has legislated and regulated in an area, then looks at the state's interest in a uniform regulatory mechanism and the confusion that would be caused by a patchwork. That determines whether an issue is pre-empted from local regulation.

The state has comprehensively regulated in these areas, and there's a strong statewide interest in a uniform regulatory scheme because you pass from one town to the other routinely when traveling. There's no way for an LTC holder that's carrying to constantly compare the details of each town's laws on what guns they can carry against where they are and what they're carrying.

I suspect these sorts of gun-related bylaws were tried many decades ago, but MA requires AGO approval for local bylaws, and they apply the SJC's pre-emption principles. That would explain the dearth of case law, the bylaw dies unceremoniously if the AGO disapproves a bylaw unless the town sues to overturn their decision.
How do you square that with the various city/towns with knife restrictions? The same exact scenario currently exists.
 
Wow, so many good points. How does Finance Committee get this power? Is it from the Town Charter?

The FinCom doesn’t decide. The decision is made by the voters at town meeting.

For each article that will go to town meeting, the FinCom reviews the article to determine the potential financial impact to the town. Then the FinCom votes on whether to recommend passage of the article, recommend against passage, or have no opinion. The FinComs opinion is printed in the town warrant in advance of the town meeting, and it may sway the voters.
 
This article was rescheduled for Monday night. Apparently it will be up before both the Board of Selectmen and the FinCom on Monday night. I don’t have times yet.
 
I believe there will come a time when many will finally realize that only by limiting government can we maximize liberty and opportunity. I believe there will come a time when many will finally realize that liberty is never found unless accompanied by decency and responsibility. I believe there will come a time when many will finally realize why the United States was so different and so exceptional. I believe they will finally realize these things only after they have contributed to its loss. The saddest thing that history can record of lost liberty is that those who possessed it failed to save it while there was yet time. In a free Society, need is not a necessary component of the things we do. As long as we are not harming anyone else by our actions, there is no need to explain to anyone what we do. In a constitutional republic, which respects individual liberty and protects the right to bear arms by the 2nd Amendment, the answer is any...one who has not forfeited the right and can afford one.

Why would you want an AR-15? It’s not necessarily the best gun for home defense or hunting.

Well, since the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not primarily self-defense or hunting, the answer is anyone who wants to be prepared for any possible tyranny that would require a rifle for social work. An Inalienable "Right" is not determined by a Politician, it is not up for debate or Proxy, it is mine, and solely mine, I do not need permission to exercise them.
 
Most home rule petitions are ignored, believe it or not.


Not directly, but I have a strong understanding of the SJC's pre-emption doctrine. Restrictions on carry or on particular types of guns wouldn't even be a close call without a home rule petition.

The SJC basically looks at how comprehensively the state has legislated and regulated in an area, then looks at the state's interest in a uniform regulatory mechanism and the confusion that would be caused by a patchwork. That determines whether an issue is pre-empted from local regulation.

The state has comprehensively regulated in these areas, and there's a strong statewide interest in a uniform regulatory scheme because you pass from one town to the other routinely when traveling. There's no way for an LTC holder that's carrying to constantly compare the details of each town's laws on what guns they can carry against where they are and what they're carrying.

I suspect these sorts of gun-related bylaws were tried many decades ago, but MA requires AGO approval for local bylaws, and they apply the SJC's pre-emption principles. That would explain the dearth of case law, the bylaw dies unceremoniously if the AGO disapproves a bylaw unless the town sues to overturn their decision.

https://www.lexingtonma.gov/sites/l..._weapon_ban-town_counsel_opinion_2.4.2016.pdf
Interesting analysis.
 
I believe there will come a time when many will finally realize that only by limiting government can we maximize liberty and opportunity. I believe there will come a time when many will finally realize that liberty is never found unless accompanied by decency and responsibility. I believe there will come a time when many will finally realize why the United States was so different and so exceptional. I believe they will finally realize these things only after they have contributed to its loss. The saddest thing that history can record of lost liberty is that those who possessed it failed to save it while there was yet time. In a free Society, need is not a necessary component of the things we do. As long as we are not harming anyone else by our actions, there is no need to explain to anyone what we do. In a constitutional republic, which respects individual liberty and protects the right to bear arms by the 2nd Amendment, the answer is any...one who has not forfeited the right and can afford one.

Why would you want an AR-15? It’s not necessarily the best gun for home defense or hunting.

Well, since the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not primarily self-defense or hunting, the answer is anyone who wants to be prepared for any possible tyranny that would require a rifle for social work. An Inalienable "Right" is not determined by a Politician, it is not up for debate or Proxy, it is mine, and solely mine, I do not need permission to exercise them.

While I agree 100% with your post, there are still far too many people that don't want liberty. They would rather have the government tell them what they should be doing and when they should do it. People don't want personal responsibility any more. Everything is some one else's fault. I think that most far left individuals would rather live miserably in a socialist (communist) world where everyone is miserable than have the potential to be happy in a free society.
 
I'd have no objection to Comm2A using some of our donations
to drag Wayland interminably through the Federal court system.



So does Duane Galbi's house encroach on any vernal pools
filled with endangered salamanders?

He lives near the Power Lines, may explain some of this. This town is full of nickle plated a**h***s.
 
Boston4567 said:
It's legal for towns to regulate firearm discharge, because state law is relatively unrestrictive on that issue. But carry is heavily regulated by a comprehensive system at the state level, which pre-empts local restrictions on carry. The same is true of restrictions on specific types of firearms - this is why Boston's local AWB required a home rule petition.

Do you have a reference for this?

Local towns can do this with the exception that they cannot overturn state law where it is legal to discharge and or carry. ie:State property that is legal to hunt as long as the state hunting regs are followed where that state land is inside the town boundaries. I suppose the local town could pass ordinances under the home rule laws, where carrying is concerned on town property. Pushing it further to town events is another matter unless that event is not on town property. They cannot stop me from carrying through their town, on their roads and on generally public and private property.

Local Authority to Regulate Firearms in Massachusetts | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

In 1986, in Amherst v. Attorney General,10 the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a local by-law prohibiting the discharge of certain firearms under certain circumstances within town limits. In so holding, the court held that the regulation was not inconsistent with state statutes regulating hunting and the safe use of firearms. In so holding, the court found that the existence of state law addressing the same subject a local government seeks to regulate does not necessarily result in preemption of local authority. Rather, if the state’s “legislative purpose can be achieved in the face of a local [regulation]…on the same subject, the [local regulation] … is not inconsistent with the State legislation.11 The court determined that the local law did not frustrate the purpose of state laws regarding hunting and therefore did not conflict with state substantive or procedural laws.12

see above:
the [local regulation] … is not inconsistent with the State legislation
 
Last edited:
How do you square that with the various city/towns with knife restrictions? The same exact scenario currently exists.
The primary difference is in the comprehensiveness of the regulatory schemes at the state level. With knives, you have a few laws that set restrictions on things you can't do. With guns, the state has fairly comprehensively regulated most major aspects of gun ownership and carry/possession to provide a uniform set of rules statewide. That makes it very unlikely that a town could pass an ordinance regulating methods of carry or the types of firearms you can own, because it would frustrate the state's goal in setting forth a uniform regulatory scheme.

This is about right. I suspect there are lots of opinions like these floating around in various towns, as well as the AG's Municipal Law Unit. It's pretty cut and dry. But the opinions hard to find online because they aren't widely circulated, because these laws get stopped before make it to a court that has published opinions.
 
Yes, it is Duane Galbi. Again.
Can someone put a petition to not allow this guy to walk on town property?

Even if it doesnt go anywhere.

Serious question...

Since this is a Town, if this passes would it be like stores and employers in MA that might ha e a policy against having guns in the place, but legally they cant do anything besides ask you to leave or fire you?
 
Since this is a Town, if this passes would it be like stores and employers in MA that might ha e a policy against having guns in the place, but legally they cant do anything besides ask you to leave or fire you?

No, it would be legally binding, probably with a small fine. I believe that it could not result in jail time.
 
No person, not being a law enforcement officer and notwithstanding any license obtained by the
person pursuant to Mass. State Law Chapter 140, shall carry on the person a firearm, loaded or
unloaded, or other dangerous weapon in any building on town property, or to any town sponsor
gathering, including athletic events
, on town property without the written authorization of the
Board of Selectment

So no baseball bats for the little league, no knives at picnics/cookouts/events, no motor vehicles, etc?
 
No, it would be legally binding, probably with a small fine. I believe that it could not result in jail time.

Actually, I just read the full text. The article contains no penalty for violating the ban. So it would, indeed, result in the police only being able to tell you to leave.
 
Actually, I just read the full text. The article contains no penalty for violating the ban. So it would, indeed, result in the police only being able to tell you to leave.
Don't tolerate the article. You give town government and moonbats an inch, they will take the mile. You really think the town cops will just ask you to leave if this passes? Maybe after you are prone and cuffed after having your firearm removed from you or thrown across the lawn or pavement. And let's not forget having a firearm pointed at you too. Nothing good will come of this if it passes.
 
Don't tolerate the article. You give town government and moonbats an inch, they will take the mile. You really think the town cops will just ask you to leave if this passes? Maybe after you are prone and cuffed after having your firearm removed from you or thrown across the lawn or pavement. And let's not forget having a firearm pointed at you too. Nothing good will come of this if it passes.

No question we are fighting it. We won’t let up because there are no penalties.

As for the Wayland PD, the chief has opposed Galbi’s articles in the past and I expect he will speak against this article as well.

I’ve dealt with Wayland PD officers on several occasions and have always been favorably impressed.
 
Actually, I just read the full text. The article contains no penalty for violating the ban. So it would, indeed, result in the police only being able to tell you to leave.

If this passes the proponent will keep pushing. They never stop, their hunger is never satisfied. Bending to the mob invites more abuse. Giving their shit back to them is the only way to get them to stop. They like bullying but can't deal with pushback. You can't compromise with people that want to steal rights from you, there's nothing gained in return.
 
If this passes the proponent will keep pushing. They never stop, their hunger is never satisfied. Bending to the mob invites more abuse. Giving their shit back to them is the only way to get them to stop. They like bullying but can't deal with pushback. You can't compromise with people that want to steal rights from you, there's nothing gained in return.

Don’t worry, we know. This is at least the third article that Galbi is submitted over the last few years. We know he isn’t going away.
 
Back
Top Bottom