Shotgun capacity Post ban

[FSTC]

This is from a shop that I follow on Facebook, I will not 'out' the shop, if anyone wishes to buy this PM me and I'll give you the name of the shop.
This shop has asked for my advice in the past, I am friendly with the shop owner.I have had a discussion with the owner with my thoughts, the owner was assured by their distributor that they are in compliance with the law.

The shop contends that this is legal due to the fact the shotgun isn't considered a Lg Capacity weapon (i.e. a pump action)
My issue isn't with the gun, but with the 10rd box mag attached to the gun.
My interpretation of the law regarding LCFD says this is not allowable according to the definition in Ch 140 sec 121

“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 five shotgun shells;

What say you NES?

 

[Len-2A Training]

LCFD is a TOTALLY different issue/law than the AWB. People confuse the two as the grandfather date for both is the same and their origins were the Clinton "AWB" in 1994.

Possession of those drums if not made on/before 9/13/1994 are a felony.

C. 140 § 131M Assault Weapons Sales Ban
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.

Ask him what part of the bolded part he doesn't understand. The key here is "OR" . . . it's not an "and".

 

[jasons]

My interpretation of the law regarding LCFD says this is not allowable according to the definition in Ch 140 sec 121

I believe you are correct, but with that said it seems people are being given a "pass" when it comes to pump shotguns. I don't know why but you see pump shotguns with technically illegal post-ban LCFDs for sale in shops all over the state.

And before someone chimes in with "pump shotguns are exempt," there's nothing that I've seen in the law that exempts pump shotguns from the LCFD law.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I believe you are correct, but with that said it seems people are being given a "pass" when it comes to pump shotguns. I don't know why but you see pump shotguns with technically illegal post-ban LCFDs for sale in shops all over the state.

And before someone chimes in with "pump shotguns are exempt," there's nothing that I've seen in the law that exempts pump shotguns from the LCFD law.

True on all counts. It's an INTERPRETATION (always subject to change) by EOPS wrt INTEGRAL TUBE-FED shotguns ONLY.

No such interpretation ("pass") for removable magazines for any shotgun regardless of type of action.

 

[FSTC]

I believe you are correct, but with that said it seems people are being given a "pass" when it comes to pump shotguns. I don't know why but you see pump shotguns with technically illegal post-ban LCFDs for sale in shops all over the state.

And before someone chimes in with "pump shotguns are exempt," there's nothing that I've seen in the law that exempts pump shotguns from the LCFD law.

I see the same thing. Some people seem not to care that a post ban >5rd tube is still considered a "feeding device"

 

[FSTC]

True on all counts. It's an INTERPRETATION (always subject to change) by EOPS wrt INTEGRAL TUBE-FED shotguns ONLY.

If we want to split hairs, if one were to purchase an 8rd tube magazine (newly manufactured) that would considered a LCFD, would it not?

 

[jasons]

No such interpretation ("pass") for removable magazines for any shotgun regardless of type of action.

Perhaps, but if the pseudo-exemption for pumps with fixed LCFDs is valid then detachable LCFDs would logically follow. (They're both covered in the exact same law after all.) Then again this pseudo-exemption isn't based on the actual law or any sort of valid logic in the first place so where does that leave us?

In any case, pump shotguns with detachable mags seem sort of pointless to me... Trying to run the action efficiently with a mag in the way seems impractical at best. Better off with an autoloader if you want to run detachable mags IMHO.

- - - Updated - - -

If we want to split hairs, if one were to purchase an 8rd tube magazine (newly manufactured) that would considered a LCFD, would it not?

By definition, yes. Regardless of what sort of gun it was attached to, or even it it were not attached to any gun at all.

 

[EMTDAD]

since the definition specifically exempts tube-fed 22 rifles, that logically (I know, MA) they would have exempted tube-fed shotguns if they had intended.

 

[jasons]

since the definition specifically exempts tube-fed 22 rifles, that logically (I know, MA) they would have exempted tube-fed shotguns if they had intended.

Yep.

Taken a step further, the federal law that the MA law was based on DID have an exemption for pump shotguns. The MA law is almost word-for-word except the pump shotgun exemption is specifically missing. I don't think that was an accident.

 

[Kevlar]

C. 140 § 131M Assault Weapons Sales Ban
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.

Ask him what part of the bolded part he doesn't understand. The key here is "OR" . . . it's not an "and".

For the sake of accuracy, MGL 140-131M is inapplicable to dealers (see bold above). The statute violated is MGL 140-123...

...Sixteenth, that no licensee shall sell, lease, rent, transfer or deliver or offer for sale, lease, rent, transfer or delivery to any person any assault weapon or large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994...

...and the punishment is prescribed in MGL 140-128...

Any licensee under a license described in section one hundred and twenty-three, and any employee or agent of such a licensee, who violates any provision of said section required to be expressed in the ... sixteenth ... condition of said license ... shall be punished...

 

[Len-2A Training]

Perhaps, but if the pseudo-exemption for pumps with fixed LCFDs is valid then detachable LCFDs would logically follow. (They're both covered in the exact same law after all.) Then again this pseudo-exemption isn't based on the actual law or any sort of valid logic in the first place so where does that leave us?

Not really the same thing. You need to follow their logic (or illogic) as to why they made that interpretation.

Their position is that the tube does not "HOLD" the ammunition since when it is removed from the gun, all the ammo falls out (laughable, but that is their "logic" for the interpretation) whereas when you remove a mag/clip from a gun they by definition HOLD the ammo from falling out.

Therefore, they would not expand that interpretation to include mags/drums/clips.

since the definition specifically exempts tube-fed 22 rifles, that logically (I know, MA) they would have exempted tube-fed shotguns if they had intended.

I agree and that is problematic. However, EOPS has (in the past) made an exception "interpretation" only for shotgun tubes.

I'm also aware that the 18xx design lever action guns have tubes that hold >10 .38Spl rounds and these guns have been made since the late 1800s thru today. By definition they were not exempt from the Fed ban or the current MA ban and I'm unaware of any further interpretation or any prosecutions.

Always keep in mind that POLITICIANS write laws and almost always they are CLUELESS wrt what they are writing and the possible issues. Thus, sometimes LE turns a blind eye towards a law that is ridiculous on its face and they just don't bother prosecuting those cases. It is NO guarantee however that some zealous cop or DA might not prosecute.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Yep.

Taken a step further, the federal law that the MA law was based on DID have an exemption for pump shotguns. The MA law is almost word-for-word except the pump shotgun exemption is specifically missing. I don't think that was an accident.

Interesting. I never researched that in the Fed law and thus was unaware of that. But see my comments about lever action .38Spl. I never followed those gun designs but wonder if they modified them during the Fed ban??

 

[FSTC]

sometimes LE turns a blind eye towards a law that is ridiculous on its face and they just don't bother prosecuting those cases. It is NO guarantee however that some zealous cop or DA might not prosecute.

That's a Bingo

 

[drgrant]

I believe you are correct, but with that said it seems people are being given a "pass" when it comes to pump shotguns. I don't know why but you see pump shotguns with technically illegal post-ban LCFDs for sale in shops all over the state.

And before someone chimes in with "pump shotguns are exempt," there's nothing that I've seen in the law that exempts pump shotguns from the LCFD law.

It's not supported by law but it might as well be as accepted, in a goebbels big lie sort of way. The machine doesn't care obviously, because I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted WRT an LCAFD/pump shotgun deal. I think part of the problem is the law is written so poorly it doesn't delineate things like the size of the shell, etc. I can make lots of shotguns "illegal" by running a shell that's smaller than 2.75" or whatever.

Of course this kind of deal with the detachable mag, that's sort of an anomaly, but I didn't even know they still made those things. The whole thing is pretty clunky.

-Mike

 

[jasons]

Interesting. I never researched that in the Fed law and thus was unaware of that. But see my comments about lever action .38Spl. I never followed those gun designs but wonder if they modified them during the Fed ban??

I'm trying to find the cite, but I'm pretty sure there was an exemption in there for manually operated actions. I seem to recall levers and pumps being specifically called out but I could be wrong and I'm not finding it now.

 

[Kevlar]

I'm trying to find the cite, but I'm pretty sure there was an exemption in there for manually operated actions. I seem to recall levers and pumps being specifically called out but I could be wrong and I'm not finding it now.

It's still codified in 27 CFR 478.11

Large capacity ammunition feeding device. A magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device for a firearm manufactured after September 13, 1994, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition, or a fixed device for a manually operated firearm, or a fixed device for a firearm listed in 18 U.S.C. 922, appendix A.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retriev...1a&mc=true&r=PART&n=pt27.3.478#se27.3.478_111

 

[jasons]

Their position is that the tube does not "HOLD" the ammunition since when it is removed from the gun, all the ammo falls out (laughable, but that is their "logic" for the interpretation) whereas when you remove a mag/clip from a gun they by definition HOLD the ammo from falling out.

The problem with that interpretation is that no fixed feeding device would hold ammunition when removed and yet fixed feeding devices are specifically called out in the MGL.

“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.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The problem with that interpretation is that no fixed feeding device would hold ammunition when removed and yet fixed feeding devices are specifically called out in the MGL.

I know. I was just clarifying their "logic" (or lack of) in how they differentiate between mags/clips/drums and tube-fed shotguns (I never asked about tube-fed anything else).