Gun Club closure megathread

Still disagree. Nothing in that section applies. Maybe you can point out the specific paragraph.
. . . if you say so.

The following is from Glidden's book under C. 269 S. 10

5. Violation of Surrender Order c. 140, section 129D: A person who refuses to surrender licenses, weapons or ammunition in compliance with c. 140, section 129D would be prosecuted by subsection (i) of this section.

. . . and the above referenced law:

(i) Whoever knowingly fails to deliver or surrender a revoked or suspended license to carry or possess firearms or machine guns issued under the provisions of section one hundred and thirty-one or one hundred and thirty-one F of chapter one hundred and forty, or firearm identification card, or receipt for the fee for such card, or a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun, as provided in section one hundred and twenty-nine D of chapter one hundred and forty, unless an appeal is pending shall be punished by imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.
Classification: Misdemeanor
Penalty: Up to 2½ years in HOC or by a fine of up to $1000
Right of Arrest: No for this subsection. However, such a person could be arrested if there was probable cause to believe he was in violation of paragraphs (a) or (h) of this section because he had firearms, rifles or shotguns in his possession without a FID Card or LTC.

Regardless of what you think, my LE sources have reported prosecutions under this section. Are they reading into it deeper than you might like? Yes. However, the MA Marsupials will be more than happy to convict on it.
 
Still disagree. Nothing in that section applies. Maybe you can point out the specific paragraph.
Here is the deal:
  • Even if your position is theoretically correct, there is no guarantee it will prevail in court. Just read the decision making an AD within 500 ft of another dwelling a strict liabiltiy defense with no requirement of mens rea or sceinter to get an idea what the court thinks of gun owners and how, when considering the penalty relative to the crime, the loss of gun rights is not even considered (read the part of the decision about how the penalty is so minor that strict liability does not pose an undue burden)
  • I am not saying the law necessarily includes out of state guns; just that there is a very real risk the courts will claim it does. For example, there is the case of the LTC holder ruled "unsuitable" by a PD, and upheld by a MA court, for violating safe storage ..... in Rhode Island where there is no such law.
  • The police are not amused by people who engage in what they think is playing cute games
  • If you are facing a surrender order, your top priorities should be:
    1. Avoid becoming a federal PP. If your scholarly interpretation of what the law means is not accepted by the court, you risk becoming federally prohibited for life
    2. Preserving you MA gun rights. Not always possible - chances are you will end up suitable in some towns but not in others
    3. Getting your guns into friendly hands (a friend with an LTC or a state licensed dealer if a 209A)
  • As much as it hurts those fond of such statements as "shall not be infringed"*, playing this one by the book is the best way of coming out with full, rather than partial, citizenship at the other end of the meat grinder. (I consider someone who cannot own guns as less than a full citizen for practical, though not legal, purposes)
  • I know people who have been in the BTDT club and came out "whole" (unrestricted LTC intact). They did this by playing the game by the rules as understood by those in power, not by using favorable to them legal theory, to guide their actions.
* - In legal circles this carries about as much weight as "Wages are not income so I do not owe federal income tax".
 
Wrong, it's not illegal for you to have them in NH. It's not about ownership, it's about possession and MA can't tell what you can do out of state. You must turn over all guns in MA jurisdiction.

As to judgements someone has to go to a NH court to pursue a MA judgment.
We all might look forward to the time when you can prove your theories in a court of law, but until then there's considerable real world events that lean the other way.

Now what gun club did you say was closed or open?
 
MA can't tell what you can do out of state.
True, but having guns under your control and available to you while in MA may (emphasis, may) be considered behavior while you are in the state of MA.

Plus, if you are charged with a misdefelony, you may not (Under federal law) receive a firearm or ammo, but may continue to possess firearms and ammo you already own (using the federal, not MA, definition of firearm). See Are there persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Item #9. This is assuming, of course, that the ATF would consider "charged" as the equivalent of indictment or information.
 
They wouldn't have to revoke. They could just turn hard red and refuse to renew.

Not many clubs could survive losing a fifth of their membership this year, another fifth next year, etc.

IAs only control their residents. Most clubs in town X have guys from other towns using them. In most cases 1/5th being pure locals isn't likely.
 
You realize how idiotic it is to believe that a leo is somehow able to be trusted more to disinfect than a club member who has a stake in keeping their club safe and open? You should have told them if it's not safe to operate our club for us, than it's not safe to operate for you. It is inexcusable in my opinion to shut off members from their own club but allow law enforcement to use it.
Agreed. Same with the whole "shops are closed, except for sales to law enforcement". Remember what Barrett did?


The one thing I would say is that every club should have something in its by laws that if the range is closed to its members then it is closed period. If the members cannot shoot there then NO ONE shoots there.
What about closures for programs like "Women On Target", or "NES Shoot"?


Not so much paranoid as pragmatic. Gun owners in Mass are grossly outnumbered. In a pissing contest, you’re going to lose even if you’re right. I prefer to avoid that conflict for now.
You will lose either way. One way, you are Neville Chamberlain, the other way you are Winston Churchill. Your choice.


This would be called the Serbu-Barrett protocol. Both have refused to sell 50BMG rifles to police in jurisdictions where civilians cannot own such weapony.
That's what I was thinking about, above.


And I’m not going to say on a public forum. PM inbound.
Why? Nothing to lose.


I didn’t say I like the arrangement. It’s in my best interest to stay on their good side, so I do.
You will end up on the wrong side eventually. There are lines, and they have drawn them.


Actually it’s not in your best interest long term to stay on their good side but that’s a very big discussion for another time.
Yup.
 
Agreed. Same with the whole "shops are closed, except for sales to law enforcement". Remember what Barrett did?
Serbu did the same thing with NYC, but refused a sale. He even got a cease and desist letter from the soup nazi's attorney for his "No Serbu For You" T shirts.
 
Last edited:
I am waiting to see how April plays out for our WoT event for May 30. Obviously if our club is closed, we'll postpone the event.
No, what I meant was if that person thought closures for WOT events should not happen, because it closes for club members. But I also get your point, which is also a good one.

Serbu did the same thing with NYC, but refused a sale. He even got a cease and desist letter from the soup nazi's attorney for his
"No Serbu For You" T shirts.
I did not know this. So they stopped them from printing shirts? That is LITERALLY freedom of the presses infringement/violation of the 1st Amendment.


Wow.
 
Nope, eminent domain, they come to your house and take your land.
Taxpayers still foot the bill as the owner is paid so-called market value by the state under eminent domain. But, if eminent domain raises the value of all the surrounding properties, the owner doesn't get payment based on the new value, but the value at the time it was taken over.
 
I don’t care if the police have to put up a building on one of the many state buildings available. I’m not anti cop. Just anti state. Not an unreasonable request, no police training on a private club as these are the guys enforcing these unconstitutional laws coming from Beacon Hill.
 
I pay good taxes for them to lock up asshloes, let the state of Ma Buy up some land in enough areas for the State to train them ON THEIR OWN DAMN LAND.
They can always use the Fort Devens Ranges, Last I knew, there was one year waiting list, a fee per day and a fee for each person trained. Some police depts. have their own ranges maybe they could find where they are and beg to use them.
 
Last edited:
Pelham F&G Utility range closed for 2 weeks for maintenance - presumably rain and wind damage to berms but I dunno. No guests lowed during current circumstances. Otherwise open.
 
I pay good taxes for them to lock up asshloes, let the state of Ma Buy up some land in enough areas for the State to train them ON THEIR OWN DAMN LAND.

The state already has plenty of land to build police ranges, they also have plenty of empty buildings where they could make indoor ranges, some in places you'd never even think of.
Anyone remember when the MSP were caught using one of the Big Dig tunnel vent buildings as their private indoor golf driving range ??? If it's a big enough secure space to practice driving golf balls, it's certainly big enough for a rifle & pistol range.
 
Back
Top Bottom