DickWanner
Banned
I understand that, but the way the law is written the opinions of those that matter could change that precedent.
Last edited:
-
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***
LTC B Question
- Thread starter DickL
- Start date
I understand that, but the way the law is written the opinions of those that matter could change that precedent.
The opinions of "those that matter" only matter if and when they're translated into actions. Here's the crucial question: has anyone with a valid LTC-B ever in the 12 years the law has been in effect been charged with illegal possession of a handgun not on the EOPS large-capacity list? I think you'll find the answer is "no". If the person didn't have a large capacity magazine, the charge would be difficult at best to argue. If there was a large capacity magazine involved, then I'd bet that the only charge would have been for the magazine itself, since that charge is just as serious and much easier to make. Unless people are going to forget about theoretical interpretations about what the text of the law might mean other than what's actually been published officially, then you already have the only answer that's going to satisfy you: a revolver.
Ken
Ken
Yes
Illegal possession of hi-cap mags (some marked LE). Don't know outcome.
Jesse Cohen told me of some other similar cases that he's aware of, don't know any other details.
MA District Course cases are damn near impossible to find documented w/o the case name/court/docket number, so finding this stuff isn't real easy.
I don't track court cases and I try hard to stay out of courthouses, rarely enter one on business. GSG and some others are a better source on this.
I think Scriv (back when he was on here) mentioned he was defending some guy that had an AWB charge drummed up against him with mags, but he didn't post details of the case, obviously..... so he didn't divulge whether or not that was the only charge and what the circumstances were. I think GSG might have found a couple recently, though, if I remember correctly.
It's been a long time, but I did find a few people charged with "LCAFD without a license" but that isn't the AWB charge. This makes sense, given that most gun arrests in MA (probably like 95%) are typical criminals and not people with an LTC.
Like Len states, it's a pain in the rear to try to find case info on MA criminal cases. They don't just stick it in a nice, free, search-able database.
-Mike
It's been a long time, but I did find a few people charged with "LCAFD without a license" but that isn't the AWB charge. This makes sense, given that most gun arrests in MA (probably like 95%) are typical criminals and not people with an LTC.
Like Len states, it's a pain in the rear to try to find case info on MA criminal cases. They don't just stick it in a nice, free, search-able database.
-Mike
I'm not at liberty to say any more about this . . . and I don't know a lot more info anyway.
DickWanner
Banned
You're absolutely right Ken in all regards, but we're also talking about a state where a judge determined it was illegal to carry a black powder pistol (even though explicitly written otherwise) because that was the 'intended spirit of the law'.
So I guess the only absolutely true statements are that revolvers with <10rd cylinders are most certainly LTC-B compliant and that pump, bolt, lever, and break action long guns are most certainly FID compliant. I'm also going to theorize that we haven't and won't see any case law on possession of a large capacity firearm without the proper license as there is no carry on an LTC-B (even though some PDs have encouraged such) and any circumstance involving such would lead to other more solid charges (poss of large cap feeding device, carrying without a license, ect).
DISCLAIMER: I am talking in legal theory, so either don't read my hypotheticals or don't get offended by them.
Last edited:
simply charged? or convicted?
I know of one individual that was charged with violating the AWB due to an AR15 he had in his possession. Police obtained the rifle during an illegal search so the charges were dropped.
It would have been an interesting case (for the rest of us, not the poor SOB that got charged) because the "once non-compliant, always non-compliant" interpretation that the MCOPA and EOPS have tried to push was apparently the driving force behind the charges.
And yes, it was a stand alone charge and not tacked on to anything else.
So, my guess is that he was properly permitted? Was the rifle actually illegal, or was it a case of police bloviation where they assumed it was illegal, (because it was a black scary rifle OMG!) and just trumped up the charges hoping they would stick? Given the lack of knowledge on gun laws by many in LE in MA, this would not surprise me...
-Mike
He had an LTCA. The guy moved out of state following this BS so I have limited info. The rifle was post ban and left the factory in a non-compliant configuration. The rifle was in a MA compliant configuration when he purchased it. It was stamped for mil/gov/LE use which apparently caused the police to freak out and resulted in charges being filed.
Edit: The charges were still pursued after his lawyer pointed out the MA compliant configuration of the rifle on the grounds that it was still illegal because it was made in 96 and marked for gov use only.
Last edited:
This tracks perfectly what EOPS/CHSB/GCAB and I'm sure MCOPA has been pontificating. "Once a banned configuration, always a banned firearm" is their motto. I have heard Ron Glidden tell LEOs/LOs/Chiefs that if it left the factory in banned configuration, that it can NOT BE MADE LEGAL by modifying it (regardless if a gunsmith, dealer, etc. does it before you possess it or if it was done in a Free State prior to your purchase)!
By their interpretation I'm not sure how the following would pan out (although I know they would go for the jugular):
- Replace an adjustable AR stock on a pre-ban, pin the old stock and install on a new build (from parts) or a post-ban (replacing a fixed stock so that it is a shorter fixed stock)?
- Building an AR from parts where you purchase a threaded barrel, have a gunsmith weld a brake on it or buy an adjustable stock and pin it BEFORE it was ever installed on any gun?
IANAL but I don't buy their interpretation. However it's easy to convince most MA DA's to nail the guy and see if it will stick. After $10-20K in legal fees, he might have the charges dismissed . . . maybe.
So even Glidden has gone nuts now? Ouch. On the other hand I presume its possible he's just parroting what TBTB told him.... I realize he is on the GCAB, but my guess is he only has limited political swing.
I knew PD's don't really know the law, but I didn't know it was quite that bad. If all the above is true, it means "keep your head down" is pretty much the term of the day if you live in MA.
-Mike
I suspect that he has a finely tuned sense of which way the wind is blowing and sometimes changes his opinion accordingly.
I'm not really sure that he's stating his personal opinion. He speaks for GCAB and MCOPA/Firearms Committee and thus must state their party line. A few years ago Ron told me that "interpretations" are subject to change with a change of administration.
SO, that means WE MUST CHANGE THE ADMINISTRATION to get a change in interpretation!!
Most of the positions on GCAB and the directors of EOPS, FRB, CHSB, Secretary of Public Safety "serve at the will and pleasure of the Governor"! The chair/members of committees in MCOPA and IACP (IIRC Ron was on their Firearms Committee too a few years ago) serve at the will and pleasure of their president. So, if you "go off the reservation" you WILL be replaced!!
That is OUR MISSION!
Last edited:
I just wanted to add that I don't know the guy personally and I never saw the rifle. This was one of those "I know a guy who's cousin went to school with so and so" stories until I was able to actually verify it with someone who is familiar with the case (and a reliable source). I'll try and inquire about getting more information to back this up, maybe a docket number or something
I'm not trying to apply this information to building an AR.
I have a stripped lower, that I purchased at Four Seasons awhile ago (and who filed an FA10 for it) and was thinking about buying an upper and making a complete gun. Now I'm wondering how I should approach the build given this.
Once again, thanks Len. It's good to be wary.
I used that example as a way to point out how absurd their position is. I don't think that any MFR actually sells "pre-pinned" lower stocks for ARs, just as an example.
I should hit up Ron with that question!
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
DickWanner
Banned
Yes, but I've only ever heard of security types being in that position. Then again knowing the security types from working with them they're definitely more likely to be involved in something than other groups
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
The roster specifically states that other guns not listed on the roster may be included, and references a CMR for definition. You can also be charged for a large capacity gun if it's possessed with a non-large capacity gun that it works in. But no, I'm not aware of anyone with an LTC B charged with any gun law violations ever, nevermind a large cap violation.
Yes. But what are we talking about here? Improper storage? Sold a gun to an unlicensed felon? Improper transfer? All of those happen, charges do take place, but you'd have to be more clear with that question.
Yes. See my below reply to LenS.
This is the problem here. As you've said before, there's likely many more cases that we simply don't know about because someone took a quiet plea in a District Court setting.
I posted some here.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/100861-MA-AWB-enforcement
This conversation just sparked a memory in my mind of the guy Manso who got charged for it in Truro as well.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/43200-Indictment-for-Manso-weapons-confiscated
You can tell by the penalty listed that it's a violation of MGL 140-131M (post-ban AW violation) and not a 269-10(m) (possession of large cap sans LTC) violation. I found a link with copies of the police reports and court documents for that case, but as per usual, the media only uploaded the parts they thought were important, so we can't actually see the charge sheet. I've searched, but nothing made the news on his case since January of 2009, so who knows if he was convicted or not. I do know that his charges were modified and a ton more were tacked on after the initial charges.
Not to mention the cases local lawyers have defended people in.
+1
Sounds like the Manso case in Truro.
Exactly. If one reads the CMR and tries to comply with it, we're back at the "every semi-auto with a detachable magazine is large capacity' stage. So you're choice is simple: either accept the list as it's published, or stick with a wheel gun. Any attempt at a middle ground is BS.
Ken
