• 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.

Moving out of MA and cannot take guns with me

G

glide

Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
3,175
Likes
601
Location
North of MA
Feedback: 21 / 0 / 0
I'm moving out of state to a place where the gun laws are arguably more restrictive than MA. I have decided to take a select few firearms with me and make other arrangements for the majority of my collection.

The plan is to leave them with a friend/LEO in RI. Are there any potential legal issues I should be concerned about? The guns would still be 'registered' in my name but I would no longer be licensed in MA. I assume the answer is 'no' but figured I would double-check.
 
Does RI have the idea of a "licensed" person to possess firearms? I thought their license was only needed for most types of "carry" (including transport to just about anywhere but a gun range), but no license or permit needed for possession by a non-PP adult in RI?

To avoid any concerns about this "storage" actually being an interstate transfer, you might want to hand them over in a locked case to which only you have the key.

That way it's clear that the RI resident is only providing storage, is not the new owner and you didn't transfer them.
 
If your friend is an LEO, he/she can pick them up in this state and legally transport them across state lines. As long as the firearms are legal in that state, or he has an LEO exemption, I can't see any laws being broken. An LEO is covered under LEOSA while in MA and in possession of them.
 
Springle82 said:
If your friend is an LEO, he/she can pick them up in this state and legally transport them across state lines. As long as the firearms are legal in that state, or he has an LEO exemption, I can't see any laws being broken. An LEO is covered under LEOSA while in MA and in possession of them.
Click to expand...

WRONG! LEOSA ONLY covers handguns, nothing else. EOPS (and likely AG is the source) has ruled that visiting LEOs can not legally possess any large-cap long guns (or new large-cap mags) in MA w/o a MA LTC.

I'll disagree that handing a locked case to someone proves anything wrt ownership. I would suggest a letter of intent signed by both parties making clear that title is not being transferred and it is merely storage.
 
LenS said:
WRONG! LEOSA ONLY covers handguns, nothing else. EOPS (and likely AG is the source) has ruled that visiting LEOs can not legally possess any large-cap long guns in MA w/o a MA LTC.

I'll disagree that handing a locked case to someone proves anything wrt ownership. I would suggest a letter of intent signed by both parties making clear that title is not being transferred and it is merely storage.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. LEOSA is federal law and supersedes any regulations by the state.(except school zones and private property) The only thing it does not cover are machine guns and anything federally prohibited, which hicap rifles are not. Even mag capacity and ammunition type are explicitly exempted in HR218 itself. There is plenty of case law on LEOSA covering rifles as well. As far as hicap rifles in MA, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried but would prob get thrown out... but I completely agree on the letter of intent. Best to CYA any chance you get.
 
Last edited:
Once again, just another reason why new england sucks fromunda cheese! If you can't even have them where you are being forced to move to, either sell them now and have some extra money or live like a sheep. No information you get from here is going to work for you in any case, if you have someone hold on to them for you, what would be the point in that? You can't use them for target practice, you can't use them for self preservation and you are keeping "YOUR" property in the hands of someone else that anything could happen to them. So it sucks that you need to move to a more restrictive state, but really what can anyone here tell you what to do with your stuff, when the bottom line is that unless you actually sell them off you can be held accountable for something. Remember they can and will make anything up to get you for standing up for yourself!


Charles.
 
Springle82 said:
I'm sorry but you are incorrect. LEOSA is federal law and supersedes any regulations by the state. Mag capacity and ammunition type are explicitly exempted in the HR218 itself. Please reread it when you have a chance. There is plenty of case law on LEOSA covering rifles as well. As far as hicap rifles, that might be yet to be determined, but I completely agree on the letter of intent. Best to CYA any chance you get.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you read the law, as I have numerous times and even testified on it at the state hearings in MA.

Here is the current version (that MA has not accepted and likely never will, but the pertinent part hasn't changed):

§
926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers
‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

. . .

(e) As used in this section, the term ‘firearm’—
(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act;
Click to expand...

I bolded the pertinent part. In no way is a rifle referred to as a "concealed firearm". And where does it mention anything about magazines? It doesn't! The 2004 amendment added the info on ammo due to NJ claiming no visiting LEOs could carry hollow points, but nobody yet has addressed oddball mag restrictions (7 or 10 rd).

And TTBOMK there has been no case law on LEOSA in the First District, so other cases are not binding precedents for what might happen in MA.
 
Last edited:
NewGunGuy said:
Once again, just another reason why new england sucks fromunda cheese! If you can't even have them where you are being forced to move to, either sell them now and have some extra money or live like a sheep. No information you get from here is going to work for you in any case, if you have someone hold on to them for you, what would be the point in that? You can't use them for target practice, you can't use them for self preservation and you are keeping "YOUR" property in the hands of someone else that anything could happen to them. So it sucks that you need to move to a more restrictive state, but really what can anyone here tell you what to do with your stuff, when the bottom line is that unless you actually sell them off you can be held accountable for something. Remember they can and will make anything up to get you for standing up for yourself!


Charles.
Click to expand...

I'm bringing what I can with me. I don't feel like selling my collection for a number of reasons. I need a place to store it. I do not have to move anywhere. I choose to.

The information I got here did work for me.
 
LenS said:
I suggest that you read the law, as I have numerous times and even testified on it at the state hearings in MA.

Here is the current version (that MA has not accepted and likely never will, but the pertinent part hasn't changed):



I bolded the pertinent part. In no way is a rifle referred to as a "concealed firearm". And where does it mention anything about magazines? It doesn't! The 2004 amendment added the info on ammo due to NJ claiming no visiting LEOs could carry hollow points, but nobody yet has addressed oddball mag restrictions (7 or 10 rd).

And TTBOMK there has been no case law on LEOSA in the First District, so other cases are not binding precedents for what might happen in MA.
Click to expand...

I apologize, you are correct about the magazines. MA is an awful state for this kind of stuff. I know I have read case law on rifles under 218 but I'm still trying to find it. I just don't understand how MA would need to adopt it. They don't have much of a choice if its federal law I would assume. But stranger things have happened I guess. I'm going to keep digging just out of my own curiosity. I appreciate the insight if I do stand corrected.
 
Springle82 said:
LEOSA is federal law and supersedes any regulations by the state.(except school zones and private property)
Click to expand...

As LenS noted, the only thing LEOSA covers is carry of a concealed handgun, and ammunition. It doesn't mention, therefore doesn't override, any state laws about magazines, caliber, etc.

Since LEOSA doesn't address rifles at all, I'd be very interested in seeing any of this "plenty of case law on LEOSA covering rifles as well".
 
I stand corrected and apologize for the error. What I had read came out of CA and not MA. It was sent to me a while ago while researching another case and my memory mis-fired. Ttbomk there is no case law in MA on rifles under 218 and until there is we will not have a cut and dry answer. Thank you LenS for clarifying my mistake. I always post in good faith but will double check my facts before hand if not 100%. It's too bad these conversations even need to happen....
 
You are forgetting the new laws in NY (State), CT and CO that cause problems for anyone that wants to move into those states.
 
What is your reason for moving to a state, where you aren't even allowed to own your own guns??? Not even for a job paying me double what I make now, would I ever move to a more restrictive state.
 
ntomsw said:
What is your reason for moving to a state, where you aren't even allowed to own your own guns??? Not even for a job paying me double what I make now, would I ever move to a more restrictive state.
Click to expand...

I am 'allowed' to own them. I just decided that bringing them up to spec and traveling with them was not worth the hassle. I'm not going to be there forever.

No winter, double the already large sum of money I am paid, beautiful women, etc...

It's a personal decision and frankly I don't care what anyone's opinion of it is. I was just looking for legal advice WRT storage.
 
KBCraig said:
Worse that MA:
District of Columbia
[STRIKE=Chicago]Chicago[/STRIKE]
New Jersey
Possibly Maryland at large, but Baltimore definitely
Click to expand...
Illinois just passed a concealed carry law, and all firearms permits in Illinois are shall-issue; is Illinois/Chicago truly worse than Massachusetts/Boston?

At least Illinois doesn't have restricted LTCs, will actually issue to non-residents, and IL dealers can legally sell ammo to non-residents. I'd say the situation there is marginally better. Also the new carry law has an immediate exception for non-residents driving across the state -- no more requirement to unload and lock at the state line whenever I drive from Indiana to Iowa.
 
Kevin_NH said:
Illinois just passed a concealed carry law, and all firearms permits in Illinois are shall-issue; is Illinois/Chicago truly worse than Massachusetts/Boston?

At least Illinois doesn't have restricted LTCs, will actually issue to non-residents, and IL dealers can legally sell ammo to non-residents. I'd say the situation there is marginally better. Also the new carry law has an immediate exception for non-residents driving across the state -- no more requirement to unload and lock at the state line whenever I drive from Indiana to Iowa.
Click to expand...

Anything wrt reciprocity or non res lic?
 
Kevin_NH said:
Does RI have the idea of a "licensed" person to possess firearms? I thought their license was only needed for most types of "carry" (including transport to just about anywhere but a gun range), but no license or permit needed for possession by a non-PP adult in RI?

To avoid any concerns about this "storage" actually being an interstate transfer, you might want to hand them over in a locked case to which only you have the key.

That way it's clear that the RI resident is only providing storage, is not the new owner and you didn't transfer them.
Click to expand...

There is no need to have any kind of license in Rhode Island to own a firearm. If you want to buy a pistol you need to take a blue card test which is basically a 20 questions common sense safety test. If you want to carry concealed obviously you have to get a permit from your local chief or the Attorney Generals office.
 
No licence needed in RI to own or posess a firearm(s) on property. Need a licence to carry and a blue card to purchase.

Sent from my HTC One X+ using Tapatalk 2
 

Similar threads

Moving to MA Question
Replies
29
Views
841
TZCHRIS
TZCHRIS
Personal transfer of pre-Healy MA compliant AR and/or lowers
Replies
4
Views
261
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
8
Views
233
Garys
Garys
eFA-10 For Shotgun Purchased Out of State, What Do I Put In The Dealer Info Area?
Replies
3
Views
157
Rick O'Shea
Rick O'Shea
C&R and Mass. FFL (but not Mass. dealer)
Replies
6
Views
203
milktree
milktree
Back
Top Bottom