After all the flack I've received over my shared responsibility ideas, I dare you pro-gun guys to blame the gun-free zone rules at the stadium, I double dare you.The man, who is licensed to carry, was about to see the Patriots play the New York Giants when he checked the back of his ticket and saw firearms were prohibited at the Foxboro venue, said state police spokesman David Procopio. As the man was taking out the gun back at his car, a round went off, going through his leg near the knee about 3 p.m., Procopio said.
The fact is a guy with a license to carry a concealed weapon who doesn't know that the Patriot's football stadium is a gun free-zone is already in the wrong. I thought these guys were supposed to be aware of the rules before they go places? Isn't that one of the big complaints? The poor endangered men have to take their chances unarmed when they go to the post office and the court house.
His failure to know the gun-free zones was the least of his sins. There's no excuse for a negligent discharge, other than negligence that is. Negligence is not acceptable. CCW permit holders must be held to a higher standard. When you make a mistake with a hammer, you sometimes blacken your thumb. When you make a mistake with a gun, the damage is likely to be worse than that.
The solution is the one strike you're out rule. It's simple. It need not violate due process. It could be done properly. The results would be to disarm the most reckless and stupid among the gun owners, the ones responsible for most of the problems.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Wotta maroon. Massachusetts, like NY is a bit touchy about people being armed at major sports venues, public arenas and the like.
ReplyDeleteNow that he's demonstrated that he doesn't know how to read or how to safely handle his gunz, his permit should be revoked.
"After all the flack I've received over my shared responsibility ideas, I dare you pro-gun guys to blame the gun-free zone rules at the stadium, I double dare you."
ReplyDeleteWell, if he had not had to handle the gun because of the stadium rules....how's that?
"Well, if he had not had to handle the gun because of the stadium rules....how's that?
ReplyDeleteNovember 8, 2011 1:58 PM"
You're joking, right?
If you're serious, wtf is wrong with your thinking process? When I see comments like yours I can understand why Mike has his "One strike rule" (which I don't particularly agree with). The guy is obviously too careless to be allowed anywhere near a gun.
It doesn't say what he was carrying but if it was an semi-automatic, it must have been loaded with one in the pipe. If it was a revolver, he must have had one under the hammer. Either that or he somehow managed to jack a round into the chamber and pull the trigger or he managed to pull the trigger and rotate the cylinder to put one under the hammer and then completed the action to fire a round.
There isn't an explanation for such an action, except, "He's an idiot and a dangerous idiot at that.".
Envision this sort of thing happening more and more if you guys achieve your dream of a "weapon in every waistband. Jesus.
His first mistake was not ignoring the "rules" of the stadium. His second mistake was pointing the muzzle at his leg and pulling the trigger.
ReplyDeleteHe will have his License to Carry revoked, unless he's politically connected. That's how may-issue licensing is designed to work
I think FWM WAS joking when he wrote:
ReplyDelete"Well, if he had not had to handle the gun because of the stadium rules....how's that? "
Whereas that is far less likely, given the flaws in his reasoning that Anonymous has previously demonstrated, REPEATEDLY.
You know - like arguing that a rape wouldn't have occurred if a 17 year old, too young to qualify for a carry permit, had fired a round or two at an attacker while she was asleep, and while she was completely unable to discern where people were who might be hurt by it.
So, I'm persuaded that Anonymous has no idea of how ludicrous - not to mention hypocritical he is - when he writes this crap:
Anonymous said...
This was a direct result of anti-gun policies. How's that for "shared responsibility" MikeB, or does your BS only apply one way?
Because it is NEVER the fault of a gun owner, if something goes wrong, in Anonymous's alternate fantasy universe in which he appears to live.
It wouldn't OCCUR to Anonymous to ask himself why the HELL this guy was unable to safely make it from the stadium to his vehicle while transporting his firearm.
Or am I and MikeB and Democommie the only ones who see a problem with this man's ability to be safe around firearms? And yet......he qualified for concealed carry? THIS is the reason that the rest of us here are NOT willing to trust the judgment or competency of people with concealed carry permits.
Don't even get me started on asking us to trust their character and impulse control and mental health, or patterns of substance use/ abuse.
At the very least, the very most achingly minimal, this guy should be required to pass a very stringent test on his grasp of firearms safety -- as in did he have a safety ON at the time, for starters - before he gets either his concealed carry permit OR his firearm returned to him.
It was pure chance, pure random chance, purest DUMBASS luck that the person injured was the concealed carry permit holder and not someone else.
But I'm sure he'd be happy to tell you how safe and secure he is carrying that gun around and how it couldn't POSSIBLY harm anyone else, so we shouldn't be concerned.
Except it isn't safe, HE isn't safe, and it can harm the rest of us, and we ARE concerned.
This guy is the poster child for far more stringent concealed carry regulation.
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDeleteHis first mistake was not ignoring the "rules" of the stadium. His second mistake was pointing the muzzle at his leg and pulling the trigger.
His first mistake should cost him his concealed carry permit, permanently. His second mistake should at least put him in consideration for losing his gun to go with his lost permit, regardless of whether the injury from his negligence was to himself or someone else. He was responsible for a gun injury.
He will have his License to Carry revoked, unless he's politically connected. That's how may-issue licensing is designed to work
And that is what is WRONG with may issue; people who have accidents, who cause injury, get guns and permits when they clearly should not.
Or did your lack of ability to reason miss that little very important conclusion from a reading of the facts?
What the news report leaves out is what kind of gun it was and what the man did to make it discharge. The comments so far have indicted the man of stupidity without complete evidence. Can we avoid a rush to judgement?
ReplyDeleteI said his first mistake was NOT ignoring the nonbinding signage. Carrying at the stadium is not illegal. The worst the property owner could do is ask him to leave, and pursue a trespassing charge if he refused.
ReplyDeleteYou have no understanding of the relevant MA General Laws.
He pulled the trigger, Greg. That's what made the gun fire.
ReplyDeleteDog - I'm not sure you know what may-issue actually means.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when your license is revoked in MA, your guns are immediately confiscated. So you basically didn't get a single fact right in your rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteYou should learn about the things you want to ban.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteMA law is silent on licensed individuals carrying in sport stadiums. Nice assumption though.
"Because it is NEVER the fault of a gun owner, if something goes wrong, in Anonymous's alternate fantasy universe in which he appears to live."
ReplyDeleteIt is absolutely the gun owner's fault. He's the one who ignored two of the three rules of gun safety and shot himself. No serious person could argue otherwise.
"At the very least, the very most achingly minimal, this guy should be required to pass a very stringent test on his grasp of firearms safety -- as in did he have a safety ON at the time, for starters - before he gets either his concealed carry permit OR his firearm returned to him."
He already did take an 8-hour firearms safety course and pass a written test. Otherwise he could not have even applied for a license to carry in this state.
Your assertion that the handgun's safety be on while handling makes me question your understanding of how guns work. Many handguns, like the Glock, do not have manual safeties. Other handguns, like the 1911, require the safety to be disengaged in order to be able to retract the slide and eject the round from the chamber.
Did you know this?
No Greg, I'm afraid we can't avoid a rush to judgment. Do you know of a type of negligent discharge that ISN'T the guy's fault. I really don't.
ReplyDeleteDo you know of a way a CCW permit holder might not know the sports stadium is a gun free zone? I don't.
No, I'm afraid this guy qualifies for the old one-strike rule.
The stadium is not a gun free zone. No law prohibits carrying there by licensed individuals. Signage in MA is not binding.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete"He already did take an 8-hour firearms safety course and pass a written test. Otherwise he could not have even applied for a license to carry in this state."
Apparently in his case, it was not sufficient. Therefore, he does it over, and a REMEDIAL class at that, or no permit, no firearm.
"Anon wrote
Your assertion that the handgun's safety be on while handling makes me question your understanding of how guns work. Many handguns, like the Glock, do not have manual safeties. Other handguns, like the 1911, require the safety to be disengaged in order to be able to retract the slide and eject the round from the chamber.
Did you know this?
Yes, and I have a problem with concealed carry permits or open carry permits for weapons that do not have some form of safety. I'd like to see it be illegal for them to be carried loaded, precisely because it is too damned easy for this kind of thing to happen.
Again - this time the injury was to the person carrying; it could as easily, or more likely been an innocent bystander that was harmed. THAT is unacceptable, especially if there is not a really good reason for this guy to be armed at all - other than his whim, or his whimpy manhood.
If he can be forced to leave because of having a handgun, in violation of the signs... or be cited for trespass because of it how the heck do you consider that 'non-binding'?
ReplyDeleteYou see it is this kind of disregard for having hand guns forced on people who don't want them around on their property that is part of the reason WE distrust YOU. Your thinking is screwed up, badly.
I don't know what 'may issue' means?
ReplyDeleteWant to take bets on that? So far I've been a helluva lot better fact based than you have.
Although if it comes to legal definitions, I may defer to Laci,as this has been his area of expertise - and when he's good at something, he's VERY good at it.
It's not a crime to disobey the no-guns sign. Thats what makes it nonbinding signage. In Texas for example, signs have the force of law.
ReplyDeleteName one fact I've gotten wrong, doggie.
ReplyDeleteAny time a condition of the owner to allow a member of the public to enter is violated, and the owner has the right to make that person leave, backed up by law, it is binding signage.
ReplyDeleteThat they aren't locked up if they leave, but are arrested and cited if they don't, means it has the force of law on the side of the property owner.
Nope. If you don't leave private property when asked, regardless of the owner's reasons, that's trespassing, not gun related. Are you really insisting on this? The posting of a sign doesn't matter either way.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteDemocommie,
MA law is silent on licensed individuals carrying in sport stadiums. Nice assumption though.
November 8, 2011 7:03 PM
I don't believe I ever said anything about MA law. I did say something about them not being crazy, in MA, about people bringing guns to places like Gillette. Gillette bans weapons of any sort, including knives.
It's not an assumption on my part, shit for brains, it's on the venue's website. A quick google would have made you look like less of an idiot. BTW, TD North Boston Garden and Fenway, ditto.
"(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." from here (http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section10).
So, it appears that MA isn't exactly "silent" on the issue of where and when LGO with CCW's may actually carry their toys. This statute would include any venue that was part of a school of the sort specified in the paragraph I copied. It would probably also cover places like Gillette, The Garden and Fenway if they were hosting school sporting events.
It's possible I could be wrong, why don't you spend a few minutes to see if YOU can find the relevant statute, now that we both know how to look shit up.
Are you serious? You just quoted the relevant statute, which contains the very narrow list of places where ccw is prohibited by law. Sports stadiums are not prohibited.
ReplyDeleteIt's not possible you could be wrong, it's absolutely certain.
And who cares what the stadium's policy is? If you get made, the worst that can happen is they ask you to leave. I carry to pats and sox games all the time. Lots of us do.
ReplyDeleteYup, Anonymous, and that is pretty much part of why some people feel that ccw gun loonz are not responsible of respectful of the rights of others, and are in fact a menace to us all.
ReplyDeleteThanks for demonstrating so incontrovertibly they are correct for believing that.
Whatever, dog. It's been fun. I'm off to the voting booth right now, with a .357 magnum on my hip. That combination of awesomesauce American freedoms must piss you people off.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between liberals and conservatives, Anonymous, is we want more people to legally vote, while you and yours are responsible for unfairly restricting legal voters from exercising their franchise.
ReplyDeleteI have a question for you Anonymous. You deny, apparently, that entering a stadium or other building posted no firearms is not legal. I call it trespassing, and would argue to you that you are trespassing whether you are caught or not for doing so. It is at the very least a violation of the property rights of that owner, yet you don't care so long as you are doing what you want - not what is right or correct, but what you want.
The phrase life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was a change made by Jefferson from life, liberty and property.
When I post our land as no hunting, and gun loons like you come on that property and start shooting anyway -- do you consider THAT trespassing, Anonymous? Or is it only trespassing if you are caught.
dictionary.com defines trespassing as:
tres·pass
[tres-puhs, -pas] Show IPA
noun
1.
Law.
a.
an unlawful act causing injury to the person, property, or rights of another, committed with force or violence, actual or implied.
b.
a wrongful entry upon the lands of another.
c.
the action to recover damages for such an injury.
2.
an encroachment or intrusion.
3.
an offense, sin, or wrong.
verb (used without object)
4.
Law. to commit a trespass.
5.
to encroach on a person's privacy, time, etc.; infringe (usually followed by on or upon).
6.
to commit a transgression or offense; transgress; offend; sin.
and this:
Origin: 1250–1300; (noun) Middle English trespas transgression, offense < Old French, derivative of trespasser, equivalent to tres- (< Latin trāns- trans-) + passer to pass; (v.) Middle English trespassen, derivative of the noun
Related forms
tres·pass·er, noun
non·tres·pass, noun
un·tres·passed, adjective
un·tres·pass·ing, adjective
Synonyms 4, 5. Trespass, encroach, infringe, intrude imply overstepping boundaries and assuming possession of others' property or crowding onto the right of others. To trespass is to pass unlawfully within the boundaries of another's property: Hunters trespass on a farmer's fields. To encroach is to creep, gradually and often stealthily, upon territory, rights, or privileges, To infringe is to break in upon or invade rights, customs, or the like, by violating or disregarding them: to infringe upon a patent. To intrude is to thrust oneself into the presence of a person or into places or circumstances where one is not welcome: to intrude into a private conversation.
and from the legal dictionary at law.com:
"Any interference with the owner's (or a legal tenant's) use of the property is a sufficient showing of damage and is a civil wrong (tort)"
You have a lot of hubris to demand your own rights (or what you mistakenly believe are your rights) while violating the very real rights of others. Apparently you believe being armed entitles you to do that by right of force?
You are not a lawful person, Anonymous, and you demonstrate why it is that too many of us distrust gun loons like yourself, because you demonstrate such disregard for laws, property, courtesy, and safety. You violate the rights of others - in the case of the stadium, the property and rights to safety of those using the facility and the owners of it.
Shame on you. I don't care if you vote - we all should do so who legally can. Minnesota typically has the highest percentages of voter turn out in the nation.
Too bad you are unlikely to use it wisely, given your lack of sense so far.
Sorry. My concealed gun doesn't encroach on anyone's rights. You're being hysterical.
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
ReplyDeleteCarrying a concealed handgun into a sports arena is illegal in Arkansas, so on the rare occasions that I take in a game, I leave my weapon locked up in my vehicle. (Note that the state is requiring me to have it out of my immediate possession.) I don't like the law, but I follow it. How that makes me or anyone else safer is a mystery, but there it is.
I'm thinkin' it's the cowardly mikeyw or the equally cowardly weer'dybeardy that's signing as anonymous. Neither of them lives near Boston, so unless anonymous is someone else and wants to prove it by giving us his name and a picture we'll just have to deal with him as we deal with the rest--as a poseur who thinks he's a badass 'cuz he gotz him some gunz.
ReplyDeleteThis:
"Patron Screening and Prohibited Items
Gillette Stadium and all staff and agencies that work to provide visitors with a safe environment ask that you cooperate fully with staff and arrive at the gates in ample time prior to the game (at least 60 minutes before kickoff). Everyone who seeks admission into Gillette Stadium must have a ticket (including small children) and must consent to a search of their person and anything they are carrying. By entering Gillette Stadium the ticket holder thereby waives any claims against the NFL, MLS, New England Patriots, New England Revolution, other participating clubs, performers and promoters, and any of their affiliates and agents. Failure to consent to such search will result in denial of entry into the stadium.
Individuals in possession of a prohibited item(s) may be denied admission to the stadium, ejected, arrested, prosecuted, and may forfeit the privileges of the season ticket holder of record. Prohibited items that are discovered in the stadium will be confiscated. Gillette Stadium and its affiliated clubs, and its agents and affiliated entities are not responsible for injuries sustained in, on, or around the stadium.
To ensure that all fans have a safe and enjoyable visit to Gillette Stadium, the following items may not be carried into the stadium:
◦Bags of any kind, excluding small hand held purses, and plastic carrier bags carrying purchases made at the ProShop. Contents of these bags will be inspected.
◦Bags larger than an 12" x 12" x 12" sheet of paper will NOT be allowed into the stadium.
◦Any type of chair or seat other than those approved for persons with accessibility issues.
◦All video cameras are prohibited. Cameras that have detachable lenses are allowed, however, they may be checked to ensure they are what they appear to be.
◦Electrical items such as small transistor radios, small TV monitors, audio recording equipment, cellphones, etc. will be allowed through the gates; however, you may be required to turn on the equipment to ensure it is what it appears to be.
◦Seat cushions will be allowed into the stadium after they have been checked by security.
◦Binoculars will be allowed into the stadium. The binoculars will be checked first to ensure they are what they appear to be, and all binocular cases will be checked.
◦Flags will be allowed access into the stadium; however, flag poles over 2 feet in length will not be allowed (See banner policy below).
Prohibited Items List:
◦Any alcoholic beverages.
◦Weapons of any kind [including knives].
◦Food or beverages [unless the individual is in possession of a letter signed by Mark Briggs, Vice President of Security and Front of House Operations.]
◦Illegal drugs and any other illegal substance.
◦Coolers or containers, including cans and bottles.
◦Umbrellas.
◦Fireworks or pyrotechnics.
◦Animals, except service animals assisting those with disabilities.
◦Strollers or baby seats.
◦Folding, stand alone, chairs.
◦Noisemakers, bullhorns, air horns
◦Helium balloons, beach balls.
◦Any other item deemed inappropriate by stadium management.
continued
continuing from previous post:
ReplyDeleteNo prohibited items will be accepted at the stadium for safekeeping. While this may be an inconvenience we are sure you understand the reasoning behind the policy - please leave all such items secured in your vehicle."
is from the Gillette Stadium website. I've only been to Foxboro, before 2001 so I don't know how much more stringent the procedures are now, but they were doing pat downs back then.
I'd say anonylouse is just lying to make himself appear to be a man. Too bad, so sad.
Of course he could prove me wrong by simply going to any of those venues mentioned and let venue security know that he's packin' heat. But that would take genuine courage, something I don't think he has.
is from the Gillette Stadium website. I've only been to Foxboro, before 2001 so I don't know how much more stringent the procedures are now, but they were doing pat downs back then.
But, I think we get that the only laws people like annoyinglouse are gonna obey are those of which they approve.
Anonymous gave us a good example of the very-common attitude of gun owners. Bad-laws-be-damned is what they call it. And when it's convenient they get all law-and-orderly about others.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, a property owner has the right to not accept you on his (or her or their) property with a concealed weapon.
ReplyDeleteIt is their choice, it is their LEGAL right to make that determination, as part of their use of their property. It may very well be a condition of their doing business, in terms of things like the provisions of their insurance company and insurance policy, as one example of a serious reason they have such a no-gun policy.
But you don't show any respect for their rights or their property or their business requirements. Laci was right- you really do hate capitalism; otherwise you wouldn't be advocating such anti-business conduct.
From your views so far, including advocating a 17 year old illegally conceal carry a weapon and shoot point blank at a rapist in a heavily heavily crowded area where she could not possibly know if she had a clear shot, and your comments about violating the property rights of others with your concealed carry - I have less, not more, respect for your so-called gun rights. You are demonstrating that you are ignorant, and have poor judgment, and are a self-centered selfish gun loon who has no respect for others.
What you do seem to have is a poor ability to operate without a gun, a dependency which does not speak well for your other capabilities.
Cite the law I have broken by carrying concealed to a pats game, as the holder of an unrestricted LTC-A.
ReplyDeleteRemember, Bob Kraft's attorneys are not legislators. Go ahead, cite the MGL or federal statute.
Demobear,
ReplyDeleteI do pick and choose which mala prohibitum laws I follow. I'd bet you do too, whether you realize it or not. It's part of being an adult.
Anonymous sez:
ReplyDeletedo pick and choose which mala prohibitum laws I follow. I'd bet you do too, whether you realize it or not. It's part of being an adult.
I hope anonymous has a good lawyer.
This is an inaccurate comment, most people do obey the laws.
If this is anonymous's position--he has proven he should not have a gun. And is probably barred from owning a gun.
It's just one conviction and he will find he has no "gun rights".
Anon wrote:
ReplyDelete"Cite the law I have broken by carrying concealed to a pats game, as the holder of an unrestricted LTC-A. "
I already did; the specific law citation will vary by state; however the legal definition which is to act against the wishes and rights of the property owner or tenant - such as carrying a firearm where it is posted not to allow - constitutes trespass.
It is trespass whether or not you are caught, because it violates both the owners property rights and civil rights.
You may additionally be violating their right to engage in commerce, by putting them in violation of insurance contracts, or quite possibly their sports contracts.
For example, from their website:
NFL gun policy
Email
Print
Comments
Guns and Weapons Policy
This policy applies to all employees of the NFL and its member clubs, including players.
Prohibitions. Whether possessed legally or illegally, guns and other weapons of any kind are dangerous. You and your family can easily be the losers if you carry or keep these items in your home. You must not possess these weapons while traveling on League-related business or whenever you are on the premises of the following:
• A facility owned, operated or being used by an NFL club (for example, training camp, dormitory, locker room, workout site, parking area, team bus, team plane, team hotel/motel);
• A stadium or any other venue being used for an NFL event (for example, a game, practice or promotion);
• A facility owned or operated by the NFL or any League company.
I do not have access to their specific individual contracts, but I am aware of such contracts that require a stadium not to allow firearms by spectators on the premises, among other reasons out of fear for the safety of players and employees of the league, stadium etc.
It is also a fairly routine requirement as a condition of insurance - and as you may be aware, college campuses have rejected allowing concealed carry for similar reasons : their insurance premiums would go through the roof.
Further, you agree as a condition of purchasing a ticket to abide by the conditions outlined by the event holder. It is a kind of contract; while not necessarily criminal to break that contract, it is still unlawful conduct to do so.
You clearly have never considered anyone or any other relationship than your own selfish "because I wanna' basis for a concealed carry where it is posted as not permitted. That is ignorant on your part, naive, inconsiderate - and illegal.
Gillette's website says they will prosecute those who are caught with prohibited items. Weapons are prohibited items. Anonymutt has probably never done what he claims to have done, but if he has then he's a coward. He defies the law, but only when he thinks he can get away with it, that is not "civil disobedience", it's cowardice.
ReplyDeleteYou want to show everybody how brave you are? Strap on the 9 and IF you get into the stadium with it, walk up to the nearest armed security person and tell him you have your gun on your person and ask him wtf he's going to do about it. Let me know if you A.) Get your gun back and B.) Don't see the inside of the pokey.
That's all it will take to make a believer out me, pal; man up.
Anonymous is honest enough to admit he picks and chooses the laws he'll deign to obey. That's more than I can say for some of his fellows.
ReplyDeleteDemobear,
ReplyDeleteI have no desire for confrontation or to reveal my heater. You're being immature. Second, I carry a .45 or a .357, depending on the day's wardrobe.
And only in your left wing corporatist dystopian fantasy world can a private company prosecute someone for breaking a rule. Not a law, mind you, but a rule.
ReplyDeleteAh, Anonymouse, you are a fool, and willfully ignorant to boot.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"can a private company prosecute someone for breaking a rule. Not a law, mind you, but a rule."
Here is what is wrong with that sentence.
1. You will be prosecuted by the lawful public prosecutor, not a corporation or private individual, because you would be breaking a LAW, not a rule.
and 2.the law in question would be trespassing, by carrying a gun where it is prohibited, where it would violate the rights of the owners, operators, or tenants of the premises.
And I bet for violating the law by bringing your firearms where it is not welcome, violating those PROPERTY RIGHTS, you wouldn't get your gun back afterwards either, AND you'd probably be banned from ever entering those premises again.
So,to borrow a phrase from classic Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry FICTION- do you feel lucky?
You might also want to remember that an arrest, and any subsequent prosecution would get published in the newspaper, and then all those readers would know where you live and what kind of gun you own...or,owned.
Having contacted the releavant people on this I was assured that they view anyone violating the rules imposed on attendees at NE Patriots football games as trespassing. They don't arrest anyone, they turn them over to the State Police who process them and act on whatever laws and policies are extant.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure our ballsy friend from Southie (which is becoming somewhat gentrified these days) is one of those people who thinks breaking the rules that others make is fine, just don't break his. Poseur.