Is 9-round mag on pump shotgun legal in Mass?

Livefreeormass

NES Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
1,344
Likes
144
Location
128495
Feedback: 50 / 0 / 0
I say yes, because it’s a pump not semiautomatic shotgun, the MA definition of large capacity on mass.gov say: “ A large-capacity firearm is defined as a semi-automatic handgun or rifle that is capable of accepting more than ten rounds, OR is a semi-automatic shotgun capable of accepting more than five shotgun shells, OR is an assault weapon. A rifle with a fixed tubular magazine designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber ammunition is not a large-capacity firearm. “ Your further insight is much appreciated.
 
M4 is 5+1, semiautomatic. I’d say yes, it’s legal.

I’m asking about the detachable 9-round magazine on pump shotgun. My interpretation would be, yes it’s legal.
 
''Large capacity feeding device'', (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994. The term ''large capacity feeding device'' shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.
 
''Large capacity feeding device'', (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994. The term ''large capacity feeding device'' shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.
So, if post AWB 6 or more is illegal even with a LTC on an M4?

I think the long tubes are unreliable anyway.

Learn to reload.

The Beretta M4 H2O is my favorite shotgun.
Don’t own one yet. It comes in a 5 round capacity.
 
''Large capacity feeding device'', (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994. The term ''large capacity feeding device'' shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.
Cute but nobody in Massachusetts has ever been prosecuted for an AWB violation with a pump shotgun. Of course it doesn’t help them that pump shotguns are clearly MA AWB exempt.
 
Cute but nobody in Massachusetts has ever been prosecuted for an AWB violation with a pump shotgun. Of course it doesn’t help them that pump shotguns are clearly MA AWB exempt.
Ok, but what about semi auto?

You know I’m a slow learner.
 
Cute but nobody in Massachusetts has ever been prosecuted for an AWB violation with a pump shotgun. Of course it doesn’t help them that pump shotguns are clearly MA AWB exempt.
His question wasn't actually a pump shotgun question. It was if a Large Capacity Feeding Device for a shotgun was legal. It was a short post, but entirely confused on how the MGL defines what is what. A lot like a post that will read something like "I missed a credit card payment and my boyfriend is verbally abusive to me". Awesome, but even if the second thing is why you didn't make the credit card payment, it has absolutely nothing to do with the consequences. A Large Capacity Feeding Device even without being in possession of any shotgun, pump or semi is the issue.
 
a new detachable magazine that holds more than five shot shells is a felony. The gun is irrelevant. The magazine is a new large capacity magazine and unlawful. Period.

A fixed 9rd tube on a pump is fine but that was not your question.
So now what to decide on?

Pump - hi cap?

Or

Semi - low cap?
 
His question wasn't actually a pump shotgun question. It was if a Large Capacity Feeding Device for a shotgun was legal. It was a short post, but entirely confused on how the MGL defines what is what. A lot like a post that will read something like "I missed a credit card payment and my boyfriend is verbally abusive to me". Awesome, but even if the second thing is why you didn't make the credit card payment, it has absolutely nothing to do with the consequences. A Large Capacity Feeding Device even without being in possession of any shotgun, pump or semi is the issue.
Yes, that is true, would be a difference because there's actually a detachable mag.
 
The correct answer is on Hillary’s server, but alas. Do whatever feels good, that is the new rule of law… P.S. if you’re caught, just flash the Antifa gang sign..
 
a new detachable magazine that holds more than five shot shells is a felony. The gun is irrelevant. The magazine is a new large capacity magazine and unlawful. Period.

A fixed 9rd tube on a pump is fine but that was not your question.
I suggest you re-read the MA statute.

Large capacity feeding device'', (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells.

Maybe I am dense or something, but I take this to mean that a magazine that can hold more than 5 shotgun rounds, fixed or detachable, is verboten.

That being said, I think it is terribly vague because it does not specify the size of the shells in question.

Does this mean a revolver which can hold 6 rounds of .45 Long Colt is verboten because it can also hold 6 rounds of .410?

This gets mind-numbingly ugly the more you think about it.




 
Thank you so much for your clarification on the law. The People of Mass are happily letting the Taliban have all the large cap feeding devices, only billions of U.S.A. Dollars worth anyway. Btw, if you filed a tax extension back in April, the deadline for fulfilling your duty is fast approaching.
 
I suggest you re-read the MA statute.

Large capacity feeding device'', (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells.

Maybe I am dense or something, but I take this to mean that a magazine that can hold more than 5 shotgun rounds, fixed or detachable, is verboten.

That being said, I think it is terribly vague because it does not specify the size of the shells in question.

Does this mean a revolver which can hold 6 rounds of .45 Long Colt is verboten because it can also hold 6 rounds of .410?

This gets mind-numbingly ugly the more you think about it.
You're probably being a bit dense here. That's the definition of a FEEDING DEVICE. Only.
 
But it says "fixed or detachable" and further, it exempts fixed tubular magazines for .22 rifles - so perhaps I am not as dense as you think.
If one is seeking the legal definition (MGL) of a firearm, they would not find it in the definition of a feeding device.
 
But it says "fixed or detachable" and further, it exempts fixed tubular magazines for .22 rifles - so perhaps I am not as dense as you think.
It's describing what the legal definition of a “Large capacity feeding device” is. It's not defining what can be legally owned.
 
I suggest you re-read the MA statute.

Large capacity feeding device'', (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells.

Maybe I am dense or something, but I take this to mean that a magazine that can hold more than 5 shotgun rounds, fixed or detachable, is verboten.

That being said, I think it is terribly vague because it does not specify the size of the shells in question.

Does this mean a revolver which can hold 6 rounds of .45 Long Colt is verboten because it can also hold 6 rounds of .410?

This gets mind-numbingly ugly the more you think about it.
Why would i reread the statue?

Instead you should do some more reading. Read the definition of Large Capacity Weapon. The reason a 9rd tube on a pump action shotgun is not considered an issue is because of this definition. A pump action shotgun can never be a Large Capacity Weapon. So while the tube, if removed from the shotgun, would be a LCFD and a felony, while attached to the weapon, the weapon is not a LCW. This sets up a bit of a challenge to prosecution and as noted by @drgrant no one is aware of any actual prosecution.

The issue of shotgun shell size (length) only matters for tubes. Tubes on pump don't matter per above. Tubes on semi-auto matter. But a semi-auto designed for 3" or 2.75" wont cycle with 1.75" mini shells. The generally accepted way to determine capacity is what the gun/tube is designed for. The fact that one can create and stuff in arbitrarily short shells that the gun does not work with again makes a hard case to prosecute. If you had the gun and it was loaded with shorties, I think they have a case. Otherwise I think they do not.

Your question of 6 rounds of 410 in a revolver is an interesting one. The S&W Governor (on the approved roster) is such a gun. The Taurus judge is 5rd capacity. They also make shot shells for 22LR, 9mm, etc as "snake rounds". I think prosecution of the unloaded gun would be difficult. I think if it was loaded with 6 410 rounds they would have a case.

Go read 501CMR7.02 and the convoluted language for "Capable of accepting a large capacity feeding device". A Ruger 10/22 is capable of accepting a LCFD so by reading of plain english and the statue, it is a LCW and not permissible to be possessed by a FID holder. But the CMR defines "Capable of accepting a large capacity feeding device" in such a way that since the 10/22 is not on the large capacity roster, it is not a LCW if possessed by someone who has a LCFD under their control etc.

It does not get more ugly or mind-numbing. You have to go into this believing that if you own a gun in MA you are committing a felony every day and just dont know it. Gun control laws are not about controlling guns but controlling the populace. Making them confusing and self contradicting is key to scaring people off exercising their rights and owning guns.
 
It's describing what the legal definition of a “Large capacity feeding device” is. It's not defining what can be legally owned.
It is unlawful to own a large capacity feeding device if manufactured after 9/13/1994 in Massachusetts.

The features test for the firearm does not factor in here, at least according to my reading.

Massachusetts says a large capacity feeding device can be fixed or detachable.

The shotgun may be perfectly legal, but if the magazine, even if fixed, has a capacity greater than 5 rounds, it, in a plain reading of the law, seems to fall into the verboten category.

This does not address the issues with things like mini-shells....but that is another story.
 
It is unlawful to own a large capacity feeding device if manufactured after 9/13/1994 in Massachusetts.

The features test for the firearm does not factor in here, at least according to my reading.

Massachusetts says a large capacity feeding device can be fixed or detachable.

The shotgun may be perfectly legal, but if the magazine, even if fixed, has a capacity greater than 5 rounds, it, in a plain reading of the law, seems to fall into the verboten category.

This does not address the issues with things like mini-shells....but that is another story.
Dont apply plain english reading to MGL if your goal is to get to a correct conclusion. While the tube is a LCFD, the weapon is not a LCW so prosecuting someone for a LCFD permanently attached to a non LCW sets up reasonable doubt. None of us can find any cases where someone was prosecuted for 6+ round tubes on a pump shotgun.
 
Why would i reread the statue?

Instead you should do some more reading. Read the definition of Large Capacity Weapon. The reason a 9rd tube on a pump action shotgun is not considered an issue is because of this definition. A pump action shotgun can never be a Large Capacity Weapon. So while the tube, if removed from the shotgun, would be a LCFD and a felony, while attached to the weapon, the weapon is not a LCW. This sets up a bit of a challenge to prosecution and as noted by @drgrant no one is aware of any actual prosecution.

The issue of shotgun shell size (length) only matters for tubes. Tubes on pump don't matter per above. Tubes on semi-auto matter. But a semi-auto designed for 3" or 2.75" wont cycle with 1.75" mini shells. The generally accepted way to determine capacity is what the gun/tube is designed for. The fact that one can create and stuff in arbitrarily short shells that the gun does not work with again makes a hard case to prosecute. If you had the gun and it was loaded with shorties, I think they have a case. Otherwise I think they do not.

Your question of 6 rounds of 410 in a revolver is an interesting one. The S&W Governor (on the approved roster) is such a gun. The Taurus judge is 5rd capacity. They also make shot shells for 22LR, 9mm, etc as "snake rounds". I think prosecution of the unloaded gun would be difficult. I think if it was loaded with 6 410 rounds they would have a case.

Go read 501CMR7.02 and the convoluted language for "Capable of accepting a large capacity feeding device". A Ruger 10/22 is capable of accepting a LCFD so by reading of plain english and the statue, it is a LCW and not permissible to be possessed by a FID holder. But the CMR defines "Capable of accepting a large capacity feeding device" in such a way that since the 10/22 is not on the large capacity roster, it is not a LCW if possessed by someone who has a LCFD under their control etc.

It does not get more ugly or mind-numbing. You have to go into this believing that if you own a gun in MA you are committing a felony every day and just dont know it. Gun control laws are not about controlling guns but controlling the populace. Making them confusing and self contradicting is key to scaring people off exercising their rights and owning guns.
Let me ask this.

True or false - it is generally unlawful to posses a large capacity feeding device if manufactured after 9/13/1994 in Massachusetts.

Since the definition of "Large Capacity Feeding Devices" includes detachable as well as fixed magazines, if the tube on a shotgun holds 9 rounds, and is fixed to the firearm, is this a "Large Capacity Feeding Device" as defined under the statute?
 
Let me ask this.

True or false - it is generally unlawful to posses a large capacity feeding device if manufactured after 9/13/1994 in Massachusetts.

Since the definition of "Large Capacity Feeding Devices" includes detachable as well as fixed magazines, if the tube on a shotgun holds 9 rounds, and is fixed to the firearm, is this a "Large Capacity Feeding Device" as defined under the statute?
You are trying to extract only partial information from MGL. You have to read ALL relevant sections since some might negate what was stated is illegal elsewhere. So read again the definition of Large Capacity Weapon. This sets up the conflict/contradiction/exception.

There are similar things that are illegal that when you read MGL 269 10 you find exceptions or the Manufacturers exception at the end of MGL 140 121 or... I could go on.

You cant just read two definitions and decide they are the entirety of what you need to know to make a determination. If something else negates or contradicts these, then prosecution is essentially impossible. The definition of LCW negates pump action 6+ round tube issues. The tube NOT attached is a felony. While attached it is not.
 
You are trying to extract only partial information from MGL. You have to read ALL relevant sections since some might negate what was stated is illegal elsewhere. So read again the definition of Large Capacity Weapon. This sets up the conflict/contradiction/exception.

There are similar things that are illegal that when you read MGL 269 10 you find exceptions or the Manufacturers exception at the end of MGL 140 121 or... I could go on.

You cant just read two definitions and decide they are the entirety of what you need to know to make a determination. If something else negates or contradicts these, then prosecution is essentially impossible. The definition of LCW negates pump action 6+ round tube issues. The tube NOT attached is a felony. While attached it is not.
If this is all the case, can you explain why they exempt 22 fixed tubular mags, and why they say fixed or detachable doesn't matter? I get that the shotgun may not be a "large capacity weapon" as a pump action platform, but where does a weapon definition specifically factor in the definition of feeding devices? Because the law seems to have a distinction between feeding devices and the firearms they are part of.
 
I see the tube magazine to be a violation of awb if it's post ban regardless of whether it's affixed to a pump or not. I also agree that I've never seen it charged, and if it were it would be a mess. I have heard that Glidden advised police that a tube fed shotgun can never be charged as awb which may explain why it's not charged. It's not in his guide though as to why he felt that way.

Like so many things in Mass it's up to the gun owner to decide what they want to tolerate for risk. My job is to keep people out of trouble and if you want to be perfectly safe then avoid any shotgun that holds more than five rounds. Do I think there's real world risk? No, but that's a different question.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom