Question about storage and transportation?

[massnee]

Since, under Massachusetts law, a frame is not a firearm...does that mean if I take the slide off a handgun or the upper of a rifle that I can both store and transport said firearms unlocked (under massachusetts law)?

 

[Cross-X]

Upper, if that is all you are transporting, yes (i.e., no lower).

Frame, barrel and slide, no.

 

[massnee]

just to err on the side of caution?

or does Mass law address this?

 

[drgrant]

While a frame isn't a firearm there's this little thing known as "constructive possession" (Not really the right term to use here, but can't think of a better one... )

I'm not 100% sure but I thought there was case law on this that basically states that if the gun is easily restored to firing condition given the circumstances, that it's still a firearm, at least within the scope of law regarding safe storage or transportation. EG, if you take a bolt out of a rifle and leave it next to the rifle on your gun bench, unattended, this is probably still considered "unsafe storage" despite the fact that the rifle cannot operate without the bolt installed.

-Mike

 

[massnee]

Thanks, guys, for the info.

 

[jdubois]

I'm not 100% sure but I thought there was case law on this that basically states that if the gun is easily restored to firing condition given the circumstances, that it's still a firearm, at least within the scope of law regarding safe storage or transportation.

Commonwealth v. Prevost, perhaps? I can't dig up the actual case, but I believe the court ruled in that case that a broken firing pin was not enough to make the gun not a firearm.

 

[GSG]

Commonwealth v. Prevost, perhaps? I can't dig up the actual case, but I believe the court ruled in that case that a broken firing pin was not enough to make the gun not a firearm.

I read up on Prevost (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=MA&vol=appslip\/96p1087&invol=1) and it doesn't mention anything about a broken firing pin, but I could be reading it wrong.

With that being said, through my work I personally know of two people charged with carrying a firearm without a license (in Mass. within the past 4-5 years) who beat the case because the firearm was inoperable. I've been searching to try and find something on both cases without luck, but I'll keep looking.

 

[jdubois]

I read up on Prevost (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=MA&vol=appslip\/96p1087&invol=1) and it doesn't mention anything about a broken firing pin, but I could be reading it wrong.

+2 for digging up the case! You must have missed the part about the firing pin:

"The handgun seized by Coleman, the defendant argues, did not constitute a "firearm" as defined in G. L. c. 140, § 121, because the handgun, with a broken firing pin, was incapable of discharging a bullet. The Commonwealth's evidence showed that replacing the broken firing pin with a new one was a "simple task," requiring, in the opinion of an expert witness, only ten or fifteen minutes. The judge credited this testimony, and found that "a slight repair, replacement, or adjustment could make this weapon effective as a firearm. [...] While it may be conceded that a weapon designed for firing projectiles may be so defective or damaged that it has lost its initial character as a firearm, [citation omitted], this character is not lost when a relatively slight repair, replacement, or adjustment will make it an effective weapon."

 

[massnee]

this is exactly what I wanted to see...thanks.

 

[GSG]

+2 for digging up the case! You must have missed the part about the firing pin:

"The handgun seized by Coleman, the defendant argues, did not constitute a "firearm" as defined in G. L. c. 140, § 121, because the handgun, with a broken firing pin, was incapable of discharging a bullet. The Commonwealth's evidence showed that replacing the broken firing pin with a new one was a "simple task," requiring, in the opinion of an expert witness, only ten or fifteen minutes. The judge credited this testimony, and found that "a slight repair, replacement, or adjustment could make this weapon effective as a firearm. [...] While it may be conceded that a weapon designed for firing projectiles may be so defective or damaged that it has lost its initial character as a firearm, [citation omitted], this character is not lost when a relatively slight repair, replacement, or adjustment will make it an effective weapon."

Evidently I did miss it, I was just scanning through it though. Either way, good to know.