"Capable of accepting..."

[Fooped]

And here I was thinking that I finally had the law straight (at least on this one). A couple of friends of mine are going for their LTC in 2 different towns, and one of them was told that if they received a LTC B, it would limit the choice of handguns/long guns that they could own to firearms that were not IN ANY WAY "readily acceptable" to receive more than 10 rounds of ammo. This meant any gun that had the ability to accept a large caliber feeding device, which is darn near every modern semi-auto handgun (minus the single stacker large calibers and some others) and almost every modern AW-type rifle. Just because the crippled post-ban AR a LTC B holder wants comes with a 10-round mag, doesn't mean that it isn't "readlily accepting" of a larger feeding device.

I thought that a B holder couldn't own any hi-cap items regardless of pre-ban, post-ban etc. But the info my buddy was given was that the guns themselves are right out at the root level. This would make a LTC B pretty much useless IMO.

Is this true?

 

[Scrivener]

A couple of friends of mine are going for their LTC in 2 different towns, and one of them was told that if they received a LTC B, it would limit the choice of handguns/long guns that they could own to firearms that were not IN ANY WAY "readily acceptable" to receive more than 10 rounds of ammo. ...

I thought that a B holder couldn't own any hi-cap items regardless of pre-ban, post-ban etc. But the info my buddy was given was that the guns themselves are right out at the root level. This would make a LTC B pretty much useless IMO.

Is this true?

No. You and whoever told your buddy that he could only "own to firearms that were not IN ANY WAY "readily acceptable" to receive more than 10 rounds of ammo" are each egregiously misinformed.

Read c. 140, s. 131 under the section for LTC/B. A "B" holder can own ANY "large capacity" long arm and any pistol that does not have a magazine that can hold over 10 rounds. This means that, for example, he could buy a single-stack 1911; however, if he bought one of those ridiculous 15-round mags for it, he would be a criminal.

Better to have a Class A restricted to "Target & Hunting" than a Class B.

 

[Fooped]

I am not misinformed. I have a an LTC A. I HAVE read 140 about about 3004 times. I was simply asking if there was some kind of "loophole" that a licensing offical could use to saddle someone with a crippled B license. My buddy is misinformed, that much is true. This statement made no sense to me either, but bearing in mind that there is a seperate "large capacity" weapons roster, I figured I'd triple check before answering his question.

FWIW, reading 140 (or any portion thereof) is about as informative and clear-cut as attempting to decipher Sanskrit through a backwards rifle scope while standing on your head. If the laws here were so clear cut and well understood, we wouldn't need lawyers to decipher them, would we?

 

[Len-2A Training]

One addition to Scrivener's reply . . .

There is a "hi-cap" gun list that specifies some guns that (by themselves) can ONLY be possessed by a holder of a LTC-A. So regardless of the mag you may have for it, possession of these handguns with a LTC-B would be a criminal offense.

NOBODY should ever be applying for a LTC-B, anywhere! [That said, I am aware that some towns/cities refuse to issue LTC-A even restricted to most people.]

 

[Fooped]

So someone with a B would have to be extra careful in what they own. Yet another list for them to worry about. I told my buddy that a B (although better then a flat out denial) was the worst possible outcome. The town in question is Natick. Anybody have experience with getting licensed there?

 

[Scrivener]

I am not misinformed.

Really? Let's review. In your first post you said:

I thought that a B holder couldn't own any hi-cap items regardless of pre-ban, post-ban etc.

Wrong. Ergo, you were, and perhaps still are, misinformed.

I have a an LTC A. I HAVE read 140 about about 3004 times. I was simply asking if there was some kind of "loophole" that a licensing offical could use to saddle someone with a crippled B license.

The word "loophole" appears nowhere in your post; neither is there any reference to anything remotely like one.

FWIW, reading 140 (or any portion thereof) is about as informative and clear-cut as attempting to decipher Sanskrit through a backwards rifle scope while standing on your head. If the laws here were so clear cut and well understood, we wouldn't need lawyers to decipher them, would we?

Welcome to Massachusetts!

 

[SiameseRat]

So someone with a B would have to be extra careful in what they own. Yet another list for them to worry about. I told my buddy that a B (although better then a flat out denial) was the worst possible outcome. The town in question is Natick. Anybody have experience with getting licensed there?

Actually an FID would be even worse than an LTC-B. The LEO tried to convince me that was all I needed before he gave me a crippled LTC-A: S&T

As far as Natick there isn't anything I could find in the sticky in General discussion:
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=8703

Did you try packing.org?

 

[Cross-X]

There are worse places than Natick to be applying for an LTC. I suspect your friend may either have a skeleton or two lurking in his past, or simply may have done a poor job in stating his case for needing a Class A LTC. Without seeing his application package it is impossible to tell for sure.

 

[Chris]

The problem is this...

If you own a 1911 on a Class B and suddenly the Spawn of Reiley became the Secretary of Public Safety, they could in the stroke of a pen add all 1911s to the 'high cap' list and instantly make you a felon.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The problem is this...

If you own a 1911 on a Class B and suddenly the Spawn of Reiley became the Secretary of Public Safety, they could in the stroke of a pen add all 1911s to the 'high cap' list and instantly make you a felon.

Ah Chris, we don't need to get that theatric! The 1911 is very unlikely since it does not meet the basic premise that the gun "was ever sold to the public with >10 rd mags" by the mfr.

HOWEVER, what isn't far fetched is that almost all handguns now being made and sold (current production) are being sold as hi-caps in "free states". Meanwhile the "official hi-cap gun List" has never been updated since the Fed Ban lifted. At any time GCAB, EOPS, AG or the Gov could call for an update that would put most current production guns into the "hi-cap" category.

FWIW, very few towns issue LTC-B to anyone who asks for a LTC-A. And the requirements for a LTC-B legally are the same as for a LTC-A . . . there is NO advantage to requesting a LTC-B and if you don't meet the legal requirements for a LTC-A, you certainly don't meet them for a LTC-B either.

 

[highlander]

The problem is this...

If you own a 1911 on a Class B and suddenly the Spawn of Reiley became the Secretary of Public Safety, they could in the stroke of a pen add all 1911s to the 'high cap' list and instantly make you a felon.

I'm not a lawyer but I dont't think they can do that. I had a basic law course in HS and was told you can"t go backwards in time with the law. Example law passed saying you can't wear yellow ties 2 wks ago I wore yellow tie since worn before law can't be arrested.

 

[Moderator]

I'm not a lawyer but I dont't think they can do that. I had a basic law course in HS and was told you can"t go backwards in time with the law. Example law passed saying you can't wear yellow ties 2 wks ago I wore yellow tie since worn before law can't be arrested.

Many members on this forum had the old Mass license that "never expires". So much for those. If you had one and failed to get a new license you are breaking the law. You can be arrested and charged with unlicensed possession of a firearms.

 

[LoginName]

I'm not a lawyer but I dont't think they can do that. I had a basic law course in HS and was told you can"t go backwards in time with the law. Example law passed saying you can't wear yellow ties 2 wks ago I wore yellow tie since worn before law can't be arrested.

Legal terminology... "ex post facto"

WRT the 1911 scenario (or any other handgun "capable" of accepting magazines greater than 10 rounds), all the MA legislature would have to do is establish a manufactured cut-off date (pretty much what transpired with pre-ban .vs post-ban nomenclature). Handguns capable of accepting +10 round mags that are not on the large capacity firearms list and were manufactured on or before July 31, 2006... requires a Class B or Class A LTC.

The same handguns manufactured after July 31, 2006 could only be posessed
on a Class A LTC.

 

[LoginName]

however, if he bought one of those ridiculous 15-round mags for it, he would be a criminal.

I guess owning one of these is out of the question then?

 

[Moderator]

I guess owning one of these is out of the question then?

But do they have one for my Jennings 22?

 

[taz-2005]

I guess owning one of these is out of the question then?

Excuse me while I whip this out...................

 

[Scrivener]

I guess owning one of these is out of the question then?

For the Ruger, no; for the 1911, yes.

An LTC/B covers all long arms; you need an LTC/A for a "large capacity" pistol mag.

 

[M1911]

I was simply asking if there was some kind of "loophole" that a licensing offical could use to saddle someone with a crippled B license.

There's no loophole required. Issuance of LTCs is at the discretion of the police chief. The chief can decide to only issue an LTC Class B if he wants to -- he is within his discretion to do so. That said, I've seen a number of LTCs from Natick. All were Class A. Some were restricted and some were not.

Regarding the definition of a large-capacity, I have to say that I just do not follow the logic that GCAB has used to determine that a 1911 and Ruger 10/22 are non-large capacity. Chapter 140, Section 121 reads, in part:

“Large capacity weapon”, any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device;

1911s and Ruger 10/22s meet clause ii: they are semiautomatic. They are capable of accepting detachable large capacity feeding devices. Large capacity feeding devices are readily available for both of the guns.

The logic that I've read concerning why these are not considered large capacity is because they were not manufactured or sold with large capacity magazines by the manufacturer. But the text of the law says absolutely nothing about what they were manufactured or sold with. The text of the law states that they are large capacity if they are semiautomatic (they are) and if they are capable of accepting large capacity magazines (they are). I don't understand how someone can state that a 1911 is not large capacity, because it clearly meets these two tests.

IANAL, but I think someone would be taking a great risk in owning a semi-auto, magazine-fed handgun with an LTC B, or a semi-auto magazine-fed rifle with an FID. I could envision a DA and judge disagreeing with GCAB's interpretation.

 

[Fooped]

My point exactly! This is why I was concerned that a B holder would potentially have an issue with these types of guns. Unless it's an SKS (or some other type of gun that is not "readily capable" of accepting a large capacity feeding device) the B holder could have an issue. I of course, was flamed earlier in this thread for stating this concern. Doesn't a LTC B restrict the holder from large capacity feeding devices entirely? If I'm wrong, I'm fine with that, but I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this.

 

[Len-2A Training]

It's NOT just the GCAB's "opinion"!

They reviewed the INTENT with the legal nitwits who wrote Ch. 180, lawyers for EOPS, etc.

They then drafted some CMRs and RECOMMENDED them to the Sec. of Public Safety (EOPS to keep it simple).

The Sec. of Public Safety then accepted the CMRs and made them into REGULATORY LAW.

Thus it was decided that ONLY those guns sold by the mfr AT ANY TIME in the past with >10 rd mags would be considered AUTOMATICALLY hi-cap guns and require a LTC-A (handguns) or LTC-B (rifles/shotguns).

It is also stated that if you own a legal low-cap handgun/rifle/shotgun AND ALSO POSSESS a hi-cap magazine for it, THEN YOU MUST POSSESS the proper LTC for it as a HI-CAP GUN.

Very rational (as Mass Gun Laws go) interpretation and implementation of a horrendous law.

Now, a judge could rule that a pig is really a princess, but that is not something that any MGL can anticipate and deal with further than what was done already.

Personally, I don't think that ANYONE should feel comfortable with an FID or LTC-B in MA at any time, for any reason (although I acknowledge that <21 can't get a LTC).

I recommend that you buy and read Ron Glidden's book on MA Gun Laws to understand better what these laws are all about.

 

[M1911]

Len:

I have Ron's book. Several editions, actually. IMHO, however, the regulations are clearly in conflict with the text of the law. Here's the text of the definition again:

“Large capacity weapon”, any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device;

Is a 1911 a semi-automatic handgun? I think we can clearly agree that it is.

Is a 1911 "capable of accepting" a large-capacity magazine? I think we can clearly agree that it is.

So I do not understand how anyone can claim, with any shred of credibility, that a 1911 does not meet the definition of a large capacity weapon in C140 S121 clause ii. I just don't get it.

I understand that GCAB proposed and the Sec. of Public Safety accepted these regulations. I just do not understand how they can, with a straight face, claim a 1911 is not "capable of accepting" a large capacity magazine. It is capable of doing so -- no modifications required.

Very rational (as Mass Gun Laws go) interpretation and implementation of a horrendous law.

I'm sorry but, I do not see it as "rational." I see it as completely illogical and incorrect.

I recommend that you buy and read Ron Glidden's book on MA Gun Laws to understand better what these laws are all about.

As I said, I've bought multiple copies of multiple editions. I've read it. But I still believe this regulation is not a correct interpretation of the statute as written.

But I'm not a lawyer, so what the heck do I know...

 

[M1911]

Doesn't a LTC B restrict the holder from large capacity feeding devices entirely? If I'm wrong, I'm fine with that, but I'm still trying to get to the bottom of this.

That is not my understanding. An LTC B allows the holder to possess large capacity feeding devices for large capacity shotguns and large capacity rifles.

Chapter 140 Section 131 b reads, in part:

b) A Class B license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry: ...(ii) rifles and shotguns, including large capacity rifles and shotguns, 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 he deems proper.

Note that in most parts of MA law, the term "firearm" means pistols or short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles. That is, a standard rifle or shotgun is not a "firearm" in most MA law.

 

[Len-2A Training]

EVERY semi-auto is "capable" of accepting a hi-cap mag. The mag may be 12-18" long, but the gun is certainly capable of "accepting" it.

Making that case in court, if against competent counsel, would be laughable. Not saying that someone might not try it, but that was NOT the intent of that poorly worded law and there is enough documentation to prove the intent.

 

[M1911]

EVERY semi-auto is "capable" of accepting a hi-cap mag. The mag may be 12-18" long, but the gun is certainly capable of "accepting" it.

I do not agree with that. Many (all?) semi-autos with fixed magazines (e.g., Garand) are not capable of accepting a large-capacity magazine. The laws include text concerning fixed magazine, so it is clear that authors of the law understood the difference between fixed and removeable magazines.

You could argue that single-stack guns for which no large-capacity magazines have been made are not "capable" of accepting a large capacity magazine, since there are no large-capacity magazines available.

Making that case in court, if against competent counsel, would be laughable. Not saying that someone might not try it, but that was NOT the intent of that poorly worded law and there is enough documentation to prove the intent.

Sorry, but here is where we disagree. A 1911 is "capable" of accepting a large capacity magazine and such magazines are readily available. I can't see any way a defense attorney, competent or otherwise, could argue against that.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Ahem, the M1 Garand does NOT have ANY MAGAZINE in the common-usage sense. It uses "clips" that only hold 8 rds max. Non-issue.

SKS comes with a fixed 10 rd mag, but readily adapts to 20/30 rd mags.

Remember if you possess BOTH the gun and hi-cap mag for it, YOUR STATUS wrt licensing changes for that particular combo. Again "INTENT" of the law is operable here and documentation supports GCAB's interpretation that became Administrative Law in the CMRs. The courts look at the CMRs as well as MGL to make their rulings.

 

[M1911]

Ahem, the M1 Garand does NOT have ANY MAGAZINE in the common-usage sense. It uses "clips" that only hold 8 rds max. Non-issue.

Len, that is not correct. The Garand has a fixed, internal magazine. Clips are used to load magazines. The Garand uses en-bloc clips. Furthermore, MGL directly references semi-autos with fixed magazines, MGL C140 S121:

“Large capacity weapon”, any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device;

Len, as to the risk of possessing semi-auto pistols with a Class B or semi-auto rifles with an FID, we'll have to agree to disagree.

IMHO, the CMRs are a trap that could bite some poor, unsuspecting gun owner. All it takes is the right (or wrong, depending upon your perspective) DA and judge.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I purposely used the term "common-usage sense" since most gun owners would not consider a Garand to have a "magazine".

A judge/jury can throw out the law and rule as they like, nothing can prevent that. That is why good legal representation is required at all times when you have a legal problem/issue.

- Non-gun case: I sued someone for NOT painting my house after being paid to do so. Judge ruled (small claims court) in direct contravention of MGLs, giving the defendant most of the money already paid in spite of essentially no work having been done. The judge also told us (in open court) that he was going to "set aside MGLs" and rule this way. My first time in court and the process intimidated me so that I did not challenge the judge although I knew (from legal research) that MGLs requires "substantial work" to have been completed in order for the defendant to be awarded ANY MONEY.

- A good friend and former shooting buddy defended a guy (shop owner who had been robbed multiple times) in Boston (back in 1970s-80s) for possession of a "sawed off shotgun" in his shop. It indeed was an illegal shotgun (too short) but my buddy convinced the court that they should measure the barrel from tip to the open bolt, giving the owner the benefit of a couple of inches. It was pure BS, but a good legal defense where and when the guy needed it (shop owner was a good guy who cut barrel so that the gun would fit under his counter in case of robbery, which is what happened and he used it . . . hence the criminal charges). They guy walked away with a NOT GUILTY! Chalk one up for the good guys.

- The Marine we talked about a week or so ago. He obviously did something that violated MGLs, but the reason he did it was at least understandable to the jury and they acquitted him. Chalk up another one for the good guys.

As the above two examples point out, sometimes those that are legally guilty get off . . . so it is also well known that some innocent folks also get convicted or punished (LTC loss in spite of innocence/not guilty finding) for doing some things that are within the law as well.

When playing with the law, you take your chances. You also "pick your fights" on what you'll do or fight and when you'll "fold them" and take minimal risk or a plea bargain.

 

[drgrant]

Personally, I don't think that ANYONE should feel comfortable with an FID or LTC-B in MA at any time, for any reason (although I acknowledge that <21 can't get a LTC).

I can possibly understand someone getting an FID (ex, a guy that owns
a few long guns soley for hunting) But anyone getting handguns should have
an LTC-A. Getting issued a "B" when you asked for an LTC-A is just a smart
assed way of the PD telling you "We would deny you entirely, but this
is the path of less resistance for us than exposing ourselves to a court
challenge on a bad denial." If I went down to the PD for a renewal
and they told me they only did B's, the first thing I'd do is lawyer
up, assuming i could afford it.


-Mike

 

[Chris]

 

[Len-2A Training]

FID and LTC costs the same. MOST of the requirements are the same. You are crippled even with rifles/shotguns if all you have is an FID and 6 years is a long time . . . you could change your interest in that time easily.

Unless you have some DQ (in which case due to MGLs, you are a FEDERALLY PROHIBITED PERSON from owning any firearms) which allows you to get an FID but not a LTC (or are <21) there is NO REASON to get an FID any more.