Semi auto shotguns restrictions

[Tackdriver VillenTactical]

Can someone point me to the Mass Law outlining what features new semi auto shotguns can have?

Dave

 

[Kevlar]

Can someone point me to the Mass Law outlining what features new semi auto shotguns can have?

Dave

Semi-auto shotguns are subject to the AWB...

(30) The term "semiautomatic assault weapon" means -

>snip<

(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of -

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the

action of the weapon;

(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

...and, if capable of accepting in excess of 5 rounds, is classified as a "large capacity weapon", requiring a minimum of a LTC-B to possess...

“Large capacity weapon”, any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device; (iii) that employs a rotating cylinder capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition in a rifle or firearm and more than five shotgun shells in the case of a shotgun or firearm; or (iv) that is an assault weapon. The term “large capacity weapon” shall be a secondary designation and shall apply to a weapon in addition to its primary designation as a firearm, rifle or shotgun

“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.

 

[richc]

My 18 yo son has an FID card. I can't for the life of me understand legal mumbo jumbo.

I own a shotgun that holds 8 rounds in a tube mag. Would it be legal for an 18 yo FID holder to own/possess this?

I'd like to transfer it to his ownership via FA10, but want to make sure we're GTG with regards to the legalities.

thx

Rich

 

[Len-2A Training]

Rich, seems to be a gray area.

Pump shotguns can't be an "assault weapon", but mag tubes >5 rds for shotgun or >10 rds for anything else are large capacity feeding devices, unless for .22RF only (exempt). Nobody has really addressed the "as built" guns with tubes that feed > than those numbers TTBOMK.

 

[atmay]

My 18 yo son has an FID card. I can't for the life of me understand legal mumbo jumbo.

I own a shotgun that holds 8 rounds in a tube mag. Would it be legal for an 18 yo FID holder to own/possess this?

I'd like to transfer it to his ownership via FA10, but want to make sure we're GTG with regards to the legalities.

thx

Rich

Rich, seems to be a gray area.

Pump shotguns can't be an "assault weapon", but mag tubes >5 rds for shotgun or >10 rds for anything else are large capacity feeding devices, unless for .22RF only (exempt). Nobody has really addressed the "as built" guns with tubes that feed > than those numbers TTBOMK.

You guys can click HERE to see all the fun we've had discussing this matter before.

It's a bit of a mess, and I don't know if there's a definitive answer as to whether or not >5 capacity pump shotguns are FID legal or not.

 

[Kevlar]

My 18 yo son has an FID card. I can't for the life of me understand legal mumbo jumbo.

I own a shotgun that holds 8 rounds in a tube mag. Would it be legal for an 18 yo FID holder to own/possess this?

I'd like to transfer it to his ownership via FA10, but want to make sure we're GTG with regards to the legalities.

thx

Rich

If it's a semi-auto, no.

If it's a pump, maybe.

As Len said (and atmay posted a link to the discussion), the tube itself may be considered a "large capacity feeding device". At this point, it's all legal theory as there has been no official determination or case law that I am aware of, but unfortunately I don't think anyone can give you a definitive answer.

 

[Tackdriver VillenTactical]

Do these regs apply to semi auto shotguns made before the 1994 cutoff?

 

[Kevlar]

Do these regs apply to semi auto shotguns made before the 1994 cutoff?

It must have been manufactured, and in "evil" configuration, on or prior to 9/13/94 to be exempt from the AWB.

It's status as a "large capacity weapon" is unaffected by the manufacture date or prior configuration.

 

[GSG]

Do these regs apply to semi auto shotguns made before the 1994 cutoff?

The "large capacity" regs, yes, the AWB stuff, see Kevlar's post above.

 

[Len-2A Training]

OK folks, I do have an answer to the tube-fed mags in MA. At the MA Firearms Law Update I asked Ron about this.

If the tube is integral with the gun, the tube itself can never be considered a "large capacity feeding device". The rationale for this is that if you removed the tube and tried to "load" it with rifle/shotgun rounds, they would just fall out of the tube (the spring/guts of the tube mag won't stay in place either) and thus a hollow tube isn't a "feeding device".

This holds for semi-auto, pump, or lever-action guns.

 

[Tackdriver VillenTactical]

OK folks, I do have an answer to the tube-fed mags in MA. At the MA Firearms Law Update I asked Ron about this.

If the tube is integral with the gun, the tube itself can never be considered a "large capacity feeding device". The rationale for this is that if you removed the tube and tried to "load" it with rifle/shotgun rounds, they would just fall out of the tube (the spring/guts of the tube mag won't stay in place either) and thus a hollow tube isn't a "feeding device".

This holds for semi-auto, pump, or lever-action guns.

Len, is this Ron's opinion or from a source that would have ultimate say in arrest/prosecution? From where I sit there is nothing codified in law (though there may be that I haven't seen) that clarifies this.

Dave

 

[atmay]

OK folks, I do have an answer to the tube-fed mags in MA. At the MA Firearms Law Update I asked Ron about this.

If the tube is integral with the gun, the tube itself can never be considered a "large capacity feeding device". The rationale for this is that if you removed the tube and tried to "load" it with rifle/shotgun rounds, they would just fall out of the tube (the spring/guts of the tube mag won't stay in place either) and thus a hollow tube isn't a "feeding device".

This holds for semi-auto, pump, or lever-action guns.

While I'm glad to hear that Ron agrees with what I thought to be the case (and is the most logical), do we know this would hold up in court? Or during an interaction with an officer?

 

[TheRoland]

do we know this would hold up in court? Or during an interaction with an officer?

No.

That said, I'm of the opinion regulation of pump-shotgun magazine sizes would not survive court review. I'll let someone else find out, though.

 

[glide]

I like that opinion, and it makes sense. But I don't like that it's just an opinion.

Len, thanks for bringing it up though.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len, is this Ron's opinion or from a source that would have ultimate say in arrest/prosecution? From where I sit there is nothing codified in law (though there may be that I haven't seen) that clarifies this.

Dave

I'm pretty sure that you would find this to be Ron's opinion, position of GCAB and position of EOPS.

HOWEVER, the "ultimate say in arrest" is ALWAYS the officer on the scene . . . and we know/acknowledge that most have very scant knowledge of MA gun laws. The "ultimate say in prosecution" is an ADA who usually is fairly fresh out of law school, looking to build a rep of "wins" and has NO knowledge of MA gun laws.

The above paragraph is just as valid for pre-ban hi-cap mags, possession of ANY AR-15, ANY hi-cap gun, etc. It's a crap-shoot at the side of the road and an even bigger one at the side of a bench (courtroom)!

There were ~200 police officers attending Ron's seminar on Wednesday. It cost $135/person and a day off of work. VERY few PDs send anyone due to expense, OT, travel, or just don't care. As Ron stated, most POs in MA have never attended any such seminars (and he runs them 2x/year since 1998 plus other random times over the years). When I "hired" Ron to speak at Braintree R&P for the abbreviated version (3 hrs vs. 6 hours), we had avg of 100 attendees each time (I did this 5 times over the years). I personally invited ~5 chiefs of area towns (chiefs that I know personally) plus a bunch of POs and NOT ONE OF THEM EVER ATTENDED ANY OF THESE EVENTS (free to them other than time and it was on a Sat/Sun every time). Only one Chief ever attended TTBOMK and he is the Avon Chief (and I understand he's a member of another local gun club) . . . I didn't know Warren Phillips, but he made the effort to come and came over and introduced himself to me.

So, to be perfectly safe from persecution or prosecution, you shouldn't own/use/possess/touch any guns/ammo/mags whatsoever. Anything else and you are taking a risk . . . something we all do when we get out of bed in the morning. Each of us has to weigh how much risk we are willing to take and live our lives accordingly.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

OK folks, I do have an answer to the tube-fed mags in MA. At the MA Firearms Law Update I asked Ron about this.

If the tube is integral with the gun, the tube itself can never be considered a "large capacity feeding device". The rationale for this is that if you removed the tube and tried to "load" it with rifle/shotgun rounds, they would just fall out of the tube (the spring/guts of the tube mag won't stay in place either) and thus a hollow tube isn't a "feeding device".

This holds for semi-auto, pump, or lever-action guns.

I CAN HAZ 930SPX!

Seriously, thank you for taking the time to clarify this issue, and posting the result. I hope it squashes the never ending debate on this topic.