Yes. Except it happens when you are CHARGE.
It's astonishing that your 2nd amendment rights are completely nullified simply by being charged with a crime.
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***
Yes. Except it happens when you are CHARGE.
So here is an interesting hedge. I was just reading that there is no reason you can't have a FID and a LTC. Since the FID is shall-issue, as long as you are not prohibited, it could provide you with a legal hedge if you were ever charged with anything that would allow your CLEO to pull your LTC, but would not make you prohibited.
Does that make any sense?
So here is an interesting hedge. I was just reading that there is no reason you can't have a FID and a LTC. Since the FID is shall-issue, as long as you are not prohibited, it could provide you with a legal hedge if you were ever charged with anything that would allow your CLEO to pull your LTC, but would not make you prohibited.
Does that make any sense?
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.
MGL 140-123 said:...Sixteenth, That no licensee shall sell, lease, rent, transfer or deliver or offer for sale, lease, rent, transfer or delivery to any person any assault weapon or large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994...
MGL 140-128 said:Any licensee under a license described in section one hundred and twenty-three, and any employee or agent of such a licensee, who violates any provision of said section required to be expressed in the ... sixteenth ... condition of said license ... shall be punished 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.
A few questions on new Hicaps in MA (instead of starting a new thread)
1. Are LEOs allowed to purchase new Hicaps for any and all guns they own, even if not used for duty?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, are they required to turn them in when they retire or change professions?
1. No
2. Yes
It would be interesting to know how many ex/retired leos know this.
It would be interesting to know how many ex/retired leos [STRIKE=undefined]know[/STRIKE] give a damn about this.
FIFY in accordance to many discussions that I've had with officers/chiefs.
Per EOPS, they aren't supposed to arrive to their shift/detail or leave the station with the hi-caps! To a man, every officer I've asked about this has some very choice words for those in higher power (state) about what they can do with their "interpretation" of MGL.
And if they are ever caught with one, whether currently employed or retired, they will of course be given a professional courtesy and left alone.
Don
Maybe, maybe not. Didn't LenS say that EOPS was looking for some scalps?