-
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***
MA AWB enforcement.
- Thread starter Kaos116
- Start date
Local and State Police make the arrests, the county DA prosecutes the cases.
Like LenS said, it's the MA police who'll enforce it. Yes, it does get enforced.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ay-away-from-Universal-Firearms-in-Wake-Field
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/57694-maybe-I-am-just-too-suspicious
*Edited to add more cases of AWB prosecutions*
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/43200-Indictment-for-Manso-weapons-confiscated
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/116544-Guns-seized-son-and-father-charged-in-latest-Lowell-SWAT-raid
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ay-away-from-Universal-Firearms-in-Wake-Field
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/57694-maybe-I-am-just-too-suspicious
*Edited to add more cases of AWB prosecutions*
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/43200-Indictment-for-Manso-weapons-confiscated
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/116544-Guns-seized-son-and-father-charged-in-latest-Lowell-SWAT-raid
Last edited:
In the first case, they stole the guys rifle, but I don't think they ever charged him with a crime, although the poster there was very sparse on the details. Further, the poster also indicated that his rifle never should have been confiscated to begin with (because it was actually AWB compliant) and that he (basically) lives in a red town. This would not be the first or the last time a PD in MA stole someone's gun(s) for a bogus reason. That whole incident sounds like a circus. We never really got the whole story there, IIRC.
The other incident is not an MA AWB incident. That guy (to my knowledge) was harassed about not
checking for an LTC, etc, which is covered under a different section of the law. (There are a bunch
of generic, non-AWB laws under MGL which cover possession or transfer of LCAFDs. )
-Mike
Last edited:
I think that's exactly right. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a case of someone being charged or prosecuted (not just harassed by the police) under the MA AWB absent other serious felonies. This law is not enforced.
Very similar to our AWB in CT...I don't think even think the idiots who wrote it understand..nevermind the police/DA's/AG office...I think there have been 2 people charged under it..One wanted to be arrested so he could challenge the constitutionality of it..the other was a criminal anyways...It bans AK-47's but allows 74's...yet so many people have 47's here..its a joke..
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
What happened with this one?
It was found to be constitutional..
In July 1995 the Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld a 1993 state law banning the sale, possession, or transfer of sixty-seven types of automatic and semiautomatic or burstfire firearms, ruling that the ban did not violate the state constitutional right to bear arms (Benjamin v. Bailey [662 A.2d 1226, 234 Conn. 455 (1995)]). The decision made Connecticut one of the first states to have an assault-weapons ban pass legal challenge even though the right of self-defense was specified in its constitution.
I am unaware of any dealer prosecuted for selling the Colt "Sporter"
I would not be surprised if there are more challenges to it.
In July 1995 the Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld a 1993 state law banning the sale, possession, or transfer of sixty-seven types of automatic and semiautomatic or burstfire firearms, ruling that the ban did not violate the state constitutional right to bear arms (Benjamin v. Bailey [662 A.2d 1226, 234 Conn. 455 (1995)]). The decision made Connecticut one of the first states to have an assault-weapons ban pass legal challenge even though the right of self-defense was specified in its constitution.
I am unaware of any dealer prosecuted for selling the Colt "Sporter"
I would not be surprised if there are more challenges to it.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were some AWB/hi-cap mag prosecutions occurring in MA in the not too distant future.
In that case (assuming the OP in that thread told us the whole story) the cops thought he had a post ban rifle and took action to enforce the law. They didn't charge him because it wasn't in violation, but it shows that they are on the lookout for that sort of thing.
I know about the laws regarding transfer of high cap mags and such, but it seems very likely to me that that guy also had a few post-ban mag violations. Details were sparse, but re-read it with that in mind, you may draw similar conclusions.
According to Scriv it is.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...e-Dealer-Told-Me-(first-time-gun-owner)/page5
+1
I haven't heard of anyone getting snagged on a AWB charge or hi-cap mags for that matter. Like Knuckle Dragger said was it only the hi-cap charge or was it a slew of charges and they also threw in the hi-cap charge?
I've never read anywhere other than accounts on NES of it being enforced. The "high cap" charges you see people getting hit with in the news are under MGL 269-10(m), not MGL 140-131m.
However, it is entirely possible that someone could be charged with unlicensed possession and possession of post ban AW stuff and not be some POS felon or drug dealer. A new resident who moves into Mass. and goes to their local PD to get info on gun laws could get charged incorrectly by a cop who doesn't know the laws well enough, someone inheriting guns, or something as simple as an expired license and a house fire/medical emergency where the cops show up too could result in those charges.
The danger I see in telling people "It's not enforced" is that it lulls them into a false sense of security regarding felony law violations.
Mass-diver
NES Member
Well, all that case proved is that a red town wanted to screw somebody, more or less. If the facts are straight, it would seem to me that the PD in question doesn't even understand the law. If they did chances are that guy would have never posted anything, they would have looked at his rifle (at the MOST) deemed it was OK, and then left him alone. It sounds to me like when the dealer (or whoever it was) had called his local PD the chief or whoever it was thought "oh boy I get to revoke a license.... maybe!" etc. Then his tune died when he realized he didn't have jack on the guy. So they kept the stolen rifle for their own use. Maybe it's in dowd's warehouse.
The impression I got is the guy ran his mouth to the wrong people and a notoriously red/black town he lived in started "investigating" him, and a mountain was quickly made out of a molehill. AWB stuff may or may not have been an issue.
We don't know what happened to the charges, though... eg, how the case was disposed. I'm still curious to see whether it stuck or not, what the "Evidence" was, etc. This is interesting though, it is the first time I've heard of it. So at least now we know it's a "non zero possibility. ".
-Mike
Last edited:
There is lots of cases brought forward that will never appear on the "NES radar" and nothing in MA District Courts is archived in any useful manner to determine what was charged and disposition. If you know the name, you can find the disposition sheet, but there is no computer database to pump in a keyword and find all cases.
Most all cases are plea bargained down so that any conviction may not represent the actual charges filed (even if they were correct).
Lets' just say that there is reason to believe that more people than two have been charged, although outcomes are unknown. Likely others will be charged, and again we will most likely never learn what really existed or what happened between the accusation and the end of the cases.
Most all cases are plea bargained down so that any conviction may not represent the actual charges filed (even if they were correct).
Lets' just say that there is reason to believe that more people than two have been charged, although outcomes are unknown. Likely others will be charged, and again we will most likely never learn what really existed or what happened between the accusation and the end of the cases.
Criminals do it all the time, they never suffer the consequences. Just more bullshit that Law Abiding people of MA suffer through. Eff that.
I agree with your summation. But the sentiment I see a lot around here (and in the past when at the range in MA when strangers proudly point out the felony items that they possess) is something along the lines of "The cops have never even heard of that law, it's so obscure you don't have to worry about it." What I was trying to highlight with that case is that even though the cops got it wrong, they knew about that law and they tried to enforce it.
The guy in question lived in a very green town.
He was also a cop, which means he had a partial exemption from MGL 140-131M for any duty guns, and that thin blue line protection that I keep hearing about on the internet.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Whether he was charged under with violating MGL 269-10F or with violating MGL 140-131M, the point is that the most unlikely scenario that I could imagine took place, where a cop in a green town got in trouble for incredibly obscure law violations.I honestly think based on the MassCops links in that monster thread and other factors that the guy in trouble was in violation of the Mass. AWB, but even if it wasn't, an AWB violation is a much more easy to understand violation than the legal cocktail jdubois presumed he was charged under.
The legal process itself can be very emotionally grinding and costly, not to mention LTC revocation and fear of a suitability disqualifier for life having a charge like that on your record, even if it all got thrown out.
Last edited:
Mea Culpa- My wires were crossed- because I originally remembered "Canton" but turns out he was from Rutland, but I have no idea who the investigating PD was....
He was also a cop, which means he had a partial exemption from MGL 140-131M for any duty guns, and that thin blue line protection that I keep hearing about on the internet.
I honestly think based on the MassCops links in that monster thread and other factors that the guy in trouble was in violation of the Mass. AWB, but even if it wasn't, an AWB violation is a much more easy to understand violation than the legal cocktail jdubois presumed he was charged under.
Ok, well, it's clear you know a hell of a lot more about this incident than I do.
I wasn't aware this guy was a LEO, or any of that stuff. Apparently there is a LOT more to the story than whatever was posted on NES.
Well, not a lifetime if you move out of this state.... at least not on suitability.
It does make me wonder why the hell I still live here, though.
-Mike
Ok, well, it's clear you know a hell of a lot more about this incident than I do.
than whatever was posted on NES.
I swear to God, the only info I know on that whole case is what's posted in that thread.
Click the below link to my post in the thread where some fun stuff started coming out.I haven't checked, but the Masscops links probably aren't any good after their recent site death.
Moving out feels great, let me tell you.
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
Glidden's been VERY FIRM that being a LEO is NOT A PASS! I'd go as far as to say that he's advocating prosecuting LEOs who purchase or build guns in AWB configuration.
Let me put it in some kind of perspective for those without LE experience.
- Chiefs HATE giving permission letters to their troops for ANYTHING. I've worked under 3 chiefs and had a unique relationship with my first Chief who ordered a different service gun for me and INSISTED on issuing me a blue light permit (he was a Marine . . . he actually "ORDERED" me to purchase the light and fill out the form for the Blue Light Permit). The subsequent 2 chiefs wouldn't give any of their FT POs a letter for anything . . . and this is typical.
- Although it "might" be possible to get permission to carry different or various handguns on/off duty from you chief, the situation for "long arms" is typically very different. Only a handful of PDs in MA might authorize an officer to carry their own long gun on duty. Most chiefs are terrified of "liability" (not just for issuing LTCs) and thus run very tight controls on what and how/when long guns are deployed.
- So it is much easier to point to an unauthorized possession issue with long guns and mags for same than for handguns within LE community.
Ron's continual hammering of this point contributes to my belief that we will be seeing some prosecutions of individual LEOs in MA for "illegal possession of AWBs/post-ban hi-cap mags".
I don't read MassCops (too many cop-haters there, e.g. if you ain't a Trooper or Muni FT PO you ain't shit attitudes), so I have no idea what cases they may be posting. Since most cases will be in MA District Courts, publication of case info will be very limited and unless someone spots a local news article, it's unlikely to garner much attention across the state . . . but that doesn't mean that prosecutions won't be happening.
Let me put it in some kind of perspective for those without LE experience.
- Chiefs HATE giving permission letters to their troops for ANYTHING. I've worked under 3 chiefs and had a unique relationship with my first Chief who ordered a different service gun for me and INSISTED on issuing me a blue light permit (he was a Marine . . . he actually "ORDERED" me to purchase the light and fill out the form for the Blue Light Permit). The subsequent 2 chiefs wouldn't give any of their FT POs a letter for anything . . . and this is typical.
- Although it "might" be possible to get permission to carry different or various handguns on/off duty from you chief, the situation for "long arms" is typically very different. Only a handful of PDs in MA might authorize an officer to carry their own long gun on duty. Most chiefs are terrified of "liability" (not just for issuing LTCs) and thus run very tight controls on what and how/when long guns are deployed.
- So it is much easier to point to an unauthorized possession issue with long guns and mags for same than for handguns within LE community.
Ron's continual hammering of this point contributes to my belief that we will be seeing some prosecutions of individual LEOs in MA for "illegal possession of AWBs/post-ban hi-cap mags".
I don't read MassCops (too many cop-haters there, e.g. if you ain't a Trooper or Muni FT PO you ain't shit attitudes), so I have no idea what cases they may be posting. Since most cases will be in MA District Courts, publication of case info will be very limited and unless someone spots a local news article, it's unlikely to garner much attention across the state . . . but that doesn't mean that prosecutions won't be happening.
Kinda off topic, but I am going to disagree with that...It's going to depend on your chief...If I walked into my chiefs office and asked for a blue light permit, he'd laugh at me...if i asked for a gun letter, he'd say "write the letter I'l sign it"...And obviously I don't live in a bubble I have friends in other Depts (even some of you lowly part timers
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
) different chiefs are "OK" with some stuff that other chief's might strongly forbid...PS. Not every chief likes the Chief in Lee (with what a whole 10 officers) trying to tell them how to run thier department...
Kinda off topic, but I am going to disagree with that...It's going to depend on your chief...If I walked into my chiefs office and asked for a blue light permit, he'd laugh at me...if i asked for a gun letter, he'd say "write the letter I'l sign it"...And obviously I don't live in a bubble I have friends in other Depts (even some of you lowly part timers
PS. Not every chief likes the Chief in Lee (with what a whole 10 officers) trying to tell them how to run thier department...
I realize that different chiefs will react differently to requests . . . but far too many are worried about "liability" if one of their troops is using something "different" from the approved item.
Wrt the blue light issue . . . back in the day, we had parades and road races coming out our ears. All the PT'rs were required to work them for free and use our own POV to block roads (we only had 5 cruisers back then), so the blue lights were used for those events and as "egging targets" on Halloween when again we patrolled in our POVs.
Chiefs don't like to be told what to do by anyone not their direct boss. My chief won't send any of his troops to Ron's seminars or buy the book/CD, isn't a member of MCOPA either so is unaware of the articles published recently, etc. [Side story: I remember what another chief told me about the AG letter DEMANDING that the local chiefs confiscate MA Dealers Licenses from any non-commercially zoned FFL in their towns, shortly after Ch. 180 took effect. Basically the chief said that the AG could stuff the letter where the sun doesn't shine and that the chief didn't take orders from the AG. Ron's pronouncements elicit a similar reaction amongst some of the chiefs out there.]
