If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Interesting. Thanks for all the help guys! I'm wary of ratting the guy out as I actually like him a lot and wasn't trying to make him sound bad, I think he was just misinformed.
You're right, he's wrong. Forget all the BS he told you, use you your certificate to apply for a LTC, visit this site often, when in doubt refer to MGLs. Ignore any legal advice from a cop or a gun shop employee.
Just recently nsf posted some story about the kid, his father, and brother being on video outside the store discussing the purchase and them handing the kid money directly before purchasing the rifle. Of course, thats their story and I dont believe it without seeing the video myself
Please, PLEASE inform him of his mistake so he doesn't continue propagating the misinformation about preban mags being illegal in postban guns. There's nothing in the law that says you can't put preban mags in postban guns.
I was looking for a good explanation with a law citation I could email him, and was having trouble finding something that wasn't just forum posts haha. He claimed GOAL or mas.gov or someone told it to him I think.
Or most people here.
This is the reason people don't open carry in MA....because everyone has been conditioned to think that it's against the law
Nooooooo, most people don't open carry because it subjects yourself to suitability issues of your COP is a dick. Get it right.
Just recently nsf posted some story about the kid, his father, and brother being on video outside the store discussing the purchase ...
Id. at 602.
As in Hamilton and Snow, §131M lacks words of limitation identifying the person who is required to have lawfully possessed the device prior to September 13, 1994, such as, "not otherwise lawfully possessed by such person." Cf. G.L.c. 265, §43, (defining crime of stalking as "willfully and maliciously engag[ing] in a knowing pattern of conduct . . . directed at a specific person which seriously alarms or annoys that person . . .") (emphasis added). Even if the inclusion of such words would further the legislative purpose of §131M, HN5 "[the court] cannot supply words the Legislature chose not to include." Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 459 Mass. 422, 435, 945 N.E.2d 877 (2011) [7] (citation omitted). Absent any such limiting language, the phrase "can plausibly be found to be ambiguous." Carrion, 431 Mass. at 45.2 The statute reasonably may be read as requiring the lawful possession of a large capacity feeding device by any person prior to September 13, 1994, in order for the possession of such a device to be lawful. HN6 The rule of lenity requires that the statute be interpreted in this way to "give the defendant the benefit of the ambiguity." Id. at 45-46. Because no evidence was presented to the grand jury that no other person lawfully possessed the large capacity feeding devices that Mr. Mokdad possessed, the court allows his motion for reconsideration, vacates its prior decision denying the motion to dismiss, and allows Mr. Mokdad's motion to dismiss indictments 001 and 002.
So what if anything does this mean for future cases concerning standard cap mags in Ma?
This can't be the only time that someone has fought it. is this a common result or are large cap charges usually dropped to just accepted because defendants have so many other charges on them? Also legally speaking how close are "ambiguity" and "vagueness".
It's more interesting than that. That was the only charge left after they were done.
Absent any such limiting language, the phrase "can plausibly be found to be ambiguous." Carrion, 431 Mass. at 45.2 The statute reasonably may be read as requiring the lawful possession of a large capacity feeding device by any person prior to September 13, 1994, in order for the possession of such a device to be lawful. HN6 The rule of lenity requires that the statute be interpreted in this way to "give the defendant the benefit of the ambiguity." Id. at 45-46. Because no evidence was presented to the grand jury that no other person lawfully possessed the large capacity feeding devices that Mr. Mokdad possessed, the court allows his motion for reconsideration, vacates its prior decision denying the motion to dismiss, and allows Mr. Mokdad's motion to dismiss indictments 001 and 002.
I'm curious on the details of how the high cap mag charges disappeared.
How exactly did they determine that the mags were "pre-ban" - because I'm assuming that the mags in question were AK mags - and I have never seen one yet that has any sort of obvious providence on when they were made - as opposed to say some of the HK 20 round 7.62 mags - which have the actual manufacture date stamped right on them.
Because no evidence was presented to the grand jury that no other person lawfully possessed the large capacity feeding devices that Mr. Mokdad possessed, the court allows his motion for reconsideration, vacates its prior decision denying the motion to dismiss, and allows Mr. Mokdad's motion to dismiss indictments 001 and 002.
and gave what should be actionably bad testimony/instructions to the jury.In other words, they didn't determine that the mags were pre-ban, the state simply did not attempt at all to prove that the mags were post-ban.
It was acknowledged the exact dates that NSF sold him the 2 mags. The state took the stupid ER (EOPS) approach that one must have personally possessed them IN MA on 9/13/1994 to be legal to possess. That was the issue that the judge ruled on. Hope that one stung Elisabeth and I hope it is the tripwire to her losing her job with the new administration!
eventually heard about that creative EOPS interepretation
It won't. My guess is the police threw this charge on, not knowing any better, and things got investigated, and then when they discovered it was impossible with any reasonable certainty to prove when the mags were made, they threw their hands up in the air and started making phone calls.... and eventually heard about that creative EOPS interepretation and tried to throw that piece of dog meat at the problem hoping it would stick... but even the judges called it out for rotting dog meat.
-Mike
My guess is that was the intent of the legislation, not that they were trying to create a law that allowed magazines to be ambiguously manufactured or from Bulgaria to be imported into MA.
The legislature probably booted it (thankfully).
Nope. Words lifted verbatim from Clinton Ban. Mags and AWs could have been anywhere in the world AFAIK.
It is a variation on what I call "playground rules" - maybe someone has a better name for it?
People with no actual claim to power and a tiny little bit of additional information than the average kid (either cursory knowledge of the real rules or the reality that brass balls makes the rules 99% of the time), use others' ignorance, insecurity and gullibility to their own purposes. They make up/embellish the rules to skew the game to their benefit and/or just get attention or appear to be "in the know".
All that might sound pretty nefarious and in the adult world it can be whether intended or not, but I think it is important to understand how fundamental to our nature that it is that this behavior appears in children reliably.
The person who successfully makes up rules gets attention, control and instant positive feedback and the fallout of their BS is either in the distant future or may never be directly observed.