hi capacity magazines

[wacky_doug]

Not necessarily. The evidence I've heard about seems to indicate that the DA has to wage the assertion that the magazine is not pre-ban. Otherwise they wouldn't be calling up Glock, etc, to try to get them to rat on their customers. The "We think your mag is illegal" charge has to be backed up with something in order to get a jury (or a judge for that matter) to suck for it. "We think it's illegal but we don't really know" isn't exactly compelling evidence in a courtroom.

-Mike

Sorry, perhaps that was too strong. Of course the DA would have to prove it was post-ban, just like they would have to prove every other charge against you. But your Defense team would be equally motivated to prove that it wasn't post-ban. It doesn't change the amount of work by your team, and you start from the position of being charged with something that's not illegal (as SteelShooter points out).

Perhaps this happens more than I'd like to acknowledge.

 

[Ham Slam]

I've seen gun dealers selling post ban mags, so it's completely feasible for it to happen.

 

[jraysig]

From what I've heard from my attorney friend no one has ever been charged for owning a high capacity magazine or owning a gun not on the list. Is this true?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Answered this in another thread earlier today.

That is NO LONGER TRUE. Someone has been jacked up over this. Unknown result of the case other than he was charged. District Court cases are NOT searchable via Internet services, so charges and conclusions remain unknown to most.

 

[jraysig]

Answered this in another thread earlier today.

That is NO LONGER TRUE. Someone has been jacked up over this. Unknown result of the case other than he was charged. District Court cases are NOT searchable via Internet services, so charges and conclusions remain unknown to most.

Thanks for the info! I feel like every shooter in this state needs an experienced lawyer on hand.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Thanks for the info! I feel like every shooter in this state needs an experienced lawyer on hand.

Thankfully I am NOT a lawyer!

 

[drgrant]

Answered this in another thread earlier today.

That is NO LONGER TRUE. Someone has been jacked up over this. Unknown result of the case other than he was charged. District Court cases are NOT searchable via Internet services, so charges and conclusions remain unknown to most.

Len, do you know if there is a way to get a transcript of what went on in the courtroom, if I had the right name and location?

-Mike

 

[billmelater]

Two in Lowell, one in Woburn, in one week, according to articles in the Lowell Sun..

http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_19479611?IADID=Search-www.lowellsun.com-www.lowellsun.com
http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_19435594?IADID=Search-www.lowellsun.com-www.lowellsun.com
http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_19447127?IADID=Search-www.lowellsun.com-www.lowellsun.com

 

[drgrant]

Two in Lowell, one in Woburn, in one week, according to articles in the Lowell Sun..

http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_19479611?IADID=Search-www.lowellsun.com-www.lowellsun.com
http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_19435594?IADID=Search-www.lowellsun.com-www.lowellsun.com
http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_19447127?IADID=Search-www.lowellsun.com-www.lowellsun.com

Note quite, most of these are NOT AWB charges- unless I am missing something, these are all based on the charges that apply if one has a large cap mag/gun without a license. There are two different sets of laws regarding large cap mags in MA, one is "LCAFD or Large Cap Firearm/Rifle without a license" (eg, people without LTCs get nailed with these all the time) the other is the AWB. People here are mostly going to be concerned about potential AWB issues.

-Mike

 

[billmelater]

Note quite, most of these are NOT AWB charges- unless I am missing something, these are all based on the charges that apply if one has a large cap mag/gun without a license. There are two different sets of laws regarding large cap mags in MA, one is "LCAFD or Large Cap Firearm/Rifle without a license" (eg, people without LTCs get nailed with these all the time) the other is the AWB. People here are mostly going to be concerned about potential AWB issues.

-Mike

You're right, I can see that difference with these cases now. I don't know anything about the one you referenced earlier.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len, do you know if there is a way to get a transcript of what went on in the courtroom, if I had the right name and location?

-Mike

Mike,

I'd aim that question at KnuckleDragger. I don't know if there is any available transcript of these DC cases. All I know is that when I have checked cases at a DC level, the Clerk gives me a folder with all relevant docs to peruse . . . can be a dozen sheets of paper or 1' thick in some cases, but I've never seen or been offered any coherent transcript.

Since they don't computerize DC cases, you have to know the case name or number and go searching each case manually. Labor intensive and very time consuming and that keeps most of ignorant of what happens at DC level.

 

[jraysig]

All great info! So as long as you've got a class A LTC it doesn't sound like any one has been successfully convicted for having post ban mags?

 

[drgrant]

All great info! So as long as you've got a class A LTC it doesn't sound like any one has been successfully convicted for having post ban mags?

Uncertain. I know people have been CHARGED with AWB offenses, but I don't know if there has been successful conviction other than the corrections officer that had a captain obvious postban AR and LE marked mags. (This stuff was found after a 209A was pulled on him, IIRC). Then there was Peter Manso's case, but the charges were dropped in the end. (My guess is there is likely some embarassment for Truro or wherever embedded in that one, so the DA dropped the case against him. Not to mention Manso's case would have made perfect federal RKBA case fodder for a court challenge, given the circumstances... ) Check out GSG's AWB prosecution thread in the gun laws subforum. There was also some guy that Scriv referenced defending for both types of charges, but obviously due to Atty-Client, he couldn't tell us much.

The prevailing rumor/noise on the street is that if the state is going to push one of these, ironically enough they are going to try to nail an MA LEO for it due to the "memetic/shock and awe effect" but who knows... that's mostly conjecture at this point.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

Mike,

I'd aim that question at KnuckleDragger. I don't know if there is any available transcript of these DC cases. All I know is that when I have checked cases at a DC level, the Clerk gives me a folder with all relevant docs to peruse . . . can be a dozen sheets of paper or 1' thick in some cases, but I've never seen or been offered any coherent transcript.

Since they don't computerize DC cases, you have to know the case name or number and go searching each case manually. Labor intensive and very time consuming and that keeps most of ignorant of what happens at DC level.

Len, thanks for the tips. When I get an extra moment I'll PM him.

-Mike

 

[jraysig]

Uncertain. I know people have been CHARGED with AWB offenses, but I don't know if there has been successful conviction other than the corrections officer that had a captain obvious postban AR and LE marked mags. (This stuff was found after a 209A was pulled on him, IIRC). Then there was Peter Manso's case, but the charges were dropped in the end. (My guess is there is likely some embarassment for Truro or wherever embedded in that one, so the DA dropped the case against him. Not to mention Manso's case would have made perfect federal RKBA case fodder for a court challenge, given the circumstances... ) Check out GSG's AWB prosecution thread in the gun laws subforum. There was also some guy that Scriv referenced defending for both types of charges, but obviously due to Atty-Client, he couldn't tell us much.

The prevailing rumor/noise on the street is that if the state is going to push one of these, ironically enough they are going to try to nail an MA LEO for it due to the "memetic/shock and awe effect" but who knows... that's mostly conjecture at this point.

-Mike

Great information thank you! The one thing I can be sure of about the Ma gun laws is the more I learn the more questions I have!

 

[patsfan]

This thread just reminded me of why I need to move out of this state ASAP! It's way too easy to commit a felony without having the slightest clue. Case in point, reading the NRA-ILA yesterday I discovered for the first time that Boston is allowed to ban firearms that are ok on the state and AG rosters. I was thinking about getting an extended cylinder for my shotgun. Turns out that it is illegal to own a shotgun with a capacity more than 5 rounds in Boston. Guess I won't be doing that...

 

[Len-2A Training]

Great information thank you! The one thing I can be sure of about the Ma gun laws is the more I learn the more questions I have!

Attend one of my MA Gun Laws Seminars (see link below) and you'll get most of your questions answered. It's a forever moving target, and in fact Chief Glidden was kind enough to answer one of my obscure questions today so I now have to further revise my slides that I use in the seminar (25% were revised a week ago).

 

[jraysig]

This thread just reminded me of why I need to move out of this state ASAP! It's way too easy to commit a felony without having the slightest clue. Case in point, reading the NRA-ILA yesterday I discovered for the first time that Boston is allowed to ban firearms that are ok on the state and AG rosters. I was thinking about getting an extended cylinder for my shotgun. Turns out that it is illegal to own a shotgun with a capacity more than 5 rounds in Boston. Guess I won't be doing that...

I couldn't agree more! I think as long as you're not involved in a shoot or have a restraining order pulled you should be ok. The bottom line is trying to be a law abiding shooter in this state leaves you open to far to much liability. My friends in other states laugh at me on a regular basis.

 

[greeniron]

And the answer to this question (emphasis mine):



And if the guy has a receipt for a gun from said shop, the shop is not going to get off so easy with "I didn't sell it" as an excuse.

C. 140 § 131M Assault Weapons Sales Ban​

No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

So are you saying that ANYONE whe sells post ban high cap mags to ANYONE here is making an illegal sale? Please enlighten me. If I find post ban mags for sale on here and meet the seller somewhere and purchase them, then it is an illegal sale even if I have an High Cap LTC? Not trying to be a PITA here, but on the other hand I am going to CMA. Because if thats the case whos to say that the seller is not MSP posing as a member "just trying to help a member out"?????

 

[Mark from MA]

It's pretty clear law enforcement can own and posess but they cannot sell to non LEO. Typically if your gonna buy a so called post ban gun you shouldn't buy anything more than ten rounders with it.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

It's pretty clear law enforcement can own and posess but they cannot sell to non LEO. Typically if your gonna buy a so called post ban gun you shouldn't buy anything more than ten rounders with it.

And LEO are only supposed to own them in the official capacity of their job, not for just any gun they own, IIRC. Wonder how often that gets abused.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Yes it is illegal to sell and illegal to possess new large-capacity magazines.

 

[drgrant]

And LEO are only supposed to own them in the official capacity of their job, not for just any gun they own, IIRC. Wonder how often that gets abused.

It depends on whose interpretation you accept, WRT that exemption. There's not enough case law to show how it would actually pan out, and in that regard it's not much different than people not obeying the AWB as a whole.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

It's pretty clear law enforcement can own and posess but they cannot sell to non LEO. Typically if your gonna buy a so called post ban gun you shouldn't buy anything more than ten rounders with it.

There is no such thing as a "post ban gun" WRT common handguns. The magazine is the controlled item here. Either a large capacity mag was made before the cutoff or it wasn't. Obviously in some cases this is harder or easier to prove than others.

-Mike

 

[ShadeWPI]

So are you saying that ANYONE whe sells post ban high cap mags to ANYONE here is making an illegal sale? Please enlighten me. If I find post ban mags for sale on here and meet the seller somewhere and purchase them, then it is an illegal sale even if I have an High Cap LTC? Not trying to be a PITA here, but on the other hand I am going to CMA. Because if thats the case whos to say that the seller is not MSP posing as a member "just trying to help a member out"?????

You missed the second paragraph, which provides an exception for police officers and retired police offiers who are not prohibited from recieving such feeding devices from their departments. So LEO are excempt from the posession of a high capacity feeding device, even after they're retired.

The interesting thing is that while the first sentence technically makes it illegal, the second sentence excepts those licensed under 122 (State Firearms Dealer License) from the penalty portion of the law. So, if you (as a private citizen) sell a high capacity feeding device to someone, you can be punished by 1k-10k AND/OR 1year - 10 years, but a licensed dealer can not.

And you could likely make a strong argument, based on the exception in the sentencing sentence, that it was legislative intent that those licensed under section 122 were exempt from the whole law, not just the sentencing portion. That said, if you're a professional firearms dealer, do you want to risk having your license revoked to make that challenge?

 

[je25ff]

"that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994"

That language sucks badly. Can a pre-ban magazine be lawfully possessed by the former government of Yugoslavia prior to this date? WTF

 

[Broc]

I was at the range yesterday and a guy I see there all the time had an xd with 13 round magazines. I asked him if it he was worried about the 13 round mag. He claimed that it would be the gun shops problem if he encountered the law. Any educated opinions. He said he loved it lol!

Saying: "he sold it to me" or "I didnt know the law" is not an excuse.

 

[ShadeWPI]

je25ff,

Yes, the wording of the law is horrible, but it's what we have to work with. Generally, the interpretation has been, if it was manufacturered prior to September 13, 1994 it's legal to possess.

During the federal Assault Weapons ban, the BATF&E stated that it had to be owned and in a banned configuration on Sept 13, 1994 (this perticularly refered to firearms that were verifiabily still in manufacturer's posession on that date, but those non-binding agency policy letters are not part of the MA law. Ultimately, it would be a matter for litigation since it's unclear.

 

[Terminator03]

"that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994"

That language sucks badly. Can a pre-ban magazine be lawfully possessed by the former government of Yugoslavia prior to this date? WTF

I always wondered about that wording because it is so ambiguous. Fortunately for us is does not clarify *who* lawfully possessed it though. This could be really problematic for someone trying to purchase a pre-ban AR for example, because "they" technically didn't own it prior to the ban, even though it was presumably "lawfully possessed" by *someone*. Magazines are different story obviously since there is no paper trail to say you couldn't have owned it before '94 like there is with firearms.

 

[je25ff]

I've even heard rumors of companies that set aside warehouses full of aluminum (or w/e metal) sheets and labelled them, "intended for 30 round magazines" or something like that prior to 1994 to satisfy the coming ban. Whether it's true or not, I have no idea.