Shotgun Capacity/Questiions in Massachusetts

[drgrant]

Food for thought.... what if someone owns a box of aguila minishells? Now does my 5 round pump shotgun have an LCAFD on it by way of possessing those shells? Because the same gun will easily hold more than 5 minishells. F**king brain numbing, is what that is. Oh wait, now get this... what if I have a pump shotgun that takes 3" shells and has a 6 shot tube on it (for nominal 2.75 in shells) but there's no way in hell that you will get 6 shells in that tube if they are 3 inchers. So what is the capacity rated off of? The shell size of the shotgun chambering or what shells you happen to possess at the time? It is easy to see how this problem can effectively go full retard- shotgun tube capacity is completely relative to whatever size shells you are loading in it.

-Mike

 

[GSG]

I'm pretty sure that if it did become an issue, the association of firearm dealers for MA are not going to come running to fund your defense since they've always sold them.

+1, exactly right. Especially since if the extended tube is a post-ban feeding device, then the dealer that sold it to you would be facing two felony charges for each tube sold. There's never been an exception to the law that says "The penalties shall not apply if it was sold to you that way, or if the BFS instructor parroted the wrong catch phrase."

what if someone owns a box of aguila minishells?

Two words: unintended consequences. That's what you get when too many laws are written.

 

[waltherlover]

So I'm confused - and who isn't by the ridiculous laws here. I've read this thread carefully. Lets say I buy a new shotgun from a dealer that holds 8 in the FACTORY MANUFACTURED magazine. Is that legal? No extension, etc. Granted, it's probably high cap, which is fine - but is it legal?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

If you live in MA, nothing is legal.

 

[MisterHappy]

Simple....just get a few doubles....no problem. Now, you can load one with 00 Buck ( for normal BGs) one with slugs for more punch, one with #9 for the squirrels on the feeder, and one with rock salt for helping the daughter's boyfrend over the fence.

Since the OAL is shorter with a double, it will be even better in the hall outside your bedroom.

 

[glide]

So I'm confused - and who isn't by the ridiculous laws here. I've read this thread carefully. Lets say I buy a new shotgun from a dealer that holds 8 in the FACTORY MANUFACTURED magazine. Is that legal? No extension, etc. Granted, it's probably high cap, which is fine - but is it legal?

A tube extension has nothing to do with it. If it holds more than 5 shells it *could* be a post ban LCFD.

 

[waltherlover]

Even with a pump action? I mean to clarify that in my post - and I didn't....

 

[cmacclel]

Even with a pump action? I mean to clarify that in my post - and I didn't....

If you read the thread you can see we are specifically talking about pump action shotguns and if the large capacity feed device laws apply to them.

Mac

 

[cmacclel]

I'm guessing no one really cared about this before because shotguns were FUDD. Now that everyone wants one of the new Kel-Tec's, we'll see how it sorts itself out.

I played with one at shot show and specifically asked if it would be MA legal and the Kel-Tec rep said yes.....but.

Mac

 

[TheRoland]

I played with one at shot show and specifically asked if it would be MA legal and the Kel-Tec rep said yes.....but.

Mac

This issue isn't one people outside of MA know about, or one there's agreement about.

 

[BE4TNUT]

If magazine tube extensions ate classified as LCFD then it is up to the prosecution to prove that it is post-ban. Now since these do not have dates or serial numbers stamped on them as long as they were being manufactured prior to the ban it can't be proved with certainty that it is post-ban.

Now if the shotgun wasn't being made until after 1994 then it's easy for them.

The only argument that I can see that may work is that it is not large capacity, therefore how can it be a large capacity feeding device.

It's a gray area we probably will not ever receive a clear answer to.

 

[cmacclel]

This issue isn't one people outside of MA know about, or one there's agreement about.

Really so only us MA people know the Ma Laws? Now thats funny because even the MA people don't know how to interperate the MGL's.

Mac

 

[DickWanner]

If magazine tube extensions ate classified as LCFD then it is up to the prosecution to prove that it is post-ban. Now since these do not have dates or serial numbers stamped on them as long as they were being manufactured prior to the ban it can't be proved with certainty that it is post-ban.

Now if the shotgun wasn't being made until after 1994 then it's easy for them.

The only argument that I can see that may work is that it is not large capacity, therefore how can it be a large capacity feeding device.

It's a gray area we probably will not ever receive a clear answer to.

It's not the extension you have to worry about, it's the tube itself. They would have to prove the tube itself is post-94.

 

[GSG]

If magazine tube extensions ate classified as LCFD then it is up to the prosecution to prove that it is post-ban. Now since these do not have dates or serial numbers stamped on them as long as they were being manufactured prior to the ban it can't be proved with certainty that it is post-ban.

If you bought it from an FFL, it's a simple matter to go to the distributor and manufacturer to see how the gun was shipped.

Really so only us MA people know the Ma Laws? Now thats funny because even the MA people don't know how to interperate the MGL's.

I think relatively speaking, Mass. people know more about the MGL's than outsiders. You ever try to buy a handgun at KTP?

It's not the extension you have to worry about, it's the tube itself. They would have to prove the tube itself is post-94.

The shottie mag tube itself was exempt from regulation in the 94 ban, so this would be uncharted territories for the Mass. courts to explore.

MGL 140-121 says in part:

“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.

When the 94 AWB was in effect, 18 USC 921(a)(31) said:

(31) The term "large capacity ammunition feeding device" -

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

27 CFR 478.11 says in part:

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.

In writing the MGL, they ignored (or more likely, were not aware of) the applicable CFR which specifically exempted fixed mags on pump guns. Instead they adopted the much broader definition in 18 USC 921, which also includes fixed mags.

During the 94 ban the commonly accepted line of thought was that the mag body was the mag legally, so if you had a pre-ban Glock mag body that held more than 10 rounds you could stick a +2 extension on it without creating a new post-ban mag. This was not true if you wanted to stick a +2 on a post ban 10 round mag, for example.

Even still, since the tube is a mag, I think sticking to the old federal standard is the safest way to go.

 

[waltherlover]

Yikes - I'm still confused. I realize that I'm asking for clarity in interpretation of MA laws, which in itself is the biggest contradiction out there.

Here's what I get:

Greater than 5 rounds in an attached magazine (pump shotgun) is large capacity
MA has adopted the much more ridiculous standard of the attached pump magazine being a magazine - in complete contrast to the federal standard
Readily convertible presents a jeopardy - just about every shotgun has a mag extension available that is easy to install

But - doesn't an LTC-A allow you to possess large capacity magazines - yes - made before 1994. So - what if I took a magazine from an 870 made in 1992 and put that magazine on my newer model 870. Does that make it legal? I realize this is a rather silly question - but then we go to very silly lengths to abide by MA laws anyway.

I'm curious about this specifically because there is an 8+1 shotgun for sale that is already in MA that I'm thinking of buying. So the next question becomes - will a cop even care? And I know mileage varies on that one. Also - I've seen greater than 5 capacity pump action shotguns at several dealers in this state.

I know that no one wants to be a test case of the stupid firearms laws that we have, but really - there are a bunch of post-ban pump action shotguns out there were greater than five round capacity - so I wonder if this is a law that just isn't enforced - like the mann act.

 

[glide]

what if I took a magazine from an 870 made in 1992 and put that magazine on my newer model 870. Does that make it legal? I realize this is a rather silly question - but then we go to very silly lengths to abide by MA laws anyway.

[sarcasm]
Maybe. Unless they go by the 'once a post-ban shotgun always a post-ban shotgun' rule.
[/sarcasm]

 

[Len-2A Training]

[sarcasm]
Maybe. Unless they go by the 'once a post-ban shotgun always a post-ban shotgun' rule.
[/sarcasm]

Why wouldn't they? It's just a natural extension of their insanity.

 

[waltherlover]

So does anyone have any guidance on this greater than 5 shot magazine shotgun I'm thinking of buying? Is this a don't get caught thing, or is it a most cops won't know the law anyway, or what? As usually, befuddled by MA laws that completely contradict each other.

In theory, if this were tested in court, and the reference to the federal laws was taken into account, presumably, the exemption for pump action would as well, since that's part of the foundation for the actual federal regulation? I'm not saying I want to be a test case, but seriously - what's my risk?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

So does anyone have any guidance on this greater than 5 shot magazine shotgun I'm thinking of buying?

If you are that worried about it, don't buy it.

 

[MisterHappy]

A whole new reason for "Caveaat epmtor"....

 

[jar]

27 CFR 478.11 says in part:

Thank you for finally finding where the hell the distinction between an extended tube on a pump and on a semi-auto came from!

 

[glide]

So does anyone have any guidance on this greater than 5 shot magazine shotgun I'm thinking of buying? Is this a don't get caught thing, or is it a most cops won't know the law anyway, or what? As usually, befuddled by MA laws that completely contradict each other.

In theory, if this were tested in court, and the reference to the federal laws was taken into account, presumably, the exemption for pump action would as well, since that's part of the foundation for the actual federal regulation? I'm not saying I want to be a test case, but seriously - what's my risk?

Here's my take. And I'm not a lawyer. Even a 5 round shotgun can take more than 5 rounds if you're using mini-shells. That means pretty much every shotgun available for sale potentially comes with a LCFD.

Is anyone going to hassle you over your mossberg pump? Probably not. Unless someone is looking for a reason to jam you up. Or they think you are giving them one.

If you want to be 100% safe, don't buy a shotgun at all or move to a normal place.

 

[Lopro]

So with my detachable mag and this stock would it be illegal in Mass ?

 

[cmacclel]

So with my detachable mag and this stock would it be illegal in Mass ?




View attachment 15944

That stock is not classified as a pistol grip.

Mac

 

[vellnueve]

Quite frankly, the fact that the Feds allowed it, under exactly the same rule, for ten years without a peep, should be enough for people to relax about this issue.

 

[glide]

Quite frankly, the fact that the Feds allowed it, under exactly the same rule, for ten years without a peep, should be enough for people to relax about this issue.

The Feds seemed to be at least somewhat objective and even issued opinions on what was okay and what was not under the ban.

MA, not so much.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

The Feds seemed to be at least somewhat objective and even issued opinions on what was okay and what was not under the ban.

MA, not so much.

That is because MA wants you to break the law that you don't understand, so they can take your rights away.

 

[GSG]

But - doesn't an LTC-A allow you to possess large capacity magazines - yes - made before 1994. So - what if I took a magazine from an 870 made in 1992 and put that magazine on my newer model 870. Does that make it legal? I realize this is a rather silly question - but then we go to very silly lengths to abide by MA laws anyway.

Based on everythiing else we know, yes, that should be legal. FWIW, the only AWB prosecutions and investigations I'm aware of in Mass. have involved AR's and high cap rifle/pistol mags.

In theory, if this were tested in court, and the reference to the federal laws was taken into account, presumably, the exemption for pump action would as well, since that's part of the foundation for the actual federal regulation?

No. I posted legal cites earlier in the thread, the MGL doesn't include the same exemptions for shotgun tubes as the old federal AWB. Another issue is that the CFR isn't statutory law; it's accepted in court, but not 100% legally binding.

I'm not saying I want to be a test case, but seriously - what's my risk?

Your risk is a felony conviction in a Mass. court. Yes, this is obscure, bizarre and unlikely to be noticed, but it is the law.

Thank you for finally finding where the hell the distinction between an extended tube on a pump and on a semi-auto came from!

No problem.

Quite frankly, the fact that the Feds allowed it, under exactly the same rule, for ten years without a peep, should be enough for people to relax about this issue.

The definition the MGL relies on isn't the one that exempted it. There's Mass. caselaw on words left unsaid by legal authors not being supplied by the courts.

 

[Dnotarianni]

OK After 9 pages of reading I am more confused then when I started. Here in black and white is a Mossberg pump that came from factory with 7+1 capacity. Fixed plain stock that fits 12 mini shells in the factory tube plus 1 in the pipe. Should I pack a toothbrush to come into Mass?
Dave

 

[jar]

OK After 9 pages of reading I am more confused then when I started. Here in black and white is a Mossberg pump that came from factory with 7+1 capacity. Fixed plain stock that fits 12 mini shells in the factory tube plus 1 in the pipe. Should I pack a toothbrush to come into Mass?
Dave

By the letter of the law, it's illegal; the pump capacity exemption that was in federal law wasn't copied to MA law. However, I know of no one who's been jammed up over it, and all the MA gunshops have sold them for years.