question regarding suppressors in massachusetts

[greencobra]

no, not what you think...a friend told me today that not at any time, a private massachusetts resident could legally own a suppressor. i tried to research this but i'm empty. anyone know something about this?

 

[76Too]

Still don’t understand why they’re not legal there...I moved out of state and I bought one (or two or more) just because I couldn’t have one before.

 

[Toast]

... not at any time, a private massachusetts resident could legally own a suppressor....

It's a real bear trying to parse this as an English sentence. Are you trying to state that "a private massachusetts resident could not legally own a suppressor at any time" or something else?

If that is what you're asking, no, the hoi poilloi cannot.

General Law - Part IV, Title I, Chapter 269, Section 10A

malegislature.gov

 

[greencobra]

Are you trying to state that "a private massachusetts resident could not legally own a suppressor at any time"

yes.

yeah, it was a bitch to phrase, thanks.

 

[CATI]

Still don’t understand why they’re not legal there...I moved out of state and I bought one (or two or more) just because I couldn’t have one before.

Because people think they work like in the movies


and

 

[Toast]

yes.

yeah, it was a bitch to phrase, thanks.

Thou shalt not suppress:

Any person, other than a federally licensed firearms manufacturer, an authorized agent of the municipal police training committee, or a duly authorized sworn law enforcement officer while acting within the scope of official duties and under the direct authorization of the police chief or his designee, or the colonel of the state police, who sells or keeps for sale, or offers, or gives or disposes of by any means other than submitting to an authorized law enforcement agency, or uses or possesses any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years in state prison or for not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction.​

​

General Law - Part IV, Title I, Chapter 269, Section 10A

malegislature.gov

 

[Asaltweapon]

Because Mass.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

You need to be 07FFL/SOT in Mass to buy, make sell (not to Mass individuals). Called "Jump thru all the hoops". Jack.

 

[Broc]

Still don’t understand why they’re not legal there...I moved out of state and I bought one (or two or more) just because I couldn’t have one before.

Because, do you watch movies?

You could have a gun in your pocket, shoot people and no one would hear it.

THEY ARE MADE FOR KILLING!

 

[whatluck]

no

 

[greencobra]

Thou shalt not suppress:

Any person, other than a federally licensed firearms manufacturer, an authorized agent of the municipal police training committee, or a duly authorized sworn law enforcement officer while acting within the scope of official duties and under the direct authorization of the police chief or his designee, or the colonel of the state police, who sells or keeps for sale, or offers, or gives or disposes of by any means other than submitting to an authorized law enforcement agency, or uses or possesses any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years in state prison or for not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction.​

​

General Law - Part IV, Title I, Chapter 269, Section 10A

malegislature.gov

right, that was quoted to me this morning but i want to know the date it was put in the general laws. was it there since day one when the suppressor was invented, added in the 20's, 30's 50's or when ever. this verse above reads as kind of recent. this guy told me never, ever could a citizen own a suppressor in massachusetts.

 

[daekken]

Still don’t understand why they’re not legal there...I moved out of state and I bought one (or two or more) just because I couldn’t have one before.

ditto

no

 

[greencobra]

most of you don't understand what i'm trying to find out.
1. yes, we all know we can't have one
2. it's written into the massachusetts general laws
3. when was it written into law?

 

[Toast]

right, that was quoted to me this morning but i want to know the date it was put in the general laws. was it there since day one when the suppressor was invented, added in the 20's, 30's 50's or when ever. this verse above reads as kind of recent. this guy told me never, ever could a citizen own a suppressor in massachusetts.

Ah, you're asking "When did it become illegal to own a suppressor in Massachusetts?"

 

[greencobra]

3. when was it written into law?

the guy who i was speaking to said we "never" could own one. that doesn't sound correct to me. i'm thinking there was a point in time that we could own a suppressor.

 

[daekken]

most of you don't understand what i'm trying to find out.
1. yes, we all know we can't have one
2. it's written into the massachusetts general laws
3. when was it written into law?

When your other friend told you that people in rural areas could have suppressors for rodents in 2017, Jack stated it may have been 1989 (post #3).

can we revisit ma suppressor law

last week i was with a buddy and the subject of suppressors came up. he said in massachusetts, you can own a suppressor if: you live in a rural area and use a firearm to control the rodent population. ok, sounded crazy to me too, cause as far as i know, a private citizen can no way, no how...

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[greencobra]

Ah, you're asking "When did it become illegal to own a suppressor in Massachusetts?"

yeah, i should have dumbed it down to bare bones, but yeah, basically.

 

[MagGus1820]

When were suppressors banned in MA? <<<---- How's that?

 

[Deleted member 67409]

yes.

yeah, it was a bitch to phrase, thanks.

right, that was quoted to me this morning but i want to know the date it was put in the general laws. was it there since day one when the suppressor was invented, added in the 20's, 30's 50's or when ever. this verse above reads as kind of recent. this guy told me never, ever could a citizen own a suppressor in massachusetts.

The short answer is that it would be very hard to figure out for most people. Someone who can perform legal research and dig through both Mass and Federal legislative histories would have an easier time.

The longer answer is that the suppressor as we currently know it came to exist approximately around 1905 (I may be off a few years) when it was developed by Hiram Percy Maxim. Between then and NFA34, Federally, anyone could buy a suppressor.

With the enactment of NFA34, suppressors went from being fairly inexpensive items to fairly inexpensive items with heavy, onerous taxes. So, a lot of older suppressors, like original Maxims, "disappeared." Add on state bans and complications, and it'd be very hard to figure out if anyone owned cans in Mass pre-1934.

Mass's LTC system has been around since around the same time as the suppressor. Its been discussed in various threads on here and deceased member @swatgig had a history of Mass gun laws on his law firm's web page.

The problem is, statutes evolve over time. Perhaps the original LTC statute also banned suppressors. The only way to find out would be to either find credible news articles or conduct historical legal research. Anyone could do this, but it would involve checking through old versions of statutes going back until the advent of the suppressor.

Another alternative would be to check to see if Attorney Foley's website is still up; or, use the "way back machine." I believe his website quoted part of a case brief. If his website/the brief mentioned cans, that'd be a good start.

 

[greencobra]

When your other friend told you that people in rural areas could have suppressors...

this is the same f***ing guy!! i just emailed the text to him to see if he remembered saying this.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

I'll blow my horn by claiming that when the law changed in 1989 I brought into Mass one of the first, if not the first suppressor. A Ruger/Ceiner integrally suppressed KMK10 .22 pistol. Anyone else? Jack.

 

[greencobra]

so the law was put in in 1989 as jack said back then. so that's what i'm looking for. before 1989, a private citizen could own a suppressor. i don't like typing the word suppressor so it will be now know as "the thing."

 

[eboos]

Thou shalt not suppress:

Any person, other than a federally licensed firearms manufacturer, an authorized agent of the municipal police training committee, or a duly authorized sworn law enforcement officer while acting within the scope of official duties and under the direct authorization of the police chief or his designee, or the colonel of the state police, who sells or keeps for sale, or offers, or gives or disposes of by any means other than submitting to an authorized law enforcement agency, or uses or possesses any instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance for causing the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm to be silent or intended to lessen or muffle the noise of the firing of any gun, revolver, pistol or other firearm shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years in state prison or for not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction.​

​

General Law - Part IV, Title I, Chapter 269, Section 10A

malegislature.gov

So, since the firearm will not ever be silent, "intended to lessen or muffle the noise of..." would be the operative clause. What if a devise was constructed to perform another function but has the secondary effect of "lessening or muffling the noise of..." could it be legal since that wasn't the primary or "intended" function of the devise? If that is not so, then where does the restriction end? What if an item, such as a locking slide or bolt on a semi automatic, which has no impact on the noise coming from the muzzle but would eliminate the noise by preventing the slide or bolt from cycling were used? What if they were used with subsonic ammunition and loaded with a quieter powder? I guess the real question is: how loud is a gun supposed to be? Are legislatures looking to establish a noise floor for firearms? If not, regulating sound suppressors doesn't seem to make any sense.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

I'll blow my horn by claiming that when the law changed in 1989 I brought into Mass one of the first, if not the first suppressor. A Ruger/Ceiner integrally suppressed KMK10 .22 pistol. Anyone else? Jack.

so the law was put in in 1989 as jack said back then. so that's what i'm looking for. before 1989, a private citizen could own a suppressor. i don't like typing the word suppressor wo it will be now know as "the thing."

No, what Jack's saying is that he was the first 07/SOT to have a can in Mass to his knowledge. Prior, there would've been a complete ban with no FFL exception.

 

[Toast]

If not, regulating sound suppressors doesn't seem to make any sense.

Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.

 

[drgrant]

Still don’t understand why they’re not legal there...I moved out of state and I bought one (or two or more) just because I couldn’t have one before.

Because of depression era faggotry about poaching that never got taken off the law books. That same line of garbage was used to suck them into the NFA.

It's the same brand of moral panic faggotry states used to justify regulating things like automatic knives and so on.

See Also:

 

[Toast]

Prior, there would've been a complete ban with no FFL exception.

The question then becomes "When was that ban enacted?", unless one presumes that when the Pilgrims arrived, they found C269S10A carved into Plymouth Rock by the finger of God.

 

[Deleted member 67409]

Because of depression era faggotry about poaching that never got taken off the law books. That same line of garbage was used to suck them into the NFA.

It's the same brand of moral panic faggotry states used to justify regulating things like automatic knives and so on.

See Also:

I think poaching is the reason we in the gun community remember for why cans are regulated/banned, but the more significant reason would've been domestic terrorism and the threat from Anarchists/Communists. While the US didn't see massive rioting during the Great Depression, it did ten years prior around the time of the Spanish Flu, Red Scare of 1919, Sacco and Vanzetti trials, and the rise of the Second Klan.

It's not hard to sell politicians on banning something that could be used for political assassinations... when there are actually political assassinations occurring, or at least attempts, like the shooting of Huey Long or the bombing at the John Adams Courthouse by Anarchists/militant socialists.

(Just explaing the rationale; repeal the NFA.)

 

[one-eyed Jack]

No, what Jack's saying is that he was the first 07/SOT to have a can in Mass to his knowledge. Prior, there would've been a complete ban with no FFL exception.

What actually happened was that Smith&Wesson petitioned to get the law changed so that they could bid on military contracts to supply suppressors. Jack.

 

[greencobra]

i'm gonna go out on that proverbial limb and state my friend is not the expert he thinks he is. he's all over the place on this.