LE/Military marked mags

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rating - 100%
32   0   0
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
2,403
Likes
93
Location
Centrally located in the PRM
Len, is this a "new" interpretation with current people in that position? Did it change from a prior ruling? Is there any known case law regarding this?

I THINK that Chief Glidden put down his interpretation that mags with reference to LEO shall be treated like you would any civilian. In other words, Cops don't get personal high cap mags just because of their title. They have to be issued through the employing Dept. That said, Glidden's newest rendition in his interpretation isn't exactly popular amongst the masses, obviously... So I don't think many, if any, really pay attention to it. Just my observations, and before anyone asks, I have no way of confirming or denying it, just what I've heard through the grape vine. Take it with a grain of salt.
 

mass

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
6,243
Likes
2,274
Location
Merrimack Valley
Sorry to jump in on this thread. Have a question. The LE/GOV label issue, do you mean that before 1994 magazines did not reference LE/GOV Use Only?

Sent from my mini iPad, because it's way cooler than my laptop, using Forum Runner
Yup
 

mass

NES Member
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Joined
May 4, 2005
Messages
6,243
Likes
2,274
Location
Merrimack Valley
This topic has been discussed ad nauseam for years. Hundreds of folks have tried to find that comma or word grouping in the MA laws that would make LEO mags OK. I for one wouldn't want to be the test case.
 
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
12,174
Likes
1,243
This misses the mark on a couple of points:

Prohibition is not limited to Massachusetts residents.

Prohibition is not ownership, but rather "sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess".

There is a limited exception for police officers.

Full text of relevant statute:



Section 131M. 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.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.
Yes, I should have said possession instead of own. A MA resident could own a post ban 30 rounder as long as it stays out of the state (like in a vacation home in NH as an example). As for cops, Len's answer is what I've always understood.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.4%
61   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
52,186
Likes
10,281
Location
Escaping to NH
Len, is this a "new" interpretation with current people in that position? Did it change from a prior ruling? Is there any known case law regarding this?
It is the interpretation by the current administration. I do not believe it is Glidden's personal opinion, but believe it came down from either the AG or EOPS and Glidden publishes the info he gets from them. I am unsure of any prior "ruling" . . . it was just commonly believed that if a LEO CCW'd off-duty that his carrying/using post-ban large-capacity mags was within the scope of this part of the law . . .

the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement
LEOs are now being told differently.

I do know that at least one LEO was being charged with illegal possession of post-ban large capacity magazines. No idea how that shook out.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
1,057
Likes
119
Location
South Shore
It's a felony for a MA resident to privately own any mag of < 10 round capacity that was manufactured after Sept '94. There are no exceptions and that includes current or former police officers.

(IANAL)
Fixed it for ya. The alligator always eats the bigger number, haha.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
2,328
Likes
396
Location
The Black Lodge
This state is retarded. The fact that possession of a cripple-free magazine can get you ten years or a $10,000 dollar fine--whereas illegal possession of a firearm (1st offense) will only get you a max of two years and/or a $500 fine--showcases how utterly brain-damaged/vindictive our local government is.

I'm sure there's a few people who defiantly possess standard-capacity mags in this hellhole of state. This clip demonstrates their potential reasoning to disobey the law:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,742
Likes
546
Location
Boston
This thread is pertaining to MASS residents and magazines in possession in the state correct?
Half correct: It applies to possession (and other acts in quoted statute) within the Commonwealth de facto, because Massachusetts has no power to control conduct outside its borders. However, possession (ditto) within those borders is prohibited regardless of whether the possessor is a resident of the Commonwealth or some other state.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
It's a felony for a MA resident to privately own any mag of > 10 round capacity that was manufactured after Sept '94. There are no exceptions and that includes current or former police officers.

(IANAL)
The LE carve out of 131M only allows posession (and sale, purchase, etc.) of hi-caps "by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement" and retirees, though its arguable whether he has to actually be given the mag or gun from his agency.

Just exactly how this has been interpreted varies and has never been adjudicated, but to even have an argument, I think you'd need to be a retiree, not someone who simply left the profession. Otherwise, I'm inclined to agree it's a no go.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131m
 
Last edited:

RKG

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,742
Likes
546
Location
Boston
To the OP:

Current "interpretation" by EOPS is that ALL post-9/13/1994 large-cap mags MUST be owned by the department. None can be personally owned at any time by current LEOs. The law says upon retirement the PD/department can gift the mags to the retiring officer but there is no mention of how you prove that.

There isn't much respect in LE for that interpretation, but it is the current attitude in MA!
I don't doubt for a moment that Len is correct about the "current interpretation" of some folks; he's pretty well informed about such things.

For what it is worth, however, I do not believe that the "current interpretation" is consistent with the literal terms of the statute, and, since it is a criminal statute, a Court would be required to interpret it narrowly and within its literal terms.

For instance, Joe retires from Nowhere PD. At the time of his retirement, he is not prohibited from receiving a large capacity firearm (because he has his own LTC-A). Under the literal terms of the second paragraph of section 131M, therefore, the first paragraph of section 131M "shall not apply" to him.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
I don't doubt for a moment that Len is correct about the "current interpretation" of some folks; he's pretty well informed about such things.

For what it is worth, however, I do not believe that the "current interpretation" is consistent with the literal terms of the statute, and, since it is a criminal statute, a Court would be required to interpret it narrowly and within its literal terms.

For instance, Joe retires from Nowhere PD. At the time of his retirement, he is not prohibited from receiving a large capacity firearm (because he has his own LTC-A). Under the literal terms of the second paragraph of section 131M, therefore, the first paragraph of section 131M "shall not apply" to him.
+1,000

When read literally, the provision for retirees says nothing about the department giving you the mag or assualt weapon, only that 131M does not apply if the retiree would not be prohibited from receiving the rifle--i.e., as long as the retiree is not a PP, has the proper license, and leaves under positive circumstances.

The problem is that the plain language is terribly at odds with the exception for ACTIVE law enforcment, as it is far more broad. Then again, shame on me for expecting any coherence in the MA licensing scheme.
 
Last edited:

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.4%
61   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
52,186
Likes
10,281
Location
Escaping to NH
The current interpretation meets a specific agenda of those in power at the state level. They have no respect for LEOs anymore than they have no respect for the "common folks" and are doing this to "level the playing field" so to speak. It goes with the "LEOs are to leave their large-cap mags (for their service guns) at the PD at the end of every shift and carry only low-capacity mags off-duty" BS that they spewed!

Might some rogue DA looking to higher political aspirations charge a LEO, hmmm . . .
 
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
6,921
Likes
614
This topic has been discussed ad nauseam for years. Hundreds of folks have tried to find that comma or word grouping in the MA laws that would make LEO mags OK. I for one wouldn't want to be the test case.
While this may be true, we all know that the likelihood of a LEO ever being charged, or prosecuted just for possessing a high cap mag is <0. Maybe if he committed other felonies, they would use the possession as as add on charges, but simple possession - no way.
 

gulfmp

NES Member
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
1,520
Likes
180
Location
Central MA
Ahhh....clear as mud!

Your responses are appreciated. Only MA legislators could turn a easy answer into a convoluted supreme court destined decision.

I guess the next question is what is the definition of retired? If you leave it, are your retired from it? Does a pension and not working anymore mean retired? Another mess!
Does someone have to be given the mag upon retirement? Show a receipt? This is madness!

I'm sure we will all just interpret it the way it fits our needs since no politicians want to make it clear for us.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.4%
61   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
52,186
Likes
10,281
Location
Escaping to NH
Ahhh....clear as mud!

Your responses are appreciated. Only MA legislators could turn a easy answer into a convoluted supreme court destined decision.

I guess the next question is what is the definition of retired? If you leave it, are your retired from it? Does a pension and not working anymore mean retired? Another mess!
Does someone have to be given the mag upon retirement? Show a receipt? This is madness!

I'm sure we will all just interpret it the way it fits our needs since no politicians want to make it clear for us.
Indeed!

I think that the commonly accepted definition of "retired" (IANAL) would be after x years (as required minimum under contract or state law) and able to collect a pension. For an example, LEOSA originally required this and MA CMR was written that way. LEOSA law was changed to separation after 10 years or more under good terms, but MA hasn't changed their CMR and has no intention of doing so (this shows mindset). I served 17 years as a Reserve PO, since we were only paid when we worked a detail or shift, there is no retirement and thus under MA CMR we are never eligible under LEOSA . . . whereas we are eligible under Federal Law.

I'm not going to go back and read the black-letter law on possessing the mags after retirement, but I KNOW (having heard Glidden state this) that they had to be "gifted" to you upon retirement by the city/town. Implication being you'd need this written and always carry it with you when in possession of the mags in question. Just like LEOSA (the MA annual cert card is a 8.5x11" sheet of paper . . . purposely making it most inconvenient to carry around with you everywhere you go), they do it this way to make it totally impractical to implement these exceptions to the general law.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
While this may be true, we all know that the likelihood of a LEO ever being charged, or prosecuted just for possessing a high cap mag is <0.
Yeah, I don't know about that. If its the option of the DA, don't be so sure.

I actually know of a specific case at the moment where a police officer is being charged with a weapons violations. I can't get into any details, but just know it had nothing to do with any larger, more serious incident.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.4%
61   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
52,186
Likes
10,281
Location
Escaping to NH
Yeah, I don't know about that. If its the option of the DA, don't be so sure.

I actually know of a specific case at the moment where a police officer is being charged with a weapons violations. I can't get into any details, but just know it had nothing to do with any larger, more serious incident.
Ditto and we may (or may not) be thinking of the same case.
 
Rating - 100%
23   0   0
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
14,000
Likes
1,515
Location
New Hampshire
This thread is pertaining to MASS residents and magazines in possession in the state correct?
Of course, there are other states that have adopted their own AWBs, in addition to MA. I can't remember them all but I'm *pretty sure* NJ, NY, CA and DC have similar bans (and some, of course, are more restrictive.)
 
Rating - 100%
12   0   0
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
6,921
Likes
614
Yeah, I don't know about that. If its the option of the DA, don't be so sure.

I actually know of a specific case at the moment where a police officer is being charged with a weapons violations. I can't get into any details, but just know it had nothing to do with any larger, more serious incident.
Interesting. I agree with you on the DA option, but my thinking was that it was unlikely to even get to the arrest stage in most cases. Guess this case you mention was a situation where someone may have had an agenda that transcended the thin blue line and all that it implies.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.4%
61   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
52,186
Likes
10,281
Location
Escaping to NH
Interesting. I agree with you on the DA option, but my thinking was that it was unlikely to even get to the arrest stage in most cases. Guess this case you mention was a situation where someone may have had an agenda that transcended the thin blue line and all that it implies.
Different issue but read the Comm v. Reyes case. CO has IA approach him to search his car just after he returns to the car to lock his gun in the car when he finds all the gun lockers are occupied as he gets to work at a prison. Tell me that he wasn't setup? Then they charge him with both illegal transportation (facts are he wore the gun until he walked up to the prison) AND illegal storage! Yes as a PO/CO you can make enemies "within" as well as without!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom