When is a School a School (In MASS) ???

[mx250man]

You first. You're so raring to go, have at it. Oh, and btw, when you get arrested for carrying on school grounds to express your civil disobedience, expect your police chief to decide that you are unsuitable. He will then send an officer to confiscate all of your firearms and ammunition. But it will all be worth it, right?

In contrast, when those hippies who you seem to admire so much practice civil disobedience, they are usually careful to do nothing more than civil trespass or tie up traffic. So their arrests are typically minor misdemeanors with no real consequences.

But, you're right, the two are absolutely comparable.

Not sure this post is to your typically high standard - I might be dragging you down to my level!

I never said that I advocated carrying on school grounds. I do go by two schools on the way to the range, with my guns locked in cases in the trunk of my car. What if I found some circumstance that required me to stop on school grounds? This thread made me wonder about it. Would I be better off to risk changing a flat on the no-sholder 50MPH rural road? Is it reasonable to think that a "law abiding" citizen who has their guns locked in cases in their car on the way to the range, that they can change their tire on school grounds instead of on a dangerous road? Especially when the prohibition states "carries on his person", which would lead any reasonable person to think that locked up in cases in their car would be perfectly ok?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Especially when the prohibition states "carries on his person", which would lead any reasonable person to think that locked up in cases in their car would be perfectly ok?

Multiply P(getting caught)*F(legal fees) to find out the "expected financial cost".

Multiply P(getting caught)*F(chance of bogus conviction) to find out the risk of becoming a prohibited person.

Multiply P(getting caught)*F(how long it takes) to find out how many months, or years, your future will hang in the balance.

Multiply P(getting caught)*Unknown to figure out the chance that the suitability issue will play itself out on you.

 

[M1911]

I would drive on my rim, ruining the tire and wheel rather than pull onto school property in that situation. The cost of a new wheel and tire would be less than a couple hours of legal fees.

Yes, this law is ridiculous. While we have a slim chance of changing some laws, this is not one of them IMHO. And trying to bring attention to it through civil disobedience would backfire IMO - gun free schools are something that the sheep agree on.

 

[mx250man]

Multiply P(getting caught)*F(legal fees) to find out the "expected financial cost".

Multiply P(getting caught)*F(chance of bogus conviction) to find out the risk of becoming a prohibited person.

Multiply P(getting caught)*F(how long it takes) to find out how many months, or years, your future will hang in the balance.

Multiply P(getting caught)*Unknown to figure out the chance that the suitability issue will play itself out on you.

I happen to have graduate level education in probability - Multiply P(getting hit) * dead. I'd take the bet any day that the probability of getting hit and killed while changing a tire far outweighs P(get caught) while guns locked in a case in the trunk of the car while changing a flat tire on school property. Ever a single case of that? And then "dead" is so much worse a penalty. Easy answer - pull in and change the tire. But the point is, is it right that given the written law that I even have to make that probability comparison? No, it is not right. If the intent of the law isn't "carries on his person", then those that feel the written law is not correct need to go through the process to change the law, not just decide to enforce what they see fit.

 

[M1911]

I happen to have graduate level education in probability

Well goody for you. Btw, you're not the only one on NES post-graduate degrees, none of which are required to understand the point that Rob made.

If the intent of the law isn't "carries on his person", then those that feel the written law is not correct need to go through the process to change the law, not just decide to enforce what they see fit.

Um, have you been paying attention lately to GOAL's efforts over, say, the last 10 years? Have you noticed how many laws GOAL has managed to get passed despite all their hard work? Do you have any idea how much effort many on NES have gone through over the years to lobby legislators and elect pro-gun legislators? If you had, then you'd know that despite all our efforts, the reality is that we don't have the votes in either the MA house or Senate. And furthermore, our Governor would veto any pro-gun legislation that made it to his desk. Which it won't, because in addition to not having the votes, we don't have the support of Senate President Murray or Speaker DeLeo, and as a result, any significant pro-gun legislation won't make to the floor of either house for a vote.

Do you know the effort that Rob and others are putting towards fixing these laws in the courts, via Comm2A? Our best chance at a solution lies in the federal courts, not on Beacon Hill.

Seriously, get down off your high horse.

We all know and agree that the law is BS. That, and $3.50, will get you a latte.

Nobody here is defending the law or arguing that it is just or wise -- it isn't. But there isn't any easy way to get it changed in the near term (we've all tried), and the penalties for violating it can have severe implications. So stop trying to lecture us.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

You can also directly impact P(getting caught engaging in lawful activity) by not having any visible evidence of firearms exposed in your car or trunk when open during tire changing. I call it "getting lost in a crowd of one".

Despite the horror stories, cops don't tend to make a habit of tossing every car they encounter - unless you fit a profile, or present some other indicator like loose ammo cases on the floor of the car, kill-em-all-let-god-sort-em-out bumper stickers, wearing a shirt from your favorite manufacturer, etc. you're most likely to be asked if you need a tow truck called, or if you can handle it yourself and get the car out of there in short order. Don't do anything to become "interesting" and the only concern a tire changer will create is "is this person going to mess up my shift by getting creamed by a car while changing the tire?" and "is this car blocking traffic?".

I only got profiled once, and that was when a cop noticed my license plate (I wasn't stopped) and called my house to find out where the handgun matches are.

 

[jasons]

I happen to have graduate level education in probability....

Well that was probably a waste of money.

 

[mx250man]

Well goody for you. Btw, you're not the only one on NES post-graduate degrees, none of which are required to understand the point that Rob made.


Um, have you been paying attention lately to GOAL's efforts over, say, the last 10 years? Have you noticed how many laws GOAL has managed to get passed despite all their hard work? Do you have any idea how much effort many on NES have gone through over the years to lobby legislators and elect pro-gun legislators? If you had, then you'd know that despite all our efforts, the reality is that we don't have the votes in either the MA house or Senate. And furthermore, our Governor would veto any pro-gun legislation that made it to his desk. Which it won't, because in addition to not having the votes, we don't have the support of Senate President Murray or Speaker DeLeo, and as a result, any significant pro-gun legislation won't make to the floor of either house for a vote.

Do you know the effort that Rob and others are putting towards fixing these laws in the courts, via Comm2A?

Seriously, get down off your high horse.

We all know and agree that the law is BS. That, and $3.50, will get you a latte.

I'm very confused by your response. I'm not talking about the need for "us" to make pro-gun changes to the law, but that "they" need to make anti-gun changes to the law before I'll "buy" their version of what it says. If the law prohibits one who "carries on his person a firearm" on school grounds, but they are going to prosecute me for having a gun in a locked case stored in my car trunk while I change my flat tire in the safety of a parking lot instead of partially obstructing a travel lane I say "bull sh*t!". If it means any one who "possesses a firearm" on school grounds, then they need to change the law as written to that and I'll act accordingly. I "think" we are on the same side here - why the attack?

As far as probability goes - I was merely indicating that I had a good understanding of probability before making the case about my choice based on such probability. I apologize that it came across as insulting - it really isn't my intent to be a jerk.

 

[HTRN]

I'm very confused by your response. I'm not talking about the need for "us" to make pro-gun changes to the law, but that "they" need to make anti-gun changes to the law before I'll "buy" their version of what it says. If the law prohibits one who "carries on his person a firearm" on school grounds, but they are going to prosecute me for having a gun in a locked case stored in my car trunk while I change my flat tire in the safety of a parking lot instead of partially obstructing a travel lane I say "bull sh*t!". If it means any one who "possesses a firearm" on school grounds, then they need to change the law as written to that and I'll act accordingly. I "think" we are on the same side here - why the attack?

As far as probability goes - I was merely indicating that I had a good understanding of probability before making the case about my choice based on such probability. I apologize that it came across as insulting - it really isn't my intent to be a jerk.

Does it matter who is right, when you are in a cage?

Sent from my mobile device, please excuse typos and brevity.

 

[MisterHappy]

Mass gun laws are intricate and obscure. Whether that's the intent of the legislators, or meerly (from their perspective) a happy accident, is irrelevant.

The point is that the laws are often misinterpreted, to our detriment.

Call "Bull*hit" all you like, but the facts is the facts. If you get a cop with a less-than accurate understanding of the law, a prosecutor that wants a notch in his belt, and an Anti judge.....

It's not a "school" situation, but the case of the guy in Lowell should inform your thinking - a "Very secure" (words of the cops) vault was broken into, and guns stolen. The owner is the one jammed up. He obeyed the law, and, in fact, exceeded by leaps and bounds the requirements....and still has trouble. Why? Becasue Guns are Icky (c).

 

[banned]

Mass gun laws are intricate and obscure. Whether that's the intent of the legislators, or meerly (from their perspective) a happy accident, is irrelevant.

The point is that the laws are often misinterpreted, to our detriment.

Call "Bull*hit" all you like, but the facts is the facts. If you get a cop with a less-than accurate understanding of the law, a prosecutor that wants a notch in his belt, and an Anti judge.....

It's not a "school" situation, but the case of the guy in Lowell should inform your thinking - a "Very secure" (words of the cops) vault was broken into, and guns stolen. The owner is the one jammed up. He obeyed the law, and, in fact, exceeded by leaps and bounds the requirements....and still has trouble. Why? Becasue Guns are Icky (c).

In many instances it is not so much the law that is screwed up or confusing, but rather those who are enforcing it are confused or are knowingly misinterpreting the law to their benefit.

It's like a fall back excuse when their is an abuse of power by the licensing officer or the street cop arrests someone for the wrong offense, or the DAs charge them under the wrong statute.

The common theme is "these darn laws are so screwed up!"

This is not rocket science!!! If the law says you cant carry on school grounds what is so difficult to understand that possession in your vehicle not within your control does not fall under the statute? The failure to read the statute before charging someone causes an innocent person to spend thousands of dollars for an attorney, have sleepless nights, puts stress on family and relationships, effects job performance, reputation, etc. It is horrible.

We have serious problems with the way the legislators wrote the law and the way the courts have interpreted it, but great emphasis should be on how law enforcement sometimes abuses the laws that are already stacked against us. It is an overwhelmingly unfair advantage.

I have had clients charged with something such as an OUI, who happened to have a firearm in their vehicle, and have a valid LTC, charged with ch 269 s 10a (carrying without a license) facing 18 month mandatory, simply because the arresting officer failed to check his wallet for an LTC or run a check in the computer.

The sad thing is, the majority of gun owners that I represent have no prior criminal record. That is why they are granted LTCs. These folks are not criminals with rap sheets. To face a criminal charge, as a law abiding individual, can be devastating.

This should not be read as cop bashing, because the majority of those in law enforcement that I deal with are good people who understand the laws and apply them justly. I obviously because of my profession see alot of issues that need to be fixed.

 

[drgrant]

I'm very confused by your response. I'm not talking about the need for "us" to make pro-gun changes to the law, but that "they" need to make anti-gun changes to the law before I'll "buy" their version of what it says. If the law prohibits one who "carries on his person a firearm" on school grounds, but they are going to prosecute me for having a gun in a locked case stored in my car trunk while I change my flat tire in the safety of a parking lot instead of partially obstructing a travel lane I say "bull sh*t!". If it means any one who "possesses a firearm" on school grounds, then they need to change the law as written to that and I'll act accordingly. I "think" we are on the same side here - why the attack?

As far as probability goes - I was merely indicating that I had a good understanding of probability before making the case about my choice based on such probability. I apologize that it came across as insulting - it really isn't my intent to be a jerk.

Read Post #71, and then read it again if it still doesn't make sense to you.

The on the ground reality is that enforcement of gun laws in MA are best described as COMPLETELY ****ED UP. Anything less than that description is being disingenuous.

Whatever you decide to do with your hypothetical tire changing thing, "fly low and avoid the radar" is the best course of action, regardless of what the laws say.

-Mike

 

[Coyote33]

Under the MA definition of "carry" as used in gun laws, any movement, even disassebled with a trigger lock on the gun in a locked case in a locked trunk is "carrying".

I would call that "transporting". But I guess it depends, just like pretty much anything in MA law.

This is why I think there ought to be a bill to clean up the current MA firearms laws, and put in a "table of definitions", which is referenced from all the other firearms laws. I suggested this when GOAL had their big bill out there as one possible step in the right direction if the legislature couldn't stomach the whole bill. It obviously never went anywhere. I do think this idea still has merit, just for the sake of cleaning up all the non-agreeing laws.

 

[MisterHappy]

And how would that benefit the majority of people in the state? If one is not directly impacted by a law, then one must have espcially high ideals to fight, agitate or even care for its change.

For instance - LGBT legislation has no bearing on me, as I fall under none of the letters. I'm not against improving the civil rights of them, and if asked, I'll say I'm for it. But I'll notbe writing letters, or marching. Legislators are sensitive to the prevailing political winds - Vox populi, vox dei - so THEY will carry a rainbow flag, but for them to pick up the banner of Gun Rights (figuretively, of course, we don't have one) is a political stretch.

And, "Rep. Bagadonuts wants more guns on the streets of our city!" is an effective sound bite....."Rep. Bagadonuts wants to clarify definitions of the confusing firearms laws," not so much.

Most people in Mass don't care, as they're not subject to the laws - that's why, in a Basic Pistol class, the questions from the students are often tinged with incredulity....they're lived their entire life here, and never knew that the date of manufacture on a magazine made the difference between a tool and a felony; or that a gun that "can't" be sold by a dealer is OK to buy FTF.....

Clearing up the laws is a good idea.....but for most pols, there's no benefit.

 

[TZCHRIS]

Here is my 2 cents on the situation. Oh and by the way, I'm not a lawyer.

If you ar OJ and you get caught changing a tire on school grounds with a squirt gun, you are going to do hard time. And when I say OJ, I mean some one who has most likely gotten away with murder.

If you are the every day law abiding Joe, then change your tire and go home safely.

I don't mind when I hear a 'horror' story about a guy who got 10 years for a post ban mag under his bed and when I look into the details find out when the cops broke in the door he was flushing the real junk down the toilet.

It is like when people argue against the death penalty because they fear that one in a million wrongly convicted person is executed. Oh well, most likely that 'one in a million' has a rap sheet that would take weeks to read. RIP OJ ! Oh sorry he is still hanging in there.........

 

[MisterHappy]

Sorry....gotta disagree with the OJ analogy.

OJ was not guilty of the murders. That's what the jury said. If you think that "Well, the jury said, 'not guilty', but we know better, so jamming him up on this is payback, 'cause he deserves it," then there's no point in the original trial.

If you know he's guilty, kill the guy, and be done with it. That's the way it's done in the more enlightened places, right?

I sat on a jury. We knew the defendant was a guilty dirtbag, just by looking at him. We discussed it at the start of deliberations - "OK...who thinks he looks guilty?" 12 to 0. The state's case absolutely sucked. We found him not guilty on 4 of 7 counts. Later, the judge told us that he'd previously pled guilty to all 7, then retracted his plea. He also said we'd done our jobs....the state did not prove its case.


If you're going to have a jury system, once the verdict is rendered, accept it.

And, read Cohen's post about the impact of just being charged on a non-criminal person.

Does is suck that "obvious" criminals are "let go on a technicality" - maybe.....but the Non-shooter in Mass. will not be able to distinguish between carry on one's person, and locked in the trunk on school gounds. Or why the distinction should arise, as....why would you carry a gun, anyways? That's the sort of thing that a Non sees as a technicality.

 

[TZCHRIS]

Well its just my opinion, do you remember Claus von Bulow? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_von_Bülow

I would give him life with no parole for spitting in public if I could, after what he got away with.........Remember just my opinion but I think many share the same.

Justice system is not perfect all the time, you call it 'jamming him up for payback' I call it 'overdue justice'.

Sorry for getting off subject, I'll stop now cause I could go for ever on this one.

 

[M1911]

TZChris, if I understand what you are trying to say, it is that "good guys" won't get jammed up, but only "bad guys" will get jammed up. IMO, that is terribly misguided. Talk to any firearms attorney and they will tell you about law-abiding gun owners getting screwed by the system.

Many people who don't own guns think that nothing bad will happen to them, because they are good people and harmless. We who carry know otherwise -- that bad things can happen to good people when they are unfortunate enough to become prey for evil men. That is why we prepare for that possibility by training and carrying.

But some gun owners seem to be equally deluded. They think that nothing bad will happen to them in justice system because they are good people. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Good people are Nifonged on a regular basis.

 

[TZCHRIS]

I do realize bad things happen to good people, I just think we as 'good' people shouldn't have to change our way of life because of the bad people. I always hear about the people worried about the DA or politician who is out to prove a piont or make the headlines but why isn't there a boat load of good honest hard working family guys going to jail? I am sure it has happened and some one will give me that case, but I don't stop flying because every now and then a plane crashes.

No offense to anyone here but most of our MGL issues can be traced back to the attorneys in some way or another. Just ask S&W why they have to put a sticker on the barrel of the BG380 that states 'not to point the laser in your eyes, could blind you'. When I see that, all I could imagine is a home owner stopping a home invasion and saving his family after pointing his BG380 at the 'bad guy' with the laser on. Bad guy runs away and calls lawyer to sue for eye damage, homeowner looses house after high profile attorney sues.

Good people get screwed everyday, true story, just ask all the guys in Walpole State Prison, they are all innocent!

Here is a good one about the 'good guy' getting screwed! But I have to ask myself what kind of lawyer would pursue this?

http://volokh.com/2012/01/06/felon-...mself-estate-sues-owner-and-gun-manufacturer/

You know why the cop can't look the other way or cut you a break when he stops to check on you in the parking lot of a school changing a tire and spots what could be a weapon, even if in a safe? Because if 6 hours from then you shoot someone it will be the cops fault for not putting the cuffs on you, the lawyers will have a field day with him!

OK, I'm done, don't get me going!

 

[banned]

Boy, now that I think back, I am a criminal X 1000 !

Sunday School or even CCD.........I have been dropping the kids off there for years, couple years ago they opened up a Catholic School on the curch grounds. Same building I have been going to for CCD. Now I am not going to incriminate myself but I do CCW everyday.............

Just be careful.

 

[banned]

I do realize bad things happen to good people, I just think we as 'good' people shouldn't have to change our way of life because of the bad people. I always hear about the people worried about the DA or politician who is out to prove a piont or make the headlines but why isn't there a boat load of good honest hard working family guys going to jail? I am sure it has happened and some one will give me that case, but I don't stop flying because every now and then a plane crashes.

No offense to anyone here but most of our MGL issues can be traced back to the attorneys in some way or another. Just ask S&W why they have to put a sticker on the barrel of the BG380 that states 'not to point the laser in your eyes, could blind you'. When I see that, all I could imagine is a home owner stopping a home invasion and saving his family after pointing his BG380 at the 'bad guy' with the laser on. Bad guy runs away and calls lawyer to sue for eye damage, homeowner looses house after high profile attorney sues.

Good people get screwed everyday, true story, just ask all the guys in Walpole State Prison, they are all innocent!

Here is a good one about the 'good guy' getting screwed! But I have to ask myself what kind of lawyer would pursue this?

http://volokh.com/2012/01/06/felon-...mself-estate-sues-owner-and-gun-manufacturer/

You know why the cop can't look the other way or cut you a break when he stops to check on you in the parking lot of a school changing a tire and spots what could be a weapon, even if in a safe? Because if 6 hours from then you shoot someone it will be the cops fault for not putting the cuffs on you, the lawyers will have a field day with him!

OK, I'm done, don't get me going!

No why don't you get going. I would like to hear more on this perspective.

 

[TZCHRIS]

Sorry Jesse, wrong forum.

If you are really interested in my perspective we should have lunch some day? Or better yet, a round of golf, I never turn down an opportunity for some golf? You never know, I may need your services some day.

Just don't ask me to meet you in the school parking lot.

Actually, back on the subject, where does a school bus fit in here?

Ex: School trip to the museum. Without discussing how or where you board the bus, is the bus itself considered 'on school property'?

 

[MisterHappy]

Worst case scenario would be my planning.

Due to a confluence of SNAFU one day, I needed to ride the bus with my kid to get to school to be a field trip chaperone. I had to call the transportation department to get permission. Now, bear in mind that I was already vetted as a CORI-checked volunteer, and I was not a hitchhiker.


Seriously, in the PRM, I'd not push it, unless you wanna be on TV....

 

[banned]

Gun + school bus = Bad Idea

Im sure you would be prosecuted, your LTC suspended or revoked, never allowed on school trips, parents would be outraged, your child would be picked on etc. etc. Sure maybe after you spend thousands on an attorney you may prevail.

 

[TZCHRIS]

Does that law also apply to dads who are off duty chaperoning a kids field trip? Or is LEO 'exempt' so to speak?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Because if 6 hours from then you shoot someone it will be the cops fault for not putting the cuffs on you

That would be improper, as a 269-10j violation, assuming the subject is properly licensed and only in violation of the specifics of that subsection, is a citeable, not an arrestable, offense.

 

[drgrant]

Ex: School trip to the museum. Without discussing how or where you board the bus, is the bus itself considered 'on school property'?

The problem is you can't get a clean answer without discussing those things.

So are you going to ask them to pick you up down the street? and drop you off down the street when you come back to the school?

Those things are germane to the question because a savvy prosecutor would use them to destroy you. Mary Hairnet: "Oh yeah, mr so and so got on the bus with the rest of us in the school parking lot". You're going to have a fun time telling the court how you teleported a gun onto the bus when it was not on school grounds.

-Mike

 

[TZCHRIS]

It is possible to get picked up not on school grounds, not likely, but possible. I guess then my question should have been weather or not the school bus is considered school property. My questions to some may sound wacky but these are the things I often wonder about and are real life situations we may find ourselves in.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It is possible to get picked up not on school grounds, not likely, but possible. I guess then my question should have been weather or not the school bus is considered school property. My questions to some may sound wacky but these are the things I often wonder about and are real life situations we may find ourselves in.

Boston College (back in the 1980s) used to play one game each year at Sullivan Stadium (Gillette nowadays). IIRC the discussion I had back then, on "game day", the stadium was a "school" for the purposes of 269-10j!

My IANAL interpretation is that if the school is using the property exclusively, at least during that time, the property is considered "school property"!

 

[DavidC77]

Nothing I say on NES should be construed as legal advice. That having been said, based on my experience, if you carry or possess a firearm on or even close to school grounds, you should probably have a very accurate GPS with memory, a lawyer and land surveyor on retainer.

Thanks for answering Jesse.

So it sounds like I can't do it either way I look at it.

Even if I stop before the school parking lot and lock it up, it sounds like that means I'm still carrying.

So I am down to two choices...............

1. Do not go to this cruise night because it is "On School Grounds".
2. Go to this cruise night without carrying.

I think I will be chosing # 1.

This is a good cruise night, but there are many more cruise nights that I can go. This way I do not have to give up my 2nd Amendment right to just participate in this certain cruise night.

Thank You Jesse and for everyone else that have answered.

It looks like we are screwed for now as far as carrying (or storing) on school grounds.

Hopefully we can get some people in office that have some cohoneys to change some of these stupid MASS Laws.

So thanks again everyone, this is one cruise night you not see my Buick GSX at..........................