MA Gun Laws

[jdgill]

FID card transport wuestion

Overheard a conversation last week regarding FID card transport. Young fellow brought a AR-15 look-a-like in 22 cal to the range to show around. Someone commented that since he was under 18 with an FID, he was transporting illegally. Implication; someone over 18 must accompany him. Any truth to this?

 

[Colt Delta Elite]

If the AR 22 look alike is a high capacity rifle he would need a LTC to posses it never mind transport it.

 

[Kevlar]

Overheard a conversation last week regarding FID card transport. Young fellow brought a AR-15 look-a-like in 22 cal to the range to show around. Someone commented that since he was under 18 with an FID, he was transporting illegally. Implication; someone over 18 must accompany him. Any truth to this?

No, providing the individual is appropriately licensed, there is no age specific prohibition against transportation.

 

[jdgill]

If the AR 22 look alike is a high capacity rifle he would need a LTC to posses it never mind transport it.

I think that would be the magazine, and there were none involved.

Are 22 cal subject to 10 round limit constituting high capacity?

 

[AlwaysArmed]

I think that would be the magazine, and there were none involved.

Are 22 cal subject to 10 round limit constituting high capacity?

i could be wrong so please correct me if i am but i believe .22 hicap is only exempt when it's a fixed tube style magazine.

 

[Kevlar]

I think that would be the magazine, and there were none involved.

It applies to both the rifle and the magazine.

If the rifle was ever shipped from the manufacturer, to any State, with a magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds, it's a "large capacity" rifle.

As such, it would require a minimum of a LTC-B to possess.

Are 22 cal subject to 10 round limit constituting high capacity?

Yes, except .22 cal. rifles with a "tubular magazine".

i could be wrong so please correct me if i am but i believe .22 hicap is only exempt when it's a fixed tube style magazine.

Correct.

 

[M1911]

Are 22 cal subject to 10 round limit constituting high capacity?

Yes they are. Only .22 tube mags are exempt.

 

[Len-2A Training]

In fact, EOPS just added the S&W 15-22 to their Large Capacity Roster, meaning that it now requires a LTC to possess.

 

[Kevlar]

In fact, EOPS just added the S&W 15-22 to their Large Capacity Roster, meaning that it now requires a LTC to possess.

Technically, it always required a minimum of a LTC-B, as it ships to free states with a 25-round mag.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Technically, it always required a minimum of a LTC-B, as it ships to free states with a 25-round mag.

That was NOT the prior EOPS/GCAB interpretation as told to me by Ron Glidden ~1 year ago.

That said, I agree with you, but if you check the Large Capacity EOPS List, most new model large capacity guns are NOT on it.

 

[yanici]

So, I guess all the folks that only have an FID and bought a 15-22 are now criminals. What a State we're in!

 

[AlwaysArmed]

So, I guess all the folks that only have an FID and bought a 15-22 are now criminals. What a State we're in!

what a state indeed...

 

[Bob-Sig226]

Is there a definitive place (URL) for accessing Mass gun laws? The Commonwealth site http://www.malegislature.gov is nebulous and difficult to get to an overall table of context for the laws and comes across as being very ambiguous. Suggestions would be appreciated. I'm looking for a chapter by chapter TOC and breakdown.

 

[M1911]

Is there a definitive place (URL) for accessing Mass gun laws? The Commonwealth site http://www.malegislature.gov is nebulous and difficult to get to an overall table of context for the laws and comes across as being very ambiguous. Suggestions would be appreciated. I'm looking for a chapter by chapter TOC and breakdown.

They are spread out a bit. Most are in MGL Chapter 140, starting at Section 121. You can always find the link by googling mgl chapter 140 section 121:

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121

Just hit the "table of contents" link and you get to the TOC.

GOAL has a handy page full of law links here: http://www.goal.org/masslawpages/masslaws.html

GOAL also has a short FAQ: http://www.goal.org/masslawpages/masslawsfaq.html

The AG's handgun sales regulations are here: http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/ags-regulations/940-cmr-1600.html

The EOPS rosters are here: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopssub...+Bureau&L3=Approved+Weapons+Rosters&sid=Eeops

EOPS also has more information here: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eopstop...n+&+Laws&L2=Firearms+Records+Bureau&sid=Eeops

Chief Ron Glidden has a published a book that contains the MA laws and his commentary on them: http://chiefglidden.startlogic.com/store/index.html

You can get it as a paperback or a CD.

Happy reading! Just don't start reading near bedtime, or you'll be out like a light. Or have nightmares. Or both.

 

[hurley431]

I need help with this question, as I don't want to be a criminal in Mass.

Can a National Guardsman possess 30 round post ban mags in Massachusetts?

I have Seven P-Mags that I used while I was Active (G.I. Mags are garbage, especially the ones from the gulf war that are still floating around.) and I'm currently storing them in NC with my family. I was going to bring them up this thanksgiving (I'm driving) since I would prefer to train with the same mags I intend to fight with; however, we do live in a rather disagreeable state. I tried to Google search it and got a bunch of garbage so I'm asking you guys, because someone always seems to have the answer here.
Thanks.

 

[Brandon1317]

I need help with this question, as I don't want to be a criminal in Mass.

Can a National Guardsman possess 30 round post ban mags in Massachusetts?

I have Seven P-Mags that I used while I was Active (G.I. Mags are garbage, especially the ones from the gulf war that are still floating around.) and I'm currently storing them in NC with my family. I was going to bring them up this thanksgiving (I'm driving) since I would prefer to train with the same mags I intend to fight with; however, we do live in a rather disagreeable state. I tried to Google search it and got a bunch of garbage so I'm asking you guys, because someone always seems to have the answer here.
Thanks.

Simple answer is no, they would have to be pre ban and you would need a LTC even at that . It doesn't matter if your in the national guard or not. Your coming to the wrong state!

 

[Coyote33]

More laws here:
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/regulations/regulations_home.htm

Here are "the abstracts":
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/regulations/abstracts/hunt_fish_abstracts.pdf

 

[Bob-Sig226]

Thanks guys. I think I'm pretty current on the laws already, but I like to re-read them periodically to make sure I'm not missing anything especially when I get new form factor guns like pistol to long gun, transport across state lines, etc. For grins, I'm taking an MFS class in January http://www.massfirearmsschool.com/class/understanding-firearms-law-with-chief-ron-glidden/. Understanding Firearms Law with Chief Ron Glidden - This three hour presentation is intended for gun owners who want to stay current with the confusing and complex firearms laws of Massachusetts. If any of you folks are taking it PM me. It would be great to meet other fellow NES forum members in person.

 

[Nana the Great]

My understanding is that there is nothing you can do (and no story you can tell) to make a post ban high-cap mag (ex. P-Mag, etc.) legal in MA.

If I'm mistaken, a correction will be along shortly.

 

[codematic]

For roughly the 13.7 trillionth time, there is not nor has there ever been any such thing as the AG's list. Giving a definitive answer as to which guns were approved by their office and which ones were not would take away the fear factor that scares away so many manufacturers and dealers.

What i dont understand is that the Glock 17 is on the EOPS list... but no one will sell them because the attorney general hasn't told the manufacturer it can ? or rather... the attorney generals office refuses to tell them they can, and refuses to "approve" them but rather tells them to consult their attorney...?

So its up to the manufacturer to decide if its ok or not ?

Its pretty clear that the gun dealers know which guns they can sell and which they cannot... so their is a "list" even if its not published... right ?

I'm particularly pissed over Glocks... which are on the EOPS list but are not "legal"... my brother has a Glock 17 that he wants to give me as a christmas gift from alabama... is the attorney general saying i cannot own it ? or i only can if its pre-1998 or whatever ?

How can these regulations be this confusing and still be enforceable ?

thanks,
-Lenny

 

[M1911]

We've discussed this over and over. All your questions have been asked and answered.

 

[codematic]

Wow, this is a friendly forum...

 

[CrackPot]

Wow, this is a friendly forum...

Don't mind M1911. He says what 95% of us are thinking but choose not to say out loud.

Learn to use search. Google even does a good job of indexing this site if you don't like the built in search. Read the stickies on the forum before you post on it. Then you don't come off as a noob and get flamed by someone. Wasting space on a question answered in the stickies AND asked by 50 noobs before you who were too lazy to read the stickies is unlikely to get a positive response.

And yes, this is a VERY friendly forum. Lots of knowledgable people sharing. Lots of KARMA ( go green). And no patience for the lazy who can't help themselves.

 

[codematic]

noted

 

[namedpipes]

How can these regulations be this confusing and still be enforceable ?

Nobody wants to be the test case. It would ruin you financially, unless you are wealthy enough to challenge it for sport.

And then if you lose, it only emboldens the a-holes and makes things worse for fellow gun owners.

It's basically the school yard bully taking lunch money from the other kids, where the bully is Martha.

 

[codematic]

Holy Crap... i see it now....

Nobody wants to be the test case. It would ruin you financially, unless you are wealthy enough to challenge it for sport.

And then if you lose, it only emboldens the a-holes and makes things worse for fellow gun owners.

It's basically the school yard bully taking lunch money from the other kids, where the bully is Martha.

Thats not enforcing a law... its as you said.. just bullying ...

If i look at the EOPS list (I think thats the name people are using for it)... and see "GLOCK 17" i assume i can purchase... but as everyone has been saying there is NO AG list... So the true law as it is written shows i can have one... there are all kinds of secondary barricades that prevent you from acquiring one... Which brings us back to the 93A tie in...

I know, i know this is all old hat to the people here, but im just catching on to this... one law says yes, another says no.. and the FFL's are in the middle....

HOLY CRAP... this whole mechanism IS very underhanded...

What is GOAL doing about all this crap ? I see them trying to pass legislature reform, but thats probably pointless with all the other "regulations" in place.

Thanks for your patience,
-Lenny

 

[namedpipes]

I suppose I should have added to my post "IMO" and "IANAL", and to this as well...

As I see it, the entire system of laws and regulations is rigged against the law abiding gun owner. Criminals get a pass or plea guilty to a lesser charge so the prosecutor get a sure win. Meanwhile, if we so much as speak rudely to our COP we can be deemed unsuitable. Of course we always have the right to pay thousands of dollars and sue for our rights back...

 

[MisterHappy]

Lenny,

First, welocme to the forum.

Second, yes, the laws are FUBAR.

Third, GOAL is doing what's possible. Laws are made by politicians, and politicians are made by votes, and votes are made by making the most people happy. Shooters are a minority in Mass, and the Nons and Antis will out-vote us, as a general rule. Expect no epiphanies from Bacon Hill, with the bottom line being, "Holy crap! We should not be so restrictive of rights! What were we thinking?" Change will be incremental, and driven by the individuals in the shooting community.

At the risk of sounding like a Kennedy: Ask not what can GOAL do for you, but what can you do for the shooting community. Find out from GOAL what the nasty proposed legislation is, and write and call to express your displeasure (or say, "vote for this" on stuff that benefits us). Take a non-shooter to the range, and, while there, try to explan the Mass gun laws. Be a responsible gun owner, and an ambassador from our community to society at large.

I know that this is not germaine to your original post WRT the Glock, but you DID ask..... As for the "friendlieness".....you're in a club, and there are rules (both posted in stickies, and unwritten ones, that are learned by osmosis). You'll get it, but a thick-ish skin is often a benefit. There's a lot of knowledge rattling about, but sometimes, when a question has been beaten to death, one more iteration of it is too much.....that's why this exists:

 

[codematic]

Lenny,

First, welocme to the forum.

Second, yes, the laws are FUBAR.

Third, GOAL is doing what's possible. Laws are made by politicians, and politicians are made by votes, and votes are made by making the most people happy. Shooters are a minority in Mass, and the Nons and Antis will out-vote us, as a general rule. Expect no epiphanies from Bacon Hill, with the bottom line being, "Holy crap! We should not be so restrictive of rights! What were we thinking?" Change will be incremental, and driven by the individuals in the shooting community.

At the risk of sounding like a Kennedy: Ask not what can GOAL do for you, but what can you do for the shooting community. Find out from GOAL what the nasty proposed legislation is, and write and call to express your displeasure (or say, "vote for this" on stuff that benefits us). Take a non-shooter to the range, and, while there, try to explan the Mass gun laws. Be a responsible gun owner, and an ambassador from our community to society at large.

I know that this is not germaine to your original post WRT the Glock, but you DID ask..... As for the "friendlieness".....you're in a club, and there are rules (both posted in stickies, and unwritten ones, that are learned by osmosis). You'll get it, but a thick-ish skin is often a benefit. There's a lot of knowledge rattling about, but sometimes, when a question has been beaten to death, one more iteration of it is too much.....that's why this exists:

Well look at it from an outsiders point of view. I moved to massachusetts from New Mexico and have found very VERY few people who were even remotely positive on the issue of gun ownership. Most in fact seem to think that guns walk down the street all by themselves and inflict harm on innocent animals, or worse. I'm just now trying to re-look at this whole issue, and given the history of this state with this you can see how an outsider would be confused.

I did read the forum, and was frustrated by what i was reading. So it not unconceivable that i would express my frustrations with the people who should have been the most sympathetic. Im sorry that you guys have been beating that dead horse for awhile, but i haven't been.

As for GOAL, this states political landscape and many organizations (200 foot long anti gun billboard on the mass pike) are VERY clear about their opposition to ANY kind of gun ownership. So from my point of view i am very skeptical that anyone would even advocate a pro-gun position here. Given the laws that are in place, its hard to imagine how they got there if an organization was working to prevent it.

With all that said, thanks for the info...
-Lenny

PS : Thanks for the forum welcome.

 

[M1911]

If i look at the EOPS list (I think thats the name people are using for it)... and see "GLOCK 17" i assume i can purchase.

And if you had ACTUALLY READ the EOPS Roster, all the way down to the third paragraph on the very first page, the one that reads:

Massachusetts licensed firearms dealers should note that the transfers of handguns are also
subject to the Attorney General’s Handgun Sales Regulations, 940 CMR 16.00, et seq. Firearms
on this Approved Firearms Roster do not necessarily comply with the requirements of the
Attorney General’s Handgun Sales Regulations. Information about those regulations, as well as
the Enforcement Notice may be obtained from the Office of the Attorney General and may be
accessed on the website of the Attorney General (www.ago.state.ma.us).”

then you would have realized that being on the Approved Firearms Roster was not sufficient.

HOLY CRAP... this whole mechanism IS very underhanded...

EOPS is reports to the governor. Their regulations implement the statutes passed by the legislature. The Attorney General's office passed their own "consumer protection" handgun regulations back when EOPS was basically ignoring the statutes and not enforcing them. The AG's regulations can be found here: http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/ags-regulations/940-cmr-1600.html

EOPS is not trying to mislead you on the roster and, in fact, if you had read that paragraph you would have realized that EOPS was trying to point you towards the AG's regulations. There are two different agencies with two different sets of regulations at work.

What is GOAL doing about all this crap ?

GOAL is doing everything they can, which, unfortunately, is very little. The reality is that we simply do not have the votes in the State House to pass significant pro-gun legislation. And we certainly don't have the votes to override a Patrick veto.

Most voters in MA are anti-gun and our legislators reflect that fact.

Our only hope is in the federal courts and Comm2A is working on that. But that will take years and we only have a majority of a single vote on the SCOTUS. If Obama gets to replace one of the conservative SCOTUS justices, then we are well and truly screwed.