Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The difference between being asked to leave and evicted is a matter of degrees. Due to the cost, time, and trouble involved, landlords typically start with a request to leave and go from there.
BTW, just because the police do not arrest you does not mean you are not in violation.
I was thinking the same thing and trying to come up with some analogy that might make sense for the folks here to understand why the police said she was not in violation when they went and checked on the situation. I finally decided it would be like if someone, a roommate, maybe, went through your stuff and when the police arrived, they didn't arrest them.
I was thinking the same thing and trying to come up with some analogy that might make sense for the folks here to understand why the police said she was not in violation when they went and checked on the situation. I finally decided it would be like if someone, a roommate, maybe, went through your stuff and when the police arrived, they didn't arrest them.
But what would the police arrest the roommate for?
Is there a law in Massachusetts about going through your roommate's room?
No, the police did not say no violation. They have scheduled an interview for her to obtain the legally required permits and get in compliance with the law.
She came up with a way to secure the guns. They were not secured previously, therefore they were not legal. Not in Massachusetts.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
By Massachusetts law, she has 60 days to apply after she brings her firearms inside the state. The only requirement is she properly stores them (unloaded, in a safe). I guess she might have been in violation of the latter if her roommates discovered it, but there is no evidence she was in violation of the former.
How you can claim she was in violation of law in regards to the permits is beyond me. Do you have access to information no one else does? What entitles you to make assertions when you have no idea what you're talking about?
"An invasion of privacy tort is a tort claim that a plaintiff can bring against a defendant in the Commonwealth. Specifically, the courts have defined an invasion of privacy as “the wrongful intrusion into one's private activities in such a manner as to outrage or to cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.”[1] In the age of social media, texting, and “sliding into someone’s DM”, invasion of privacy cases have become more and more common in tort law."
"There are four types of invasion of privacy claims recognized in Massachusetts: (1) intrusion of a person's physical solitude or seclusion; (2) public disclosure of private facts about a person; (3) placing a person in a false light in the public; and (4) appropriation of a person's name or likeness for commercial purposes."
Roommates were not intruding on her physical solitude or seclusion as she was not even there.
Rather than shame or humiliation, she appears proud of leaving illegally owned loaded guns laying about unlocked and unsecured.
There is certainly nothing about putting her in a false light, or using her name or likeness for commercial purposes. And since she's the one twirling her hair during interviews with Fox, etc. hard to see where she wants this incident to remain private.
So exactly what would our Alabama Annie Oakley sue her roommates for?
But what would the police arrest the roommate for?
Is there a law in Massachusetts about going through your roommate's room?
That was my point. People are claiming the roommies were more in the wrong than the gun toting grad. I don't actually know if there is such a law, but i expect it's different for folks who live in the same house. Just my hunch thugh.
"An invasion of privacy tort is a tort claim that a plaintiff can bring against a defendant in the Commonwealth. Specifically, the courts have defined an invasion of privacy as “the wrongful intrusion into one's private activities in such a manner as to outrage or to cause mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.”[1] In the age of social media, texting, and “sliding into someone’s DM”, invasion of privacy cases have become more and more common in tort law."
"There are four types of invasion of privacy claims recognized in Massachusetts: (1) intrusion of a person's physical solitude or seclusion; (2) public disclosure of private facts about a person; (3) placing a person in a false light in the public; and (4) appropriation of a person's name or likeness for commercial purposes."
Roommates were not intruding on her physical solitude or seclusion as she was not even there.
Rather than shame or humiliation, she appears proud of leaving illegally owned loaded guns laying about unlocked and unsecured.
There is certainly nothing about putting her in a false light, or using her name or likeness for commercial purposes. And since she's the one twirling her hair during interviews with Fox, etc. hard to see where she wants this incident to remain private.
So exactly what would our Alabama Annie Oakley sue her roommates for?
Well under this definition, she could easily use 2) since the roommates disclosed a private fact (her gun ownership) to other parties. This was not very hard, at all, but I'm sure with a good lawyer, she could find ways on definition 1), and 3) as well.
By Massachusetts law, she has 60 days to apply after she brings her firearms inside the state. The only requirement is she properly stores them (unloaded, in a safe). I guess she might have been in violation of the latter if her roommates discovered it, but there is no evidence she was in violation of the former.
How you can claim she was in violation of law in regards to the permits is beyond me. Do you have access to information no one else does? What entitles you to make assertions when you have no idea what you're talking about?
Please post a link that says she has 60 days to apply after bringing firearms into the state.
I've looked and can find nothing that allows people to pack for 60 days before applying for a permit.
By Massachusetts law, she has 60 days to apply after she brings her firearms inside the state. The only requirement is she properly stores them (unloaded, in a safe). I guess she might have been in violation of the latter if her roommates discovered it, but there is no evidence she was in violation of the former.
Actually, there is depending on when this all started. She started at Harvard on September 4. That would put 60 days at about November 3rd. That's assuming her first day of residence was Sept. 4.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
