Laws regarding online ammo orders in MA

[jasons]

I believe this has no bearing on the topic. The distinction being that your case was an in state sale. I do believe that your interpretatio of the law is correct in that no person means exactly that( no person whether commercial or individual) . If you are going to go with the black and white of the law then you must also believe the verbage about within the state. That was his downfall. My point is that it is very clear about magazine sales from outside the state. The fact that it is not clear about ammo sales from outside the state means that it was intentionally left out because it must be legal.

For what it's worth (which is exactly nothing,) I agree that sales outside of MA do not appear to run afoul of the black and white wording in 122B, and probably wouldn't be subject to MA laws anyway. Furthermore I have seen nothing in the actual law that would make buying ammo outside of the state illegal whether in person, by mail, over the internet, or any other way.

Unfortunately that hasn't stopped the current and previous attorneys general from leaning on out of state vendors that they find out about and getting a settlement. (A settlement which is legally binding in and of itself.)

To the OP: If you can find an out of state vendor who hasn't signed a settlement and is willing to ship to MA there is nothing illegal about buying ammo from them. All that we ask as fellow MA gun owners is that you keep quiet about any that you do find so that they stay off of the AG's radar.

 

[rommel]

If that is the case then would the settlement be legally binding? Seems to me then the offensive should be some company that has got "the letter" to make a lawsuit. They have been monetarily hurt by losing sales to people of MA. Furthurmore the cease and desist would be based on nada.

 

[jasons]

If that is the case then would the settlement be legally binding? Seems to me then the offensive should be some company that has got "the letter" to make a lawsuit. They have been monetarily hurt by losing sales to people of MA. Furthurmore the cease and desist would be based on nada.

It costs a lot more to go to court than they'd be likely to make even if they won (and they may not.) It comes down to a business decision.

 

[Len-2A Training]

If that is the case then would the settlement be legally binding? Seems to me then the offensive should be some company that has got "the letter" to make a lawsuit. They have been monetarily hurt by losing sales to people of MA. Furthurmore the cease and desist would be based on nada.

Those consent agreements were filed in court, accepted by a judge and are legally binding IIRC.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If that is the case then would the settlement be legally binding? Seems to me then the offensive should be some company that has got "the letter" to make a lawsuit. They have been monetarily hurt by losing sales to people of MA. Furthurmore the cease and desist would be based on nada.

A consent degree is similar to a plea bargain - both sides agree to a resolution to spare each the time, trouble, expense and risk of a trial.

As to finding a vendor willing to hire MA counsel to bring a suit - good luck. Once they get "the letter" the choices are hiring defense counsel or settle for a small fraction of the cost of a defense.

 

[DONALDG-HOG]

If they are in another state, they are not "in the Commonwealth".

"No person shall sell ammunition in the commonwealth unless duly licensed..."
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section122B

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If they are in another state, they are not "in the Commonwealth".

The AGs position is that ammo delivered to a common carrier is considered to be sold at the point of delivery to the buyer, not delivery to the common carrier.

 

[rommel]

The AGs position is that ammo delivered to a common carrier is considered to be sold at the point of delivery to the buyer, not delivery to the common carrier.

If I am to interpret the AG then it would be illegal to travel out of state, make a purchase and ship it to themselves, but legal if they drove it home.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The AGs position is that ammo delivered to a common carrier is considered to be sold at the point of delivery to the buyer, not delivery to the common carrier.

In direct contradiction of UCC. From Wikipedia:

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC or the Code), first published in 1952, is one of a number of uniform acts that have been promulgated in conjunction with efforts to harmonize the law of sales and other commercial transactions in all 50 states within the United States of America.

I guess that should be changed to "49 states"!!

 

[codenamepaul]

If that is the case then would the settlement be legally binding? Seems to me then the offensive should be some company that has got "the letter" to make a lawsuit. They have been monetarily hurt by losing sales to people of MA. Furthurmore the cease and desist would be based on nada.

Only to those who have signed it.

 

[inerlogic]

yeh, next time the NRA calls begging for $$ i'm going to tell them i'm a one issue donor and they need to back some companies so i can get components......

 

[deezwho]

If they are in another state, they are not "in the Commonwealth".

I didn't say I agreed with it, but the question was which statue the AG is using to go after vendors and I believe that's the one.

 

[ranvette]

If you need a specific ammo just see if your local dealer can order it for you.Or buy from private party's on on line gun auction web sights.This state is ridiculous.Funny thing is if there ever was a terrorist hit within the state.The anti gunners would be the first screaming they need guns and ammo to be able to protect them selfs.They wouldnt care what state the ammo came from as long as they could get there hands on it.One thing i will guaranty is dont think the local PDs will be able to protect you if anything major was to happen.The low lifes will run wild takeing what ever they want.

 

[Lowbird]

If you need a specific ammo just see if your local dealer can order it for you.Or buy from private party's on on line gun auction web sights.This state is ridiculous.Funny thing is if there ever was a terrorist hit within the state.The anti gunners would be the first screaming they need guns and ammo to be able to protect them selfs.They wouldnt care what state the ammo came from as long as they could get there hands on it.One thing i will guaranty is dont think the local PDs will be able to protect you if anything major was to happen.The low lifes will run wild takeing what ever they want.

I have to agree that person to person sales have saved me a ton of coin. While stocking up faster and staying stocked more than I would shopping brick and mortar.

I have to disagree though that the antis will call for more personal use firearms/ammo. Yes for gov to "protect" them. Not us peasants to do the same. That would be selfish of us.

 

[MachineHead]

Seeing how the UCC protects interstate commerce and the point of sale is usually out of state, would it make sense to take this to court? Comm2A, what do you think about this? A win on this would sure make a lot of people happy.

 

[teaser452]

Seeing how the UCC protects interstate commerce and the point of sale is usually out of state, would it make sense to take this to court? Comm2A, what do you think about this? A win on this would sure make a lot of people happy.

I think Comm2a would need someone with standing, a company that is being sued by the AG for shipping ammo to MA.. Since to my knowledge, the AG has never sued, just threatened to sue unless stopped, there isn't anyone with standing.

Here's an idea. Do we have any FFL dealers in NH that would be willing to boldly step up and advertise that they ship to MA? We could make a big deal about it just here, since we know they read these forums. Would Comm2A then promise this person that they would defend him/her when the AG decides to sue? IANAL but from what I understand about shipping, if the buyer pays the shipping, then under the UCC, then the ownership of the product is changing hands at the point of sale.

Ultimately, for the amount of gun owners/ammo sold in MA, it probably makes little sense for a company to waste the time, even if Comm2A did the legal work pro bono.

 

[Billsail]

The AG's office doesn't need to sue. They impose fines, which are grudgingly paid, because to fight it, is cost prohibitive.

 

[jasons]

I don't speak for Comm2A (obviously,) but I would say that IMHO they have WAY more important cases to fund right now. Stuff like Caetano for example, which could have implications that effect nothing less than the the very availably of self-defense tools on a much larger scale than just MA. Speaking for myself I'd rather have my Comm2A donations go to stuff like that as opposed to something that in the grand scheme of things might help a few skinflints save a couple bucks on a box of ammo or open up a new market to out of state vendors to make money on.

The AG's over-reaching is pretty easy to fix actually - elect a new AG who isn't a moonbat. You don't need Comm2A to do that, you just need people willing to step up and work hard to make it happen.

 

[Glockster30]

I don't speak for Comm2A (obviously,) but I would say that IMHO they have WAY more important cases to fund right now. Stuff like Caetano for example, which could have implications that effect nothing less than the the very availably of self-defense tools on a much larger scale than just MA. Speaking for myself I'd rather have my Comm2A donations go to stuff like that as opposed to something that in the grand scheme of things might help a few skinflints save a couple bucks on a box of ammo or open up a new market to out of state vendors to make money on.

The AG's over-reaching is pretty easy to fix actually - elect a new AG who isn't a moonbat. You don't need Comm2A to do that, you just need people willing to step up and work hard to make it happen.

I agree that there are more important issues for comm2a. However, skinflint issues aside, the practice of threatening out-of-state companies from shipping ammo into MA is illegal as there is no MA specific law against it, although, I presume the fallback for the AG is MGL C.140, S.122B. This practice is not that much different from going after in-state LGS's for selling a Gen3/4 Glock just because the AG doesn't like the LCI even though other firearm LCIs are similar to that of the Glock. And finally, I doubt even electing a non-moonbat AG would change anything as this issue needs to be addressed and clarified at the legislative level.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

AG did it on fiat, because she is a commie puke. She had no right to do it.

 

[M125X]

Any word on if this current AG is still going after companies? I know Marsha was terrible but maybe this lady cares less...?!

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

A couple of comments regarding recent posts in this thread.

Comm2A isn't aware of an recent threatened enforcement actions under the new AG. That said, the AG's office hasn't really been pro-active in this area since it made examples of several retailers during Riley's tenure. The AG's office is big and I'm sure this is a function that runs on auto-pilot. It's unlikely that their policy will be reviewed by a new AG.

Challenging the AG's policy in this area would require, at a bare minimum, out-of-state retailer plaintiffs willing to challenge the AG's legal interpretation. Standing might be difficult if the AG declined to threaten enforcement action. In short, if they think they're being set up for a lawsuit, they can decline to play.

However, the MUCH bigger problem as I see it would be getting retailers to change their practices based upon the favorable resolution of a case. Even if we did go to court and win, I think that most retailers would keep doing what they're doing now. Massachusetts is just too insignificant a market and it's easier to play it safe and keep us on the "do not ship to" list.

 

[EJFudd]

Any word on if this current AG is still going after companies? I know Marsha was terrible but maybe this lady cares less...?!

Comm2A isn't aware of an recent threatened enforcement actions under the new AG.

Didn't I just read about a certain shop near Lowell getting threatened? Or was it not the AG's office that did that? Or are you speaking of ammo-related enforcement actions only?

I think we'd all like to know where the new AG's head is at on some of these more dubious & questionable enforcement issues.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Didn't I just read about a certain shop near Lowell getting threatened? Or was it not the AG's office that did that? Or are you speaking of ammo-related enforcement actions only?

I think we'd all like to know where the new AG's head is at on some of these more dubious & questionable enforcement issues.

They are not questionable, they are BS. The former AG did it on fiat because she doesn't like it.
it's BS and if I had the money I would challenge it and other BS laws on the book.