Non-Residents and what they can carry in 2023

[USMC0311NH]

I know there are some of these threads in the past already but none since the major SCOTUS changes since 2022.

It appears to me that according to MGL Chapter 140, Section 131F Non-Residents with LTCs may carry pistols not on the MA approved gun roster and magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds:

"A temporary license issued pursuant to this section shall be clearly marked ''Temporary License to Carry Firearms'' and shall not be used to purchase firearms in the commonwealth as provided in section 131E. A large capacity firearm and a large capacity feeding device therefor may be carried if the person has been issued a license."

A firearm and large capacity feeding devices defined in section 121:

'“Firearm”, a stun gun or a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured; provided, however, that the term firearm shall not include any weapon that is: (i) constructed in a shape that does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun including, but not limited to, covert weapons that resemble key-chains, pens, cigarette-lighters or cigarette-packages; or (ii) not detectable as a weapon or potential weapon by x-ray machines commonly used at airports or walk- through metal detectors."

'“Large capacity feeding device”, (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994. The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber ammunition."

I'm interpreting this as since a Non-Resident with a TLTC may not purchase a firearm in MA, then they are not bound by the approved gun roster and may carry a large capaicyt magazine in said firearm.

Would anyone disagree or have a more updated professional or legal opinion?

Thank you!

 

[Matt_SERE]

Magazine capacities and 'the roster' are two different animals.

Anyone who can legally carry in MA can carry, pre September 13, 1994 standard/large capacity magazines IANAL.

The 'roster of list' is what dealers can sell to the non-leo public. Not what you can own. An example of the absurdity of the list is the fact that revolvers are on the list. The list is not about capacity.

If you have acquired a new firearm by other means than a dealer good for you. You, as being present in MA, are restricted to magazine capacities, resident or not. This is why some persons purchase new firearms that will work with pre-9/13/94 magazines.

Think of them as the different animals they are.

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 121

malegislature.gov

''Large capacity feeding device'', (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994. The term ''large capacity feeding device'' shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.

 

[allen-1]

Roster applies ONLY to what firearms can be sold by FFL.

Mass law says you can carry pre-ban “high capacity” mags but no post ban “high capacity” mags.

Temporary or non-resident or combo of same has no applicability in this case.

 

[USMC0311NH]

Without being argumentative gentlemen, but I still don't see how any of that contradicts the sentence:

"...A large capacity firearm and a large capacity feeding device therefor may be carried if the person has been issued a license."

That sentence seems clear to me and makes a pretty affirmative statement about carrying. Not about owning, possessing or purchasing.

The other sections clearly define that a "firearm" can be a pistol or revolver and that a large capacity feeding device is "(I) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; OR (II) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994."

It states simply a magazine capable of accepting more than 10 rounds OR a device define in 09/13/1994 law. It isn't saying a magazine capable of accepting more than 10 rounds AND as defined in 09/13/1994 law.

These sections have been updated since 08/10/2022, could it be that we have not noticed this when discussing Non-Residents and have been operating and advising others on old sections and interpretations of the law, prior to 08/10/2022? Put it simply, have we read these sections today or are we replying based on opinions we held prior to 08/10/2022?

Sorry for the long post but of course these are crucial points and likely will be a thread to be used as reference for years in the future for non-residents seeking answers.

Thank you!

 

[Matt_SERE]

Without being argumentative gentlemen, but I still don't see how any of that contradicts the sentence:

"...A large capacity firearm and a large capacity feeding device therefor may be carried if the person has been issued a license."

That sentence seems clear to me and makes a pretty affirmative statement about carrying. Not about owning, possessing or purchasing.

The other sections clearly define that a "firearm" can be a pistol or revolver and that a large capacity feeding device is "(I) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; OR (II) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994."

It states simply a magazine capable of accepting more than 10 rounds OR a device define in 09/13/1994 law. It isn't saying a magazine capable of accepting more than 10 rounds AND as defined in 09/13/1994 law.

These sections have been updated since 08/10/2022, could it be that we have not noticed this when discussing Non-Residents and have been operating and advising others on old sections and interpretations of the law, prior to 08/10/2022? Put it simply, have we read these sections today or are we replying based on opinions we held prior to 08/10/2022?

Sorry for the long post but of course these are crucial points and likely will be a thread to be used as reference for years in the future for non-residents seeking answers.

Thank you!

You need to work on your non-functioning-links, bolding, quoting and italicizing. Especially when you do all in the same paragraph without rhyme or reason!!! Underline added as fun.

ETA: Posted today by Andrew. A MA Bar Assoc. lawyer.

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jSqBTkdXRyg

 

[USMC0311NH]

You need to work on your non-functioning-links, bolding, quoting and italicizing. Especially when you do all in the same paragraph without rhyme or reason!!! Underline added as fun.

ETA: Posted today by Andrew. A MA Bar Assoc. lawyer.

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jSqBTkdXRyg

Matt,

I did not post any links, I believe anyone can do a google search of the cited statute.

I clearly quoted the sections of the law in which I'm humbling asking for others' opinion and analysis - they all have opening and end quotes and all one would have to do is read the sections to see them. I will grant it to you that after I copied and pasted the sections from the statute being cited, all other text appeared in bold. I apologize but I could not remove the bold text no matter how much I tried. Being that this isn't a writing course, I perhaps assumed too much that all would be able to read it, and clearly understand that sections in quotes are pulled directly from the statute, while all not quoted were my statements.

With that out of the way, the video you posted (which I appreciate you posting) of course denotes the differences between theory and reality, but so what? That's as much as saying that water is wet, while it does nothing to explain why it is so. Nothing on the video is related directly to the statute in point. Now if anyone is aware of case law directly related to this then that's where a forum becomes useful and helpful to all members. Otherwise it's nothing more than opinions, all of them worth as much as the next.

If no one reading this knows any precedent cases in which the courts have shown how they interpret the specifically cited statute then that's ok, let's wait to see if someone who does answer. If I'm misinterpreting it then no worries, no ego bruised. I simply wish to see if someone can tell me why or convince me that their interpretation is the correct one over mine. Otherwise, again it's the proverbial opinion that everyone's got and worth as much as the others.

Perhaps I just simply need to consult an attorney who specializes in MA's firearm laws to hear it from the horse's mouth. I just figured that there may be someone in such a large group and forum who can logically present their points, make counter arguments and cite where the correct interpretation is. Perhaps that is too much to ask, but in such a large community I doubt it, I doubt that there isn't a single individual who can do so AND is willing to support our 2nd Amendment rights by sharing their knowledge with others. Instead of the typical Facebook posts of "the sky is blue because I said so, shut up and take my word for it and stop asking why it is so."

Thank you and of course, everyone knows the sky is blue because God loves the Infantry

 

[Marty McFly]

Awesome! I missed the dealers posting in the regular classifieds thread last night and got really disappointed. This should deliver

 

[M1911]

If you are caught with a post-ban, large capacity magazine in MA that is a felony conviction.

 

[appraiser]

go ahead, do what you please, enjoy yourself when visiting MA

 

[MisterHappy]

OP: If your question is about what mag is legal to carry, M1911's post answers you.

From your profile, you have just a few posts...welcome.

Please do not look for clarity or cogency in Mass gun laws....after all a Firearms Identification Card does not allow one to possess a "firearm" as defined under mass law, and an empty, expended case requires a license to possess.

No offense, but many new posters have a level of frustration with Mass laws, and seem to think that answers that reflect reality are the problem. But that's like blaming the reflection in the mirror for being ugly.

 

[allen-1]

Matt,

I did not post any links, I believe anyone can do a google search of the cited statute.

I clearly quoted the sections of the law in which I'm humbling asking for others' opinion and analysis - they all have opening and end quotes and all one would have to do is read the sections to see them. I will grant it to you that after I copied and pasted the sections from the statute being cited, all other text appeared in bold. I apologize but I could not remove the bold text no matter how much I tried. Being that this isn't a writing course, I perhaps assumed too much that all would be able to read it, and clearly understand that sections in quotes are pulled directly from the statute, while all not quoted were my statements.

With that out of the way, the video you posted (which I appreciate you posting) of course denotes the differences between theory and reality, but so what? That's as much as saying that water is wet, while it does nothing to explain why it is so. Nothing on the video is related directly to the statute in point. Now if anyone is aware of case law directly related to this then that's where a forum becomes useful and helpful to all members. Otherwise it's nothing more than opinions, all of them worth as much as the next.

If no one reading this knows any precedent cases in which the courts have shown how they interpret the specifically cited statute then that's ok, let's wait to see if someone who does answer. If I'm misinterpreting it then no worries, no ego bruised. I simply wish to see if someone can tell me why or convince me that their interpretation is the correct one over mine. Otherwise, again it's the proverbial opinion that everyone's got and worth as much as the others.

Perhaps I just simply need to consult an attorney who specializes in MA's firearm laws to hear it from the horse's mouth. I just figured that there may be someone in such a large group and forum who can logically present their points, make counter arguments and cite where the correct interpretation is. Perhaps that is too much to ask, but in such a large community I doubt it, I doubt that there isn't a single individual who can do so AND is willing to support our 2nd Amendment rights by sharing their knowledge with others. Instead of the typical Facebook posts of "the sky is blue because I said so, shut up and take my word for it and stop asking why it is so."

Thank you and of course, everyone knows the sky is blue because God loves the Infantry

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A firearm and large capacity feeding devices defined in section 121:

'“Firearm”, a stun gun or a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured; provided, however, that the term firearm shall not include any weapon that is: (i) constructed in a shape that does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun including, but not limited to, covert weapons that resemble key-chains, pens, cigarette-lighters or cigarette-packages; or (ii) not detectable as a weapon or potential weapon by x-ray machines commonly used at airports or walk- through metal detectors."

Seems pretty explicit that carry of an SBR is allowed with an LTC.

 

[Glocklike tendencies]

Section 131M: Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment​

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.