BP handguns

[ARV]

From the most recent issue of GOAL news.


“Reprinted from GOAL News Print Edition”

Black Powder Handguns – No LTC
Needed!
In April 2012, the court case of
Commonwealth vs. Jefferson, it was
determined that firearms manufactured before 1900, including black
powder handguns are exempt from
the licensing requirement in G.L. c.
140, § 131.
This ruling overturned the decision
made in the Commonwealth v. Bibby case in 2002 where it was determined that black powder handguns
were considered a firearm under
c. 140 § 121, and therefore needed
an LTC to be possessed outside the
home pursuant to c. 269 § 10 (a).
Because c. 140 § 131 governs licenses
to carry firearms, and because § 131
does not apply to firearms manufactured before 1900, a person does
not need a license to carry a firearm made before 1900. However, a
person may still be convicted of the
unlawful possession of ammunition
loaded in a firearm manufactured
before 1900 if the defendant does
not have an FID card and the ammunition does not fall under some
exemption.

So does this mean, by the letter of the law, that as long as someone has an FID (15 and up) they can legally carry a BP revolver? Does this ruling also apply to NEW manufacture cap and ball revolvers?

Just curiosity.

 

[30Mauser]

From the most recent issue of GOAL news.


“Reprinted from GOAL News Print Edition”

So does this mean, by the letter of the law, that as long as someone has an FID (15 and up) they can legally carry a BP revolver? Does this ruling also apply to NEW manufacture cap and ball revolvers?

Just curiosity.

IANAL, but I'd say no. Date of manufacture has to be pre-1900, not just date of design.

I would love to see how a MA school would deal with a kid coming in with an unloaded pre-1900 BP pistol tucked into his/her belt!! "... but it's not a firearm under c. 140 §121!" Their little heads would explode just thinking about it.

 

[highlander]

IANAL but if Ma law follows Federal law the design has to be before 1898 to qualify. Think for a sec,who would take a BP pistol made in 1858 to the range to shoot. We're talking an antigue worth a fair amount of change here. I'm willing to bet reproductions of pistols made prior to 1900 would qualify. But as always something like this will probably have to have a test case to verify the above case.

 

[drgrant]

IIRC there is some other case law in MA where some guy got caught carrying a BP revolver without an LTC and got bagged for it.

-Mike

 

[ARV]

IIRC there is some other case law in MA where some guy got caught carrying a BP revolver without an LTC and got bagged for it.

-Mike

I'n not sure of the name of the case, but IIRC it was some old bail bondsman that was nailed for it. There was also the case of Commonwealth v. Bibby mentioned above, but that was overturned by the most recent ruling.

Also, read this with attention the the parts in red.


MGL ch. 140 Sec 121

The provisions of sections 122 to 129D, inclusive, and sections 131, 131A, 131B and 131E shall not apply to:

(A) any firearm, rifle or shotgun manufactured in or prior to the year 1899;

(B) any replica of any firearm, rifle or shotgun described in clause (A) if such replica: (i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition; or (ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; and

(C) manufacturers or wholesalers of firearms, rifles, shotguns or machine guns.

Section 131. All licenses to carry firearms shall be designated Class A or Class B, and the issuance and possession of any such license shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

(a) A Class A license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: (i) firearms, including large capacity firearms, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems proper; and (ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity weapons, and feeding devices and ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of large capacity rifles and shotguns as it deems proper. A violation of a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under the provisions of this paragraph shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that the provisions of section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to such violation.

I take that to mean, a replica (not a firearm by law, as excluded in the first section) can be carried without a permit (As it is excepted in the law from the 2nd section)


no?

 

[30Mauser]

I'n not sure of the name of the case, but IIRC it was some old bail bondsman that was nailed for it. There was also the case of Commonwealth v. Bibby mentioned above, but that was overturned by the most recent ruling.

Also, read this with attention the the parts in red.

MGL ch. 140 Sec 121

I take that to mean, a replica (not a firearm by law, as excluded in the first section) can be carried without a permit (As it is excepted in the law from the 2nd section)

no?

I agree, and stand corrected!