Class B Handgun Confusion

[DickWanner]

So is a 1911, right?

It is accepted that if a manufacturer never shipped a firearm with a 'large capacity' magazine then it is LTC-B compliant. Just because some joe-schmoe third party makes a 3ft long 1911 magazine does not mean that a firearm is consider 'large capacity'.

 

[DickWanner]

I actually already looked over that (still, thanks), It was just my own ignorance and trust in what a long time dealer was telling me, that may have got me in trouble.

Any dealer in NH, regardless of whether or not they have employees with MA FFLs, will never fully be able to comprehend MA law. Hell, the majority of dealers *IN* MA don't have a clue...

 

[Palladin]

]It is accepted that if a manufacturer never shipped a firearm with a 'large capacity' magazine then it is LTC-B compliant.[/B] Just because some joe-schmoe third party makes a 3ft long 1911 magazine does not mean that a firearm is consider 'large capacity'.

Not even close. Another rumor perpetuated by people who don't have a clue!! Read the first paragraph of the Rooster!!! A G27 takes G22 mags, it's a hicap firearm.

 

[DickWanner]

Not even close. Another rumor perpetuated by people who don't have a clue!! Read the first paragraph of the Rooster!!! A G27 takes G22 mags, it's a hicap firearm.

Haha, you seriously want to challenge my knowledge on MA law? Glock shipped large capacity G22 and G23 magazines that fit into a G27. My statement stands. I know what I meant and I could care less how you try to construe my statement.

 

[yanici]

Hey Bos_roB. Good to see the guys are cluing you in. If your local COP is gonna upgrade your LTC for you why not wait a bit and buy what you want?

 

[Blitz1]

Hey Bos_roB. Good to see the guys are cluing you in. If your local COP is gonna upgrade your LTC for you why not wait a bit and buy what you want?

This.

 

[DickWanner]

Not even close. Another rumor perpetuated by people who don't have a clue!! Read the first paragraph of the Rooster!!! A G27 takes G22 mags, it's a hicap firearm.

 

[drgrant]

Haha, you seriously want to challenge my knowledge on MA law? Glock shipped large capacity G22 and G23 magazines that fit into a G27. My statement stands. I know what I meant and I could care less how you try to construe my statement.

Do you guys really want to have a circle j**k about this LTC-B crap? Seriously?

You are both aware, that it's more or less an issue that will never be -completely- settled, due to the ambiguities in the intent of the law?

Generally speaking it's been interpreted by various people to mean "anything that's not on the roster that is single stack is legal" but that certainly isn't exhaustive, either.

There are a whole ton of threads on here with Scriv duking it out, etc. Generally I agreed with his interpretation, but that might not amount to a hill of crap if the cards were on the table.

The one certain takeaway from all of this is that getting stuck with an LTC-B is bad news regardless.

-Mike

 

[richc]

Haha, you seriously want to challenge my knowledge on MA law? Glock shipped large capacity G22 and G23 magazines that fit into a G27. My statement stands. I know what I meant and I could care less how you try to construe my statement.

Dick... I found the following statement:

"Effective October 21,1998, the law establishes a new category of large capacity weapons and feeding devices. A weapon is large capacity if it is a semiautomatic handgun or rifle that is capable of accepting a feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds, or more than 5 shotgun shells (in the case of a shotgun). "

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I can go out and buy a 20 round magazine for a 1911. Yup, it is big and ugly, but according to the law, as the 1911 "is capable of accepting a feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds" would it not fit the legal description of hi-cap, and thus be ineligible for purchase with a LTC-B license?

If I am wrong here, please do help me understand. The statement above seems pretty clear to me.

Best,

Rich

 

[DickWanner]

Dick... I found the following statement:

"Effective October 21,1998, the law establishes a new category of large capacity weapons and feeding devices. A weapon is large capacity if it is a semiautomatic handgun or rifle that is capable of accepting a feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds, or more than 5 shotgun shells (in the case of a shotgun). "

I'm playing devil's advocate here. I can go out and buy a 20 round magazine for a 1911. Yup, it is big and ugly, but according to the law, as the 1911 "is capable of accepting a feeding device that holds more than 10 rounds" would it not fit the legal description of hi-cap, and thus be ineligible for purchase with a LTC-B license?

If I am wrong here, please do help me understand. The statement above seems pretty clear to me.

Best,

Rich

If we were going strictly by what is stated in law, then yes you are absolutely 100% correct. What comes into play is the interpretations of the people who enforce the laws (CHSB/AG and ATF). The law can say that only red guns are legal, but if the BAFTE says they interpret it as meaning only blue guns are legal that is what we tend to go by. I can't seem to find anything from MA or the BATFE commenting on this, but then again I suck at searching for that kind of thing. One thing is for certain though, if the above as it is written is taken solely as it is written, then any handgun that takes a detachable magazine is capable of being large capacity.

Do you guys really want to have a circle j**k about this LTC-B crap? Seriously?

Well when you put it that way...

Sorry, just in a bad mood today

 

[drgrant]

Well, that's the fun part......

On paper, say, a Sig P239 is about the cleanest example of what could be considered an LTC-B handgun. No large cap mags were ever made for it, at least not by the manufacturer. 10 is the top capacity, and only for the 9mm model.

On the other hand I can take 2 of these 10s, cut and weld them together, and (probably) make a 20 round mag that will function in the handgun- Now is the P239 "capable of accepting"? Of course it was, it always was, just like ANY other firearm that accepts a magazine.

If one takes that statement literally, it basically means that LTC-B holders can really only lawfully possess three types of handguns:

-Revolvers;

-Weird semiautomatic handguns like the (Grendel?) pistol which have an internal, non removable magazine of 10 rounds or less. (My bad, the Grendel might be 12, but maybe they made a smaller one? I thought they had a single stack .380... ?)

-Derringers and other single/double/triple/quad shot handguns.

I think the reality on the ground is that is clearly NOT the case. GCAB/EOPS/MA doesn't take that wording literally, otherwise LTC-B holders wouldn't be able to buy things like single stack semiautomatic handguns in most gun stores in MA.

-Mike

 

[DickWanner]

Well, that's the fun part......

On paper, say, a Sig P239 is about the cleanest example of what could be considered an LTC-B handgun. No large cap mags were ever made for it, at least not by the manufacturer. 10 is the top capacity, and only for the 9mm model.

On the other hand I can take 2 of these 10s, cut and weld them together, and (probably) make a 20 round mag that will function in the handgun- Now is the P239 "capable of accepting"? Of course it was, it always was, just like ANY other firearm that accepts a magazine.

If one takes that statement literally, it basically means that LTC-B holders can really only lawfully possess three types of handguns:

-Revolvers;

-Weird semiautomatic handguns like the (Grendel?) pistol which have an internal, non removable magazine of 10 rounds or less.

-Derringers and other single/double/triple/quad shot handguns.

I think the reality on the ground is that is clearly NOT the case. GCAB/EOPS/MA doesn't take that wording literally, otherwise LTC-B holders wouldn't be able to buy things like single stack semiautomatic handguns in most gun stores in MA.

-Mike

You said what I tried to said but couldn't said it

 

[Palladin]

I think the reality on the ground is that is clearly NOT the case. GCAB/EOPS/MA doesn't take that wording literally, otherwise LTC-B holders
wouldn't be able to buy things like single stack semiautomatic handguns in most gun stores in MA.

I think that is what was intended by the A/B license scheme. It'll take a B license getting charged for a hicap weapon to start the fray..

 

[Bos_roB]

Hey Bos_roB. Good to see the guys are cluing you in. If your local COP is gonna upgrade your LTC for you why not wait a bit and buy what you want?

Because Im jones'ing here!
This is my first handgun, the two guns that wher top of my list, MUST haves, where a 1911 and a stainless Italian Beretta. I decided on getting the Beretta first because being my first HG, Im gonna want to shoot it crazy-often. Even though I would like a S&W1911 first, its going to cost me almost twice as much to shoot, so the Beretta looked like the better first choice. Looks like that decisions been reworked, with much apreciation from me to the forum here. I would most definitely be VERY happy with either gun, I would just get to use the 92 more..... but I dont think I can wait anymore.

Im very thankfull for the guidance provided here, and I apologize if my OP came across as suspicious, or if this topic has been hashed to death.

Thanks again for the help everyone.

 

[DickWanner]

I think that is what was intended by the A/B license scheme. It'll take a B license getting charged for a hicap weapon to start the fray..

I'm also waiting for a B-holder to get charged with illegally carrying a concealed firearm as well, with all the PDs that are telling licensees to carry on them

 

[Len-2A Training]

If we were going strictly by what is stated in law, then yes you are absolutely 100% correct. What comes into play is the interpretations of the people who enforce the laws (CHSB/AG and ATF). The law can say that only red guns are legal, but if the BAFTE says they interpret it as meaning only blue guns are legal that is what we tend to go by. I can't seem to find anything from MA or the BATFE commenting on this, but then again I suck at searching for that kind of thing. One thing is for certain though, if the above as it is written is taken solely as it is written, then any handgun that takes a detachable magazine is capable of being large capacity.

1st, the BATFE has NOTHING to say about MGLs and CMRs. They insist that MA FFLs abide by MGLs/CMRs, but other than that, they do not enforce state laws.

2nd, try "searching" the first few paragraphs on the Large Capacity Roster (link posted above). It explains a more common-sense version of what a large capacity gun is per MGLs/CMRs. A good FIREARMS attorney could use that to squash any attempt to prosecute someone for buying a handgun not on that list, that the mfr never shipped with >10 rd mags.

3rd, to answer the OP's direct questions . . . no matter what anyone tells you, if it is on the Large Capacity Roster, you can't own that handgun with a LTC-B, period. Beretta 92 is NG, 1911 is GTG.

4th, there is more to this, but I'm backing out of this CF now. I will cover it however in the seminar that I'm creating. That's all for now.

 

[DickWanner]

1st, the BATFE has NOTHING to say about MGLs and CMRs. They insist that MA FFLs abide by MGLs/CMRs, but other than that, they do not enforce state laws.

No, but the MA AWBs are essentially a direct copy of the Fed one. If we use the Fed definitions for things such as permanent attachment then why wouldn't it at least be relevant in helping us determine what "large capacity" is?

 

[DickWanner]

2nd, try "searching" the first few paragraphs on the Large Capacity Roster (link posted above). It explains a more common-sense version of what a large capacity gun is per MGLs/CMRs. A good FIREARMS attorney could use that to squash any attempt to prosecute someone for buying a handgun not on that list, that the mfr never shipped with >10 rd mags.

I've read that and the CMR, could you please explain how a lawyer could do such when there's not any mention of manufacturer in there? Like I said anyone can make a 'large capacity feeding device' for any semi that takes detachable magazines, making them all potentially 'high capacity' if we go by straight interpertation of what is written.

 

[GSG]

Sounds like State Line in Mason. My experience with them is that they're not very good when it comes to MA law.

My thoughts exactly.

On the other hand I can take 2 of these 10s, cut and weld them together, and (probably) make a 20 round mag that will function in the handgun-

Dillinger's gangland armorer did just that for his full-auto 1911...

-Weird semiautomatic handguns like the (Grendel?) pistol which have an internal, non removable magazine of 10 rounds or less. (My bad, the Grendel might be 12, but maybe they made a smaller one? I thought they had a single stack .380... ?)

The Grendel .22 mag holds 20 or 22 rounds IIRC. I know they made a little .380 though too, which I believe was single stack.

You also forgot the Liberator pistol in that list.

No, but the MA AWBs are essentially a direct copy of the Fed one. If we use the Fed definitions for things such as permanent attachment then why wouldn't it at least be relevant in helping us determine what "large capacity" is?

Because the feds only every defined Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices (meaning high cap mags), not Large Capacity handguns or long guns in the way Mass. defines them.

I've read that and the CMR, could you please explain how a lawyer could do such when there's not any mention of manufacturer in there?

The short answer is that there's more to it than what's in MGL, CMR or on the roster, and that some poor sod with an LTC-B would have to face prosecution over something in order for all of it to be hashed out in court. Scriv thinks he could beat a charge, but I doubt he'd do it pro bono.

 

[terraformer]

Not even close. Another rumor perpetuated by people who don't have a clue!! Read the first paragraph of the Rooster!!! A G27 takes G22 mags, it's a hicap firearm.

This is a common issue with MA law. It is not enforced how it is written. They are right and you are wrong if you look at enforcement and the opinions of the regulators and others. You are right that the law is written such that it bars any semi auto from being called non high cap but the absurdity of the law has been subverted by regulatory opinion and prosecutorial decisions.

I think that is what was intended by the A/B license scheme. It'll take a B license getting charged for a hicap weapon to start the fray..

That statement is true so long as there is a barrier to an A. When the barrier to getting an A falls, then Bs should go the way of the dodo bird. If the state decides that they will put up another barrier to an A, resulting in a B being all one can get.... Well lets just say bring it on.

Bos_Rob, did you ask for a B or did you get a B forced down on you?

 

[szaino]

To Bos_rob

In case you missed it in the prior post or think it's OK because the dealer says it's OK, it's not and you could be in some trouble... and that is, you cannot buy any handgun directly from the dealer in NH and take possession directly from him and let him file the Mass FA10.

You must have him ship it directly to a Mass FFL where you will take possession and that FFL will file the FA10.

 

[DickWanner]

To Bos_rob

In case you missed it in the prior post or think it's OK because the dealer says it's OK, it's not and you could be in some trouble... and that is, you cannot buy any handgun directly from the dealer in NH and take possession directly from him and let him file the Mass FA10.

You must have him ship it directly to a Mass FFL where you will take possession and that FFL will file the FA10.

Several NH FFLs on the border have employees with MA FFLs out of 'shacks' right across the border in MA.

 

[Bos_roB]

Bos_Rob, did you ask for a B or did you get a B forced down on you?

Forced. I was told it was standard procedure for a first time applicant.

 

[GSG]

This is a common issue with MA law. It is not enforced how it is written. They are right and you are wrong if you look at enforcement and the opinions of the regulators and others. You are right that the law is written such that it bars any semi auto from being called non high cap but the absurdity of the law has been subverted by regulatory opinion and prosecutorial decisions.

In general I agree with you. However, one guy picked up a "large capacityfirearm" charge with a G27, I'm linking to the thread where it was discussed below.

Here's an article from another forum and what this poor guy went through while traveling through this stupid state. Read posts #29 & #39

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=262707&page=2

I believe that thread is the same or related to another THR thread titled "Getting a LAWFUL gun back from police in MASS?", but I'm currently posting from behind a gun-hating firewall, so I can't confirm that. Granted, his case is different than what we're discussing, but he was charged for it. Although he may have been charged with that because it was coupled with a high cap mag...only the links will tell. I'll dig through it later and confirm.

 

[GSG]

I checked those links...that guy was a little confused and his details were lacking, but it looks like I was correct in post #54.