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.
If a court has interpreted the statute that way than so be it but I doubt one has. it wouldn't make sense in light of pretty unambiguous statute.
You don't understand our legal system at all.If a court has interpreted the statute that way than so be it but I doubt one has. it wouldn't make sense in light of pretty unambiguous statute.
FOPA cares about whether you can lawfully "possess and carry" it at origin and destination.At the destination (CA) he is covered and at the departure point (MA) the issue is whether the ch 140 section 129C(h) exemption for "traveling" covers him.
(emphasis mine) Note that the black powder portion applies to residents and non-residents; but the conventional long arms part applies to non-residents only.http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section129c said:(p) Carrying or possession by residents or nonresidents of so-called black powder rifles, shotguns, and ammunition therefor as described in such paragraphs (A) and (B) of the third paragraph of section 121, and the carrying or possession of conventional rifles, shotguns, and ammunition therefor by nonresidents who meet the requirements for such carrying or possession in the state in which they reside.
You don't understand our legal system at all.
It is precisely because statutes are ambiguous that courts interpret them, and precedents are developed.
Look, this is a state where the laws say that your average shotgun is not a firearm. Really. Logic doesn't have a lot to do with the MGL.
Do you know what case law is?When a statutue is unambiguous, the basic rules of statutory construction are that words are given their ordinary meaning.
Sure thing, your honor. And if you are sitting on the bench, then you can interpret it. But you're not.There is, to me, nothing ambiguous about 129C(h) other than what it means to "travel" in the commonwealth, which was the subject of my OP and the question which seemingly cannot be answered.
129C(p) is a reciprocity/comity provision that does not seem to diminish the right to possess while traveling under 129C(h).
Again, sure would like to hear from an MA attorney on paragraph (p) - especially as (p) and (u) appear to be in conflict w/r/t sales, and would need to be harmonized (probably through case law)."Any person, exempted by clauses (o), (p) and (q), purchasing a rifle or shotgun or ammunition therefor shall submit to the seller such full and clear proof of identification, including shield number, serial number, military or governmental order or authorization, military or other official identification, other state firearms license, or proof of nonresidence, as may be applicable."
Yeah, the adoption date alone means it - and similar state-level provisions - may have been informative to those drafting FOPA's peaceable travel provisions.Unfortunately there isn't likely to be much, if any, legislative history or at least not a record of it from when paragraph h was added in 1969. But that makes the provision, in my mind, even more unambiguous and therefore not subject to an interpretation other than the most simple one.
But you do agree that it does not take away from what's provided in 129C(h)? -- the right to travel in MA with a shotgun. 129C(p) just provides an additional exemption for people licensed in their home state.
Any thoughts? Thanks
Under MA law you are permitted to travel into and within the state if it's for a hunting trip (granted you have a MA hunting license), shooting activity such as a competition, or for a collectors association meeting. (we recommend that all firearms are secured in a locked container, unloaded, with no ammunition, and not accessible from the drivers seat. (don't lock in glove box or console) Bear in mind that you must be licensed in your home state for this to apply.
Basically you can not travel with the shotgun in MA unless it meets one of the above conditions.
It would be a violation because the gun is not registered to him at this time in his home state.
what does it mean to be the "owner"? Can you be the owner but not an FID or LTC holder?
Never call up a police agency asking for information about firearms laws. The answer you get will almost always be wrong.
He doesn't have a MA LTC. So he doesn't have a right to possess the gun in MA, so he isn't in compliance with FOPA.
If he is in possession of the gun while "traveling," then under exemption h to ch 140 section 129(C), he is allowed to possess the gun, no?
MA requires at least an FID for possession. No FID/LTC, no cannot possess gun in MA, even if he owns it.
Mike, please be extra careful when giving out legal advise as "GOAL" that it is correct.
It's bad enough that dealers, law enforcement and many instructors give out wrong legal advice. But I always want citizens to be able to trust that any legal info given out by GOAL is correct.
assuming friend is the bona fide owner of the gun but does not have an FID, can he be covered by FOPA while "traveling" from MA to CA?
So, while I am unlikely to advise my friend to risk it without confirmation, it would seem to me that this exemption (unless I am missing something) does not limit the travel exemption to the 3 categories listed by GOAL CM and that if my friend is just traveling, that he has the right to possess the gun while traveling in MA and out of MA.
I am licensed in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire, but I don't own a side-by-side. So I borrow my pal's side-by-side and travel up to Portsmouth, NH, and I have broken a federal law?
(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to
(A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and
(B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
You don't understand our legal system at all.
MA attorneys care to weigh in?
Yes, I'm familiar with case law.
Again, sure would like to hear from an MA attorney on paragraph (p) - especially as (p) and (u) appear to be in conflict w/r/t sales, and would need to be harmonized (probably through case law).
Seriously this thread is still going on?
Even aside from the constant bumps by the op...
Your excellent post/FAQ has it, but since you talk immediately about black powder after referencing (p), it seems to send people on here looking elsewhere - could be a little clearer on that. GOAL's FAQ is clear on it, which is a good thing (and I'm surprised someone posting as GOAL would contradict it). I'm also really amused in this thread, especially the "you don't know how the law works" comments to a newbie, from non-lawyers. Cracks me up. No wonder Scriv used to get all heated on people.Refer to my non-resident gun laws thread in my sigline.
...
Yes. 140-129C(p) doesn't require anything about travel, timeframes, competitions, licenses or macaroni and cheese.
Your input is nevertheless always helpful to drive discussion.I'm not an attorney.
Nothing to do with the laws in question, it's an appeal of portions of the case not related to gun laws.140-129C(u) is a leftover and made obsolete by the updated Mass. dealer laws. The "Simon's Rock" law is what changed that, after a highly publicized school shooting. Two pieces of case law on that incident.
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/428/428mass45.html
Nothing to do with the gun laws at all. It's an insurance case.
Your excellent post/FAQ has it, but since you talk immediately about black powder after referencing (p), it seems to send people on here looking elsewhere - could be a little clearer on that.
GOAL's FAQ is clear on it, which is a good thing (and I'm surprised someone posting as GOAL would contradict it).
Your input is nevertheless always helpful to drive discussion.
Nothing to do with the laws in question, it's an appeal of portions of the case not related to gun laws.
Nothing to do with the gun laws at all. It's an insurance case.
Thanks again for your input -- but can you cite the "Simon's Rock Law"?
Searching back, what I find people pointing to prohibits unlicensed SELLERS of ammunition,
or requires a permit to purchase "firearms".
Statutes may be intrinsically unclear (after all, they are drafted by legislators who, if they could get a better job, wouldn't be legislators) or they may have become butchered by patchwork and inconsistent amendment over decades.
Edit: Afterthought #1: What this exercise serves as powerful evidence of is the wisdom of the notion that one should not seek legal advice in an internet forum. Even as one as informed as this one tends to be.
Edit: Afterthought #2: Kudos to GSG for shining the spotlight on this proposition quite effectively.
Most MA laws are 2 parts evil, 3 parts unintended consequence and 5 parts incompetence...That's exactly the case in Mass.
Len, I appreciate it, but no bill #, no cite, nothing.
As the law stands, it appears to me at least that there are indeed circumstances where a NR qualifying under some of the 129C exceptions could legally buy long arms and long arms ammo from a dealer - those circumstances may depend on having a temp permit, or the dealer laws may make it impossible from their side, but I have not sewn that part together yet. So while they may have removed a permission in 129C ((q) or something else), criminal law does not operate on the principle that everything not permitted is denied. Even in MA.
Seventh, That no delivery of a firearm shall be made to any person not having a license to carry firearms issued under the provisions of section one hundred and thirty-one nor shall any delivery of a rifle or shotgun or ammunition be made to any minor nor to any person not having a license to carry firearms issued under the provisions of section one hundred and thirty-one or a firearm identification card issued under the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-nine B nor shall any large capacity firearm or large capacity feeding device therefor be delivered to any person not having a Class A license to carry firearms issued under section 131 nor shall any large capacity rifle or shotgun or large capacity feeding device therefor be delivered to any person not having a Class A or Class B license to carry firearms issued under said section 131; provided, however, that delivery of a firearm by a licensee to a person possessing a valid permit to purchase said firearm issued under the provisions of section one hundred and thirty-one A and a valid firearm identification card issued under section one hundred and twenty-nine B may be made by the licensee to the purchaser’s residence or place of business, subject to the restrictions imposed upon such permits as provided under section 131A.
(As an aside, I find myself a little surprised that among a board full of folks who like me insist one should not rely on a police officer for legal advice... there are still some who seem to rely on a book by a police officer for legal advice.)
When over the course of several years people cite a "law" over and over but can't reference any MGL section or changes thereto, yes, I do ask for that. Call me picky. Given the ease with which anyone can confuse sections of MGL applying to "firearms" vs. rifles and shotguns, high-capacity issues in long arms vs. handguns vs. magazines, resident vs. non-resident vs. alien, possession vs. carry vs. purchase (for all of the above)... given all that, if we can help push the questions and you keep gelling them in your FAQ, it's worth asking tough questions of things people have heard but can't cite.You're asking him to cite a specific bill number (which is not unique to a bill, each session new ones come out with the same numbers) from a fairly obscure law that was passed a decade ago.
Well, not just that (esp. since there is a completely separate reference to purchase under (o) and (p)). But see below, where you have cited a mooting section in 140-123...That's because you're only looking at 140-129C, which is an area of law that deals with ownership, carry, and explains some of the licensing exemptions, aside from a very brief reference to the FA-10 requirement and the now obsolete allowances for NR purchasing. Also, MSP doesn't issue a list of states that are in compliance with 140-129C(u), so no dice.
I think you overstate the obsolescence, as it is broader than just the selling/delivery that the seventh section moots; still that is the section I was looking for.[Citing [140-123, Seventh clause]]Note that there's no exemption here for non-residents with temporary LTC's issued under MGL 140-131F to buy guns, ammo or even magazines from an FFL. Also notice that this section still includes language regarding permits to purchase, and the third paragraph contains language allowing people exempt from licensing to purchase guns, ammo and mags, even though both are made obsolete by other areas of law.
Is that your legal opinion on it? I'm being half-serious, here. What I mean is, yes, that is a valuable thing to know. But on the flip side, it means that in slavishly following it, MA gun owners effectively make the law for them as restrictive as the author says it is. Recent events in Wisconsin suggest there is a gap between the two that should be discussed, even if MA gun owners subject to arbitrary licensing would not want to push the envelope lest they be declared "unsuitable."I'm assuming you're referring to Ron Glidden's book. It's not perfect, but there's few if any people around who can match his knowledge of Mass. firearms law. Even the gun lawyers who frequented this board each had their own area of expertise, and were just as confused as the rest of us about other areas. Glidden's book is an excellant resource for Mass. gun owners, because even if he was wrong on every single thing he wrote (which he isn't), his views reflect what every cop in the state is being trained to believe.
Humor appreciated, but there's some incorrect assumption there. I have a very jaundiced view of statutory law, criminal law, and even firearms law. Rather than glibly looking for ways to bend statutory words to fit my hopes, I am just pushing because there are so many bad answers on here. There was a mountain of bad information in just this thread alone, some of which Len corrected.While you bring up good discussion points on the law, you're approaching this as a free-stater who's not used to the insanity of the mangled Mass. laws. If you could just remove any ideas of freedom, logic or legislative accountability from your mind, this would make a lot more sense to you.