4 ms·

Boston is not a gun friendly town. You got lucky.

lettergram 2y ago
Yeah, I generally agree. That said, there’s a couple things: 1. You’re technically allowed to travel through anywhere with any firearms in the US (I only had a magazine, not a firearm) legally. That includes planes, but you have to check the bags. That said, they can still arrest you and not follow the law. 2. I carry a conceal carry permit with reciprocity with most states for this very reason. I actually showed it to them and it made things much smoother
- lsllc 2y ago
  You got really lucky! In MA possession of ammunition without a (MA issued) permit is a crime with up to 2 years in jail. MA doesn't have ANY reciprocity with other states regarding your CCW and the City of Boston in particular has a ban on any high-capacity (>10 rounds) magazines of ANY sort/age. MA banned hi-capacity mags but only ones made after 1994, pre-ban ones are ok, just not in Boston (and I think a few other towns). You are right about peaceable journey, but I would not risk any of my liberty or rights on the good nature of a LEO in such a state.
greenavocado 2y ago
Boston, along with many Democrat strongholds in America, is strongly in favor of disarming the public, including law abiding citizens. The fact that this is normalized, including confiscation from a law abiding citizen, is absurd. There is an important legal document which states: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Nevermind the fact that legal gun owners and especially CHP holders are responsible for approximately zero crime.
- johnneville 2y ago
  TSA agents are federal employees and federal law prohibits carrying-on ammunition on planes. It is not Boston specific other than that's where OP got caught. You can still check it if you want. I assume the reason is to reduce the chances of accidental discharge causing risk to the plane and/or the prevent one part of a weapon that could be used for hijacking. Even if laws allowed you to take bullets into airports, I have no doubt that the airlines (private business people choose to patronize) would prohibit you from carrying ammunition onto their planes and they'd have every right to do so.
- r2_pilot 2y ago
  I believe you are mistaken, as so very many people are, about that document. If you are quoting an important legal document, it's important, wouldn't you agree, to get the exact text correct, otherwise the meaning might change? Especially if the text is used for justification to allow a wide, practically unregulated population to be armed? Let's see, I am willing to bet the following statement is the actual quote from the document you reference, which says something quite different (to me). Here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." nevermind that the more legal gun holders there are, the more opportunities for criminals to get guns. Legal gun owners routinely do not secure their weapons in the manner prescribed for responsible gun ownership(I grew up in the south, I can count the number of gun safes I've seen in houses on 1 hand). In fact, many decry the safeguards as imperiling their lives should a crisis spontaneously occur. I argue that those individuals are in fact responsible for a non-negligible amount of crime, since their actions (purchasing a firearm and then failing to secure it against threats) directly leads to more gun crime. But undoubtedly these reasonable arguments and facts will do nothing to move your position, so I guess I just wasted both our times.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    Your “clarification” was to post a famously ambiguous sentence. It’s trivial to parse that as the militia being regulated, not the “bearing arms” part. Especially since it’s explicitly stating that the right “shall not be infringed”.
    - pintxo 2y ago
      Funny that you start with agreeing that the meaning is ambiguous, and then follow up with it being trivial to parse. So what is it? Ambiguous or trivial to parse? I don’t think you can have it both ways.
      - kortilla 2y ago
        It’s trivial to parse it either way without mental gymnastics.

Yeah, I generally agree. That said, there’s a couple things: 1. You’re technically allowed to travel through anywhere with any firearms in the US (I only had a magazine, not a firearm) legally. That includes planes, but you have to check the bags. That said, they can still arrest you and not follow the law. 2. I carry a conceal carry permit with reciprocity with most states for this very reason. I actually showed it to them and it made things much smoother

lsllc 2y ago
You got really lucky! In MA possession of ammunition without a (MA issued) permit is a crime with up to 2 years in jail. MA doesn't have ANY reciprocity with other states regarding your CCW and the City of Boston in particular has a ban on any high-capacity (>10 rounds) magazines of ANY sort/age. MA banned hi-capacity mags but only ones made after 1994, pre-ban ones are ok, just not in Boston (and I think a few other towns). You are right about peaceable journey, but I would not risk any of my liberty or rights on the good nature of a LEO in such a state.

greenavocado 2y ago

Boston, along with many Democrat strongholds in America, is strongly in favor of disarming the public, including law abiding citizens. The fact that this is normalized, including confiscation from a law abiding citizen, is absurd. There is an important legal document which states: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Nevermind the fact that legal gun owners and especially CHP holders are responsible for approximately zero crime.

johnneville 2y ago
TSA agents are federal employees and federal law prohibits carrying-on ammunition on planes. It is not Boston specific other than that's where OP got caught. You can still check it if you want. I assume the reason is to reduce the chances of accidental discharge causing risk to the plane and/or the prevent one part of a weapon that could be used for hijacking. Even if laws allowed you to take bullets into airports, I have no doubt that the airlines (private business people choose to patronize) would prohibit you from carrying ammunition onto their planes and they'd have every right to do so.
r2_pilot 2y ago
I believe you are mistaken, as so very many people are, about that document. If you are quoting an important legal document, it's important, wouldn't you agree, to get the exact text correct, otherwise the meaning might change? Especially if the text is used for justification to allow a wide, practically unregulated population to be armed? Let's see, I am willing to bet the following statement is the actual quote from the document you reference, which says something quite different (to me). Here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." nevermind that the more legal gun holders there are, the more opportunities for criminals to get guns. Legal gun owners routinely do not secure their weapons in the manner prescribed for responsible gun ownership(I grew up in the south, I can count the number of gun safes I've seen in houses on 1 hand). In fact, many decry the safeguards as imperiling their lives should a crisis spontaneously occur. I argue that those individuals are in fact responsible for a non-negligible amount of crime, since their actions (purchasing a firearm and then failing to secure it against threats) directly leads to more gun crime. But undoubtedly these reasonable arguments and facts will do nothing to move your position, so I guess I just wasted both our times.
- kortilla 2y ago
  Your “clarification” was to post a famously ambiguous sentence. It’s trivial to parse that as the militia being regulated, not the “bearing arms” part. Especially since it’s explicitly stating that the right “shall not be infringed”.
  - pintxo 2y ago
    Funny that you start with agreeing that the meaning is ambiguous, and then follow up with it being trivial to parse. So what is it? Ambiguous or trivial to parse? I don’t think you can have it both ways.
    - kortilla 2y ago
      It’s trivial to parse it either way without mental gymnastics.