Bill H.2095 An Act to close the large capacity magazine loophole

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
13,548
Likes
3,692
By Mr. Linsky of Natick, a petition (accompanied by bill, House, No. 2095) of David Paul Linsky and others relative to the sale, transfer, or possession of large capacity ammunition gun feeding devices. Public Safety and Homeland Security.

SECTION 1. Section 131M of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, is hereby amended by inserting after the second paragraph the following paragraphs:-

Any person who lawfully possesses a large capacity feeding device, pursuant to this section, prior to January 1, 2020, shall apply by January 1, 2020, or if such person is a member of the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States and is unable to apply by January 1, 2020, because such member is or was on official duty outside of this state, shall apply within 90 days of returning to the state, to the executive offices of public safety and security to declare possession of such large capacity feeding device. Such application shall be made on such form or in such manner as the executive offices of public safety and security prescribes.

A large capacity feeding device may be possessed, purchased, or imported by the following for official duty purposes: (1) police departments, the department of corrections, the department of criminal justice information services, the department of energy and environmental protection, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States; and (2) any person, firm, or corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing large capacity feeding devices in this state that manufactures, purchases, tests, or transports large capacity feeding devices in this state for sale within this state to persons specified in subdivision (1), or for sale outside this state. No persons as outlined above who lawfully possesses a large capacity feeding device for official duties shall be required to declare possession of a large capacity feeding device as pursuant to this section, except that any such person who retires or is otherwise separated from service who possesses a large capacity feeding device that was purchased or obtained by such person for official use before such person retired or separated from service shall declare possession of the large capacity feeding device within 90 days of such retirement or separation from service to the executive office of public safety and security.

A large capacity feeding device may be possessed by: (1) a licensed gun dealer; and (2) a gunsmith who is in a licensed gun dealers’ employ, who possesses such large capacity feeding device for the purpose of servicing or repairing a lawfully possessed large capacity feeding device; any person who has declared possession of the large capacity feeding device pursuant to this section.

The executive office of public safety and security may adopt regulations to establish procedures with respect to applications under this section. The name and address of a person who has declared possession of a large capacity feeding device shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed, except such records may be disclosed to: (1) law enforcement agencies and employees of the United States probation office acting in the performance of their duties and parole officers within the department of corrections acting in the performance of their duties; and (2) the department of mental health.

Any person who moves into the state, except for a member of the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States, in lawful possession of a large capacity feeding device shall, within 90 days, apply to the executive office of public safety and security to declare possession of such large capacity feeding device.

If an owner of a large capacity feeding device transfers the large capacity feeding device to a licensed gun dealer, such dealer shall, at the time of delivery of the large capacity feeding device, executive a certificate of transfer, and mail or deliver the certificate to the executive office of public safety and security. The certificate of transfer shall include: (1) the date of sale or transfer; (2) the name and address of the seller or transferor and the licensed gun dealer, and their social security numbers or motor vehicle operator license numbers; (3) the licensed gun dealer’s federal firearms license number; and (4) a description of the large capacity feeding device. The executive office of public safety and security shall maintain a file of all certificates of transfer.

Any person who declared possession of a large capacity feeding device under this section may possess the large capacity feeding device only under the following conditions: (1) at that person’s residence; (2) while on the premises of a target range of a public or private club or organizations organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets; (3) while on a target range that holds a regulatory or business license for the purpose of practicing shooting at that target range; (4) while on the premises of a licensed shooting club; and (5) while transporting the large capacity feeding device between any of the places set forth in this paragraph, or to any licensed gun dealer, provided that such large capacity feeding device contains not more than 10 bullets.

A violation of the terms of any provision of this section shall constitute a violation of the sale, transfer, or possession requirements of the first paragraph of this section.

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/191/H2095

What is the point of this nonsense?

This law will not make us safer.

A criminal who is bent on killing lots of people will not comply with this.

This law forces law abiding people to not carry enough ammunition to thwart an attack.

Why is Linsky forcing decent gun owners to only have 10 rounds when the decent gun owners are not the people who are going around killing innocent people.

It is already illegal to go on a killing spree and no criminal will be dissuaded from using a "large capacity feeding device" if he is a criminal going on a killing spree to begin with.

There are billions of "large capacity feeding devices" in circulation.

This ban will only hurt good innocent people who will be unable to defend themselves. Besides just regular gun owners, people in Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques will be sitting ducks without standard capacity magazines.

This new ban is an overreach by Linsky and if it passes, the people wont comply because it's unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS needs to weigh in on this.

Guns in common use are protected under the Constitution. The Glock 17, Glock 19, and the AR15 with a 30 round mag are some of the most common guns in the US.

Linsky should withdraw this bill so decent law abiding citizens can protect themselves and their loved ones from actual criminals.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
8,673
Likes
962
Location
New Bedford
"provided that such large capacity feeding device contains not more than 10 bullets." WTF. Is this turdcake saying we can take "large" capacity magazines to the range but cant put more than 10 rounds in them at once or that our 10 rounders are now considered large capacity and we have to "declare" them but essentially cant use magazines larger than that? I hate Linsky, I really do.
 
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
13,445
Likes
5,697
"provided that such large capacity feeding device contains not more than 10 bullets." WTF. Is this turdcake saying we can take "large" capacity magazines to the range but cant put more than 10 rounds in them at once or that our 10 rounders are now considered large capacity and we have to "declare" them but essentially cant use magazines larger than that? I hate Linsky, I really do.

Consider it a target and hunting restriction or a restriction for the magazine. You can only possess that magazine under the circumstances outlined. You cannot use it for personal protection. And while you are carrying for transport you are not allowed to have more than 10 rounds in the magazine. So if you are transporting it to the range and carrying you cannot load more than 10 rounds. I didn't read it that any restrictions were set for when you are at the range.
 

BREWINZ

NES Member
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
638
Likes
336
Location
Central MA
This is one of those infringements that shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of possible self defense scenarios or malicious ignorance on behalf of our legislators.

This isn't the movies and people miss. Especially while under duress from multiple attackers. 10 rounds is not enough. Any crime committed with a 15 round magazine can surely be committed with a 10 round magazine or even a revolver. This law does absolutely nothing to prevent crime or mass shootings. It does, however, put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when defending themselves and their families.
 

Uzi2

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Sep 5, 2017
Messages
4,579
Likes
5,057
This is one of those infringements that shows either a fundamental misunderstanding of possible self defense scenarios or malicious ignorance on behalf of our legislators.

This isn't the movies and people miss. Especially while under duress from multiple attackers. 10 rounds is not enough. Any crime committed with a 15 round magazine can surely be committed with a 10 round magazine or even a revolver. This law does absolutely nothing to prevent crime or mass shootings. It does, however, put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when defending themselves and their families.
THEY DON'T CARE!!!

You could tell them that until you are blue in the face......THEY DON'T CARE!!!
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
7,518
Likes
2,737
Location
A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
I'm sorry - how does any of that BS stop mass shootings?

They continue to persecute the lawful gun owner while ignoring the real cause of the issue.... MENTAL HEALTH!!!

But the polls are fine letting whack jobs intent on mass murder run around... We'll just take away the tools the lawful would use to defend themselves instead... Because that makes a lot of sense..o_Oo_Oo_O
 

JDL

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 16, 2015
Messages
1,085
Likes
610
Location
Wilbraham, MA
I am sure this will pass. It is one of the bills that seems benign by it's nature. No one will want to question or stop a bill that will control by registering a large capacity magazine. It doesn't seem at face value to harm anyone, it is not taking anyone's guns away, it will make people that know nothing about guns or magazines except that large capacity magazines are dangerous feel safer and that there legislature is doing something to protect them, "it just makes common sense". I don't see any road blocks stopping this. It will just be one more paper jam for the state to deal with and that is OK because it will allow them to spend more money and add more relatives to the payroll.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
66,802
Likes
23,286
I am sure this will pass. It is one of the bills that seems benign by it's nature.
It's a linsky bill, "benign appearance" is meaningless, Unless he has a bunch of backers (possible? he usually has none) this probably isn't going anywhere. He mostly does this crap for virtue signaling. Bills do not have a sort of gravitational inertia. Linsky has filed similar crap.in the past (literally a half dozen piles of shit every session) and they keep getting shot down. Someone once opined he was likely doing this as posturing for an upper tier hack job...
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
7,942
Likes
6,283
Location
BG&RA, BR&PC
The 2014 change to the laws created a MSP arms interstate arms trafficking unit which was, to the best of my knowledge, never staffed nor funded. I would pound the Hell out of the legislature over passing any more bills increasing the bureaucracy until they've committed to paying for what they already authorized 5 years ago.

Same with, "If we have the 'toughest in the nation laws' that are a 'model for the rest of the country' why are our existing laws so pants shittingly shitty according to you paste eating retards that we need another endless buffet of MOAR LAWZ? Can't you go back to dreaming of new ways of building patronage empires out of overly ambitious casino revenue, drinking on the job while driving state cars, molesting your staffers (or their pets -looking at you Linsky), and leave us alone?
 

Glockster30

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
8,276
Likes
3,292
Location
Milky Way
I’m still stuck on “military or naval forces”
Same here. He's proposing to make it a law for the US military in this state and in the United States to have/use large-capacity magazines. Mighty f***ing magnanimous of him to allow the US military outside of this state to use large capacity mags. A 12yo could write a better law than this.

A large capacity feeding device may be possessed, purchased, or imported by the following for official duty purposes: (1) police departments, the department of corrections, the department of criminal justice information services, the department of energy and environmental protection, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States;
 

Yosemite Sam

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Messages
381
Likes
285
Location
Massachusetts
Soooo
According to this Shit Stain, proposed liberty stealing proposal, I cannot transport high cap magazines to my summer NH home ?
I don’t see transport across state line in the proposed legislation

Not that any other part of this any sense
 

TheGreekFreak

NES Member
Rating - 100%
26   0   0
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
1,075
Likes
416
Why have they fallen in love with the number 10 since '94? It's so random.....why not 9 or 11? The lowest double digit number to show they are "reasonable"?

I would think they'd use the standard 1911 GI 7rd mag as an example of "you don't need more than this".
 
Top Bottom