Where can't I concealed carry in MA?

[Rob Boudrie]

I listened to this shooting, blow by blow on the radio, where I was working at the time.

It was the impetus for banning all CCW on school property (including colleges). IIRC it was a Fed Law (or I might be confusing it with the 1000' law that was overturned and re-written). At any rate, some states allow CCW on college campuses, MA is NOT one of them (we have a specific MGL that forbids any firearms from any school property including colleges in MA).

Good luck getting the letter from the person in charge of the college in MA (the only exemption other than LE), it's damn near impossible. I once tried it at NU and got a polite "we don't allow it for anyone" letter. I was well known there personally to most admin and that included the President at that time.

Actually, 269-10j contains the terms "on one's person" that provides a differentiation from the other possession sections. There have been cases where cases could not be successfully prosecuted because, for example, the gun was in the car and not on someone's person. The reasoning given to me by an attorney was that the presence of a differentiation within a different section of the very same law provides a very strong case that the two sections do, in fact, convey a different meaning. All usual cautions about "real world" implications apply.

I have hard that the feds encourages states to ban campus carry after the armed students took over the administration building at Cornell back in the sixties. Apparently, they would have not done so of carrying the guns they were threatening to kill people with was illegal.

 

[Chris]

I just find it amazing that these people seem to believe that anyone ready to violate the law would suddenly be ready to comply with the "no guns" law.

We are seeing it now in the national debate on what a company can allow in an employee's car on their property. The argument upholding the ability of the company to ban guns in a person's car says it is so that "someone who becomes disgruntled can't then run out and get their gun". Do they really think that someone willing to KILL another person would be at all stopped by some words in the handbook that says 'no guns in your car'? (I am also annoyed that these people continue to declare this as the "Company's Right'. PEOPLE have rights, government has powers, and other things have abilities.)

The fact is, the ONLY person a ban stops are those that are not likely to commit a crime in the first place. Every ban and prohibition in history has resulted in NO decrease in crime, and in fact can be shown to increase crime.

I hereby declare that the logical conclusion is as follows, and is to be named Chris's Prohibition Postulate.

"Any rule, regulation or edict enacted by the inscribing of words alone will deter none but the innocent."

 

[M1911]

Does the school law only apply to the schools actual property or also to a school “zone”?

I assume it is just within the property line b/c there are houses and obviously roads that are in “school zones”.

Only the actual property. For example, stopping at the side of the road to let your kid out of the car to go to school is ok; driving into the school parking lot is not ok.

Where it gets interesting is that many of the universities in the Boston area (e.g., Harvard, MIT, BU, etc.) have large commercial real estate holdings. Many of these buildings do not hold any university offices, classrooms, or students, but are instead leased out to commercial businesses. Are they part of the "school" or not? It is my understanding that there is no precedent on this and the statute itself is unclear.

 

[benster]

Where it gets interesting is that many of the universities in the Boston area (e.g., Harvard, MIT, BU, etc.) have large commercial real estate holdings. Many of these buildings do not hold any university offices, classrooms, or students, but are instead leased out to commercial businesses. Are they part of the "school" or not? It is my understanding that there is no precedent on this and the statute itself is unclear.

This is a very interesting point....
I'm on BU "campus" all the time on Comm Ave, Bay State Road and Beacon Street. If I'm driving, parked on the street and walking on the sidewalk would I be considered "ok"? There are a ton of parking lots around Fenway that are BU owned. Would i be prohibited from even parking there? [sad2]

 

[Will Brink]

"Any rule, regulation or edict enacted by the inscribing of words alone will deter none but the innocent."

It's not like that fact was not realized and understood a long time ago by men smarter than us:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws
make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment - (1764).

"gun free zone" = there is no one here to protect your kids and we hope this sign will prevent people from shooting up this school.

Just f-ing brilliant....

 

[ZenShooter]

Good luck getting the letter from the person in charge of the college in MA (the only exemption other than LE), it's damn near impossible. I once tried it at NU and got a polite "we don't allow it for anyone" letter. I was well known there personally to most admin and that included the President at that time.

I find that depends on the size of the college, more than anything else. No big university that I've worked with, for example, will even tell you the right person to ask (and just try getting an appointment with the president). Bring it up at the big public schools and they look at you like they're planning to replace your services at the first opportunity. It seems that smaller colleges and private schools are a little easier to work with.

Actually I don't even ask with schools in good areas - I'm not one of those CCW 24/7 kind of guys. It's just my clients in riskier areas. Fortunately, most of my clients are small, private colleges.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well, I could (and had) walked in and talked with NU's president. I was well known by two college presidents during my education and years later as a very active alumnus (I'm alumni class VP).

In fact, I had sent my letter to the 2nd president who I knew for many years. The next time he saw me at some event he came over to me and asked me why the heck I had sent the letter to him! I explained MGL to him. He had forwarded my letter to the chief of campus police (who I knew very well as well) and got the "no way Jose" response.

 

[M1911]

This is a very interesting point....
I'm on BU "campus" all the time on Comm Ave, Bay State Road and Beacon Street. If I'm driving, parked on the street and walking on the sidewalk would I be considered "ok"? There are a ton of parking lots around Fenway that are BU owned. Would i be prohibited from even parking there? [sad2]

Comm Ave and Beacon Street are certainly not owned by BU. Nor are the sidewalks. So that's not "on campus."

As for a parking lot that is owned by BU, that's where it gets questionable. If it is a BU parking lot for BU students/faculty/staff, run by BU, then I would guess that it is definitely on-campus and off-limits.

If it is a commercial parking garage that is owned by BU, run by a commercial agency, and not contiguous to campus, is that a school or not? From what I understand, there are no legal precedents. Anyone want to be a test case?

 

[benster]

Comm Ave and Beacon Street are certainly not owned by BU. Nor are the sidewalks. So that's not "on campus."

As for a parking lot that is owned by BU, that's where it gets questionable. If it is a BU parking lot for BU students/faculty/staff, run by BU, then I would guess that it is definitely on-campus and off-limits.

If it is a commercial parking garage that is owned by BU, run by a commercial agency, and not contiguous to campus, is that a school or not? From what I understand, there are no legal precedents. Anyone want to be a test case?

Thats the thing, BU police patrol on the streets that they deem "within the campus" and make arrests in public space. They dont seem to "detain" and wait for the BPD to make the actual arrest. Also alot of the commercial buildings are not market BU property. How would one even know? It just seems like a very big gray area to me.

 

[M1911]

How would one even know? It just seems like a very big gray area to me.

Yup. It's the same issue throughout Cambridge. I had an attorney research this issue and he was unable to find any precedents.

 

[Prepper]

One day a few years ago I was waiting for the T at the Northeastern U T stop. For those who don't know, the stop is in the middle of Huntington Ave... the traffic goes by the stop on either side and the track with the stop is down the middle. I have no idea whether legally it is considered on or off Northeastern property.

Anyway, two other perfectly normal guys were standing 5 feet in front of me also waiting. A policeman walks on over and demands that those two guys submit to being searched right there, so they spread them and get searched, finding nothing then the cop just continues on to wherever he was headed without even giving so much as an explanation, a thank you or a sorry to bother you... and the two guys were cursing under their breaths wondering what that was all about. If one of them had a gun, I was wondering what kind of trouble they'd be in. Probably big illegal-carrying-on-campus trouble?

It's a memory like that which'd help make sure that I'm extremely careful about avoiding any place that someone somewhere might consider a school. Even if you're just standing there minding your own business, you can suddenly have a police encounter. Simply waiting in the car to pick someone one from school might look "suspicious" to a policeman or security guard, and could cause further investigation to happen. It'd be bad if one was carrying then, thinking that the odds of police finding out are near 0, only to get caught.

 

[Mikey]

Your example just shows how the left in this state is creating a police state that has too much power. Those guys should have filed complaints (not that that would have helped). But you are right we need to be careful in this state.

If you ask me the State Police need to be restricted to highway patrol and mass should rebuild the sheriff depts. and break up the power. No one force should have as much power as the SP do.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Your example just shows how the left in this state is creating a police state that has too much power. Those guys should have filed complaints (not that that would have helped). But you are right we need to be careful in this state.

If you ask me the State Police need to be restricted to highway patrol and mass should rebuild the sheriff depts. and break up the power. No one force should have as much power as the SP do.

Maybe I missed something here . . .

- Who said it was MSP who did the frisk search of the guys?
- It could have been NU Police, Boston PD, or some gay guys in uniforms copping a feel!
- Just walking up to someone and frisking them with no other conversation, explanation, etc. sounds like we're missing part of the story here! Perhaps they were seen somewhere where they shouldn't have been or with something illegal and were followed by the police to the T stop.

No way that the middle of Huntington Ave is part of NU campus!! Not by any stretch of the imagination! I'm an NU grad and know the area very well. That is City property. No legal issues with CCW, although if any cop in Boston sees you carrying you are in for a bad time, regardless of your permit.

As for "strengthening" the sheriffs departments . . . they are the biggest empire builders in the state of MA! All their jobs are political and they would love to take over all police work in the state. Meanwhile they aren't trained for it and I would guess that the vetting of a deputy is several rungs below that of what a PO must go thru to get hired.

 

[drgrant]

Maybe I missed something here . . .

- Who said it was MSP who did the frisk search of the guys?
- It could have been NU Police, Boston PD, or some gay guys in uniforms copping a feel!
- Just walking up to someone and frisking them with no other conversation, explanation, etc. sounds like we're missing part of the story here! Perhaps they were seen somewhere where they shouldn't have been or with something illegal and were followed by the police to the T stop.

No way that the middle of Huntington Ave is part of NU campus!! Not by any stretch of the imagination! I'm an NU grad and know the area very well. That is City property. No legal issues with CCW, although if any cop in Boston sees you carrying you are in for a bad time, regardless of your permit.

+1 Len.... I think details are being omitted here, somewhere. There is
so much precedent in terms of "consent to search" and so on. It certainly
isn't legal without probable cause/reasonable suspicion.

I do realize that many people get browbeaten into compliance, but an
average LEO knows that he has to have a "real reason" before he conducts
a search like that.


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Your example just shows how the left in this state is creating a police state that has too much power. Those guys should have filed complaints (not that that would have helped). But you are right we need to be careful in this state.

If the searches had no merit (eg no probable cause or reasonable
suspicion) that's a full blown civil rights case right there in a
handbasket. Even in NYC with the subway bag searches and
all that (not sure if they're still doing it) a person deciding to leave the
station instead of getting searched still has a right to do so.

-Mike

 

[Mikey]

I am simply going on the information given by the poster, If what he said is true then I belive my assumptions are true. If there is info being left out then that is not my problem but a lack of integrity on the poster (no offense).

As for the MSP IMHO it is to danerous to have one entity with so much power. I would much rather have the option to vote for a sheriff to be in charge of my county then to have the state government control everything. Where is the check and balance with one force controlling all?

As or training and such that is something that may have been a problem (I am to young to know what the sheriff depts. use to be like) but could be easily fixed with simple guidelines as to what they need to accomplish. From my own reading and what not the sheriff depts. in many other parts of the country are some of the most well trained and responsive police forces in the country.

And as far as politics the MSP is also very much controlled by it.

Like I said above I am too young to know what the sheriff depts. use to be like in mass and maybe I am paranoid, but putting all of our eggs in one basket just seems like a threat to our freedom especially if the SHTF for some reason.

 

[Prepper]

You're not missing any of the story... I told all the details I observed. I don't know which police department it was, whether NU, Boston or MBTA. As far as I can tell, there was no prior details that happened earlier... there was no sign that any of them knew each other, had prior encounters or anything.

I just remembered: the cop as he was searching them also said "You got any drugs on you? Am I going to find any joints in here?" etc. But I'm sure he had no reason to suspect such things on them. They didn't even look like potheads. I'm sure it is a civil rights violation, but what could they have likely done? Refuse to consent, then get the crap beaten out of them and thrown in jail? Nearly everyone will consent.

It may not be NU property, but anyone standing there is probably there because they were just on NU property.

 

[drgrant]

I'm sure it is a civil rights violation, but what could they have likely done? Refuse to consent, then get the crap beaten out of them and thrown in jail? Nearly everyone will consent.

Refusing consent to search doesn't have to result in
someone being beat up. I agree that they still could
have said "no, I do not wish to be searched" and it still
would have happened.... the thing is, if they don't say that,
and say "go ahead, search me" they just waived their
rights and tossed them right out the window.

I'm not talking about "arguing on the side of the road with
a LEO" type of stuff- but people should know their rights
and take advantage of them. It could pay off huge
dividends later, with merely a choice of a few different
words.

I don't see the down side to NOT consenting to
search, here, as long as someone isn't hostile in
doing so. You cannot be thrown into jail for merely
saying you don't wish to be searched. They'd still
have to invent some other charge, which they could
just as easily do even if you were cooperative.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

I would much rather have the option to vote for a sheriff to be in charge of my county then to have the state government control everything.

The sheriff's departments are some of the worst bastions of incompetence, patronage and corruption in MA. I do NOT want to see the sheriff departments get expanded powers. I'd far rather see some of their duties go to the state police than the other way around.

 

[MassQuatch]

Man, I hope I'm remembering this right cause its been a few years. When I went for my class for my FID I asked the instructor where CANT you carry, and he told me that the only places where you cant legally carry a firearm is in a state or federal building, like a court house. Like I said earlier I hope I'm remembering this right.
I asked about any place that has a rule against carrying, such as a store or a mall, he said that Massachusetts law applies before anybody elses rules.

 

[drgrant]

Man, I hope I'm remembering this right cause its been a few years. When I went for my class for my FID I asked the instructor where CANT you carry, and he told me that the only places where you cant legally carry a firearm is in a state or federal building, like a court house. Like I said earlier I hope I'm remembering this right.

Well, he was wrong, because anything MA considers a "school" (which is just
about anything that is a school, wether private or public) are also off
limits without permission of the dean or someone in administration. There are also
other instances where there are legal prohibitions (eg, national parks, etc. )

I asked about any place that has a rule against carrying, such as a store or a mall, he said that Massachusetts law applies before anybody elses rules.

That is true, however be aware that if you are discovered somehow in one
of those places and are asked to leave, I would do so post haste, as if you hang around after getting notified you could be bagged for trespassing... but that is true whether you do or don't have a gun on your person. A property
owner can effectively tell you to leave if he doesn't like the way your
breath smells.

-Mike

 

[jim/boston]

Regarding empowering the Sheriff's Dept in Mass

If you ask me the State Police need to be restricted to highway patrol and mass should rebuild the sheriff depts. and break up the power. No one force should have as much power as the SP do.

Read the thread from last month regarding the Worcester County Reserve Deputy's Association. I sat back and watched (well read, anyway) as people talked of getting "sworn in" by showing up and filling out an application and pretty much promising to donate and help raise funds for the current Sheriff; they spoke of using this to obtain LEO weapons and avoid traffic tickets and getting discounts. A highly trained and noble minded group....yeah, right! That is just what we need; a group of people that didn't bother to go through the normal rigors and challenges and difficulty of an academy; that don't have the dedication to make being a legitimate LEO a career; a group that just wants to reap the rewards (and apparently some swag along the way) without the sacrifice.....ummm, no thanks!

http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=16233&highlight=worcester+county+sheriff

 

[M1911]

When I went for my class for my FID I asked the instructor where CANT you carry, and he told me that the only places where you cant legally carry a firearm is in a state or federal building, like a court house. Like I said earlier I hope I'm remembering this right.

See MGL S269 CH10:

(j) Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and notwithstanding any license obtained by him under the provisions of chapter one hundred and forty, carries on his person a firearm as hereinafter defined, loaded or unloaded or other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization of the board or officer in charge of such elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. For the purpose of this paragraph, "firearm'' shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.

Full text here: http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=245939

 

[Mikey]

Worcester County Reserve Deputy's Association are in no way "real" LEO. And yes the current sheriff depts. here in mass are not even close to what they should be. Your argument using the Worcester County Reserve Deputy's Association has nothing to do with the possiblity of a well trained sheriffs dept. And as far as people using this association to get things like non-list guns or special treatment during traffic stops while I smell a lot of BS and or out of state cops not knowing what the association really is.

Plus there is no reason why sheriff depts could not be held to the same standard as the current SP.

I know I am alone on this issue, but once again it is IMHO a bad idea to give one force so much power. Where is the checks and balances and if the SP mess-up guess what to bad you can't vote for change. The SP is far from perfect just ask the crime lab.

 

[drgrant]

Plus there is no reason why sheriff depts could not be held to the same standard as the current SP.

I know I am alone on this issue, but once again it is IMHO a bad idea to give one force so much power. Where is the checks and balances and if the SP mess-up guess what to bad you can't vote for change. The SP is far from perfect just ask the crime lab.

All I know at the end of the day doing what you want to do would somehow
cost me money- and anyone in this state is already paying out the ass
in taxes.. we don't need another LE org in the mix that is bigger than it
needs to be. The problem is that even if you increase the size of the
Sheriff's offices the size of MSP will never decrease. Apparently you didn't
get the memo about how the government works in this state... if you don't
want something to get out of control, don't create it to begin with.. it's the
only surefire way in MA. (EX- not building the tolls on the turnpike would
have been a lot easier to not do than to get the inertia together to rip
them down. )

-Mike

 

[Mikey]

Look I know it is not going to happen, and I in no way would expect to keep the same size MSP and bigger Sheriff depts. Done the correct way I believe it could work.

And as far as the memo I guess it came out before my birth and I will just have to live with the mistakes of the past generation until I can move to a free state.

Lets get back on topic.

 

[Tweed]

What about the Cape Cod National Seashore? it is under the Park Service. Is is treated like a National Forest? only buildings off limits?

 

[drgrant]

Look I know it is not going to happen, and I in no way would expect to keep the same size MSP and bigger Sheriff depts. Done the correct way I believe it could work.

This is Massachusetts. Barely anything the government does here is done
the "correct way" or anything even remotely approaching it.

-Mike

 

[Mikey]

This is Massachusetts. Barely anything the government does here is done
the "correct way" or anything even remotely approaching it.

-Mike

Sad but true.

 

[Prepper]

OK, here's another example of where I'm not sure what the law really is. I was in Ashburnham (MA) hiking up Mt. Watatic. Near the top (on the way down) I saw a sign saying that it is "unlawful to possess" firearms. It said a few other things too but I didn't think to take a picture of the sign so I could quote the rest of it. The sign is apparently referring to the area that's between the parking lot on Rt 119 and ends just short of the twin peaks of Mt. Watatic (which is where I saw the sign). I somehow missed the signs on the way up but they were probably there.

So.... illegal to carry there or not?