I KNOW that students have been prosecuted for possession of OC on campus at BC, and from what my source (BC PD) told me, he has successfully prevailed in court (convictions) a number of times.
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Where can't I concealed carry in MA?
- Thread starter Prepper
- Start date
But then again maybe I'm just still too young and naive.
As far as the MA government is concerned we are all too young and naive, that is why they have to take care of us stupid people.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
I'll preface this by saying, I used to be a seasonal NPS law enforcement ranger.
You can not carry on any NPS lands anywhere outside of Alaska. National Historic sites, National Monuments, National Seashores and some "Parkways" (George Washington, Blue Ridge and the Natchez Trace) are all NPS land. Do not ask a ranger what you should do with your firearm as the NRA suggests, you will have your firearm confiscated and you will be cited. You should also be aware that even if you are not on land specifically owned by the NPS, as long as you are in the boundaries of the park you are subject to their regulations. I am not familiar with the boundaries of minute man NP, but I would suspect that you can not carry a firearm in your motor vehicle on Route 2A. The national park service is very anti-gun, don’t give them the opportunity to get you in trouble.
Almost all national forest service land is OK with carry. Green and white mountain forests (like many others) only care if you are compiling with state law.
The Appalachian Trail is OK for carry as long as you are not on land owned by the Park service (Smokey Mnt. National Park and some land near Harper's Ferry). Of a course, you must comply with state law.
US fish and wildlife lands are split about 50/50. The best way to find out is to call the unit and ask to speak with a law enforcement ranger or the superintendent.
Army Corp of engineers do not allow carry on their land.
One last note HR 218 does not allow a law enforcement officer to carry on Federal Lands, but most park and forest superintendents are ok with federal law enforcement officers carrying their duty weapons into Federal parks and forests.
Last edited:
Twigg
NES Member
Those signs are new. I just noticed them myself yesterday. I am assuming that the trail north of the summit is contained in the "Watatic Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary" owned by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. That's what the signs stated. This burns my you know what. I would assume that the DFW used land stamp money to purchase this land. If so, the restriction is in violation of the law. I am going to do some research this week. I guess that I lucked out last year. I was attacked by two large dogs off leash, OC was only partially effective. I drew down on them, their tree hugging, Bostonian, lesbian owners were aghast.
How are the terms "elementary or secondary school, college or university" defined? I work in a building where there is a company that offers computer training labs for hire (companies rent out these rooms, load their software, and do training classes); sometimes I teach classes there for my company. Am I prohibited from carrying there under 269 MGL 10(j)? How can I find out how they are classified?
Have fun finding an answer to that. Personally I don't think "Heywood'a computer training" is covered under S269 ch 10 the same way that Harvard University, for example, would be. A court would be far more likely to say that the law applies under the latter and not the former, but this is just my opinion and may be completely worthless.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
I think this would only be 110% answered by case law- and 10 bucks says there likely has only been "obvious" convictions under S269 ch 10. eg- case law talking about a guy found carrying a gun at his local elementary school is not likely to be helpful in the matter.
-Mike
They aren't!
Many of the universities around Boston have extensive real estate holdings (e.g., Harvard, MIT, BU, etc.). They have put up commercial buildings on university property. In many cases, there are no university offices in these commercial buildings, even though they are either owned by the university or on land owned by the university. Are they "schools" or not? I had an attorney research this for me. He said that the statute was unclear on this point and that he could find no precedent in MA. He spoke with a contact in a district attorney's office, and the response seemed to be that the DA's office would use their discretion. In other words, their interpretation could go either way.
Anyone want to be a test case
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
If a university owns the property, I"d be wary of carrying there. OTOH, ijw's scenario wouldn't appear to be a school. Mere training shouldn't constitute a school (otherwise, wouldn't half our gun clubs be schools?)
Problem is, in many cases you won't know. Go visit one of the biotech companies on Sydney Street in Cambridge, or the Star Market there. All that land is owned by MIT.
Go to Legal Seafoods in Kendall Square. That entire complex is on MIT land.
That will depend upon which PD shows up -- Cambridge or MIT.
However, there are no school functions on those sites; they are rental income property. That makes such locations quite distinct from the campus itself.
Simple test: Does the facility have state accreditation as an educational facility?
I used to take care of those very buildings for M&G. That property is MIT commercial property .. (Investments) It is not tax exempt and is under different rules. I used to carry there a lot.
UMass Hospital in Worcester? Isn't this considered a "teaching hospital"?
Also, add Ashburton Place to the list. They have no storage facilities either, aside from the putting items on top of the metal detector with the word of the guard as your receipt.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,622
Incorrect. The procedure you describe is used for knives. Guns are checked at the state police desk where they have 4 pistol lockers in the drawer on the left side of the trooper's desk, and a logbook that is signed when you check a weapon and take the key to the locker you used. Treatment of civilian visitors is polite and professional.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 2,284
- Likes
- 353
I Googles Whitman and found the following quote, "Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities and civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer credited with neutralizing Whitman, later stated in his book that the civilian shooters should be credited, as they made it difficult for Whitman to take careful aim without being hit"
What more can be said? Why are liberals sooooo blind?
Thanks for that info, it is good to know. Surprised it is only 4. What happens when they are all taken? I would have really liked a receipt or ticket to claim my knife. Is there a blade length limit in Boston? I might need to purchase a smaller knife or bring a gun instead
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
next time I go if my current knife isn't up to par for their (sub)standards.Restricted CCW
I've read this whole thread with great interest. You know, it's only going to take one incident, i.e.: a BG comes into a "gun restricted" place and threatens or starts shooting. Then a licensed ccw individual pulls out his gun and stops him cold. I would think, at that point, the lawmakers would have to change back to a more common sense approach to this whole matter. On the other hand, they would probably just convict the GG and say, "...see, carrying guns is bad!" Don't forget, this is MA!![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
I've read this whole thread with great interest. You know, it's only going to take one incident, i.e.: a BG comes into a "gun restricted" place and threatens or starts shooting. Then a licensed ccw individual pulls out his gun and stops him cold. I would think, at that point, the lawmakers would have to change back to a more common sense approach to this whole matter. On the other hand, they would probably just convict the GG and say, "...see, carrying guns is bad!" Don't forget, this is MA!
I've read this whole thread with great interest. You know, it's only going to take one incident, i.e.: a BG comes into a "gun restricted" place and threatens or starts shooting. Then a licensed ccw individual pulls out his gun and stops him cold. I would think, at that point, the lawmakers would have to change back to a more common sense approach to this whole matter. On the other hand, they would probably just convict the GG and say, "...see, carrying guns is bad!" Don't forget, this is MA!
Sometimes it gets reported, but usually has some negative spin on it to make it sound like some kind off spoof or something. Here's an example...
The link to this story said something like "wild west like shootout in FL grocery store" and certainly didn't insinuate the actions of the citzens carrying guns as anything heroic or brave or good:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2008/04/29/0429groceryguns.html
Imagine if it happened in MA how it would be reported, or if it even would be.
She gave you good advice.
+1 The whole concept of CCW is not to print ANYWHERE...
Mark L.
Yup, try to find an article about the Tacoma Mall shooting and the CCW Brendan McKown who got involved, or the Pearl Mississippi shooting where a school administrator got involved.
Your gun may protect you in a bad situation, but don't expect the media to stop covering up law abiding citizens lawfully defending themselves anytime soon.
Your gun may protect you in a bad situation, but don't expect the media to stop covering up law abiding citizens lawfully defending themselves anytime soon.
I've read this whole thread with great interest. You know, it's only going to take one incident, i.e.: a BG comes into a "gun restricted" place and threatens or starts shooting. Then a licensed ccw individual pulls out his gun and stops him cold. I would think, at that point, the lawmakers would have to change back to a more common sense approach to this whole matter. On the other hand, they would probably just convict the GG and say, "...see, carrying guns is bad!" Don't forget, this is MA!
No, you are dealing with people who literally think they care about your life, but they don't. They care about being there to save the day, and getting credited for it. They do not want to hear about how some citizen had to shoot a 3 time offender who just got out. They truly believe that because you haven't gone to the po-po academy, you can't possible make an intelligent decision with a firearm.
Right, these type of things should be left to the professionals, like the one in a town near me who literally could not remove his revolver and had to cut it from it's leather holster when the department switched over to issuing semi-autos.
Feel any safer?
Let's not and say we did....
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...um-concert-venue-here)-Please-don-t-post-this.
-Mike
