• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Transport question.

Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
873
Likes
110
Location
Gardner, Ma
Ok. Theorize this for me. I need to have my wife ( who does not have her LTC .yet!! ) take a barrel in to a gunsmith to have some work done. Since this is a mosin barrel and has the serialized part on it. Can she/we get in trouble. Now it's completely disassembled no trigger no bolt etc.

I know the whole just do it and don't speed etc. But by the letter of the law does the barrel count as a weapon if the receiver is attached since it's the serialized part?
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
53,408
Likes
12,499
Location
90% in NH
No, what she'd have is the actual "action" aka the "firearm" in BATFE parlance and possession of such w/o a FID or LTC is a crime in MA.
 
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
8,436
Likes
1,502
I'd also suspect that the gunsmith would be hesitant to receive a receiver from so done that wasn't properly licensed. :)
 

MisterHappy

NES Member
Rating - 100%
17   0   0
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
23,041
Likes
8,713
Location
On the 16 yard line, shootin' for the Lewis!
No, what she'd have is the actual "action" aka the "firearm" in BATFE parlance and possession of such w/o a FID or LTC is a crime in MA.

Clarification, please, Len:

I understand that per BATFE, the "receiver " is the "gun"....but, if it's a bare-bones receiver/barrel, without a bolt or other go parts, since it cannot discharge a shot, is it still a gun under Mass laws?

After all, a 1911 frame, devoid of parts is a "gun" per BATFE, but does not need to be locked up as a complete 1911 would be , to be in compliance with Mass laws.

Gawd, I love this sh!t.....[rolleyes]
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
39,050
Likes
18,118
No, what she'd have is the actual "action" aka the "firearm" in BATFE parlance and possession of such w/o a FID or LTC is a crime in MA.

This is one of those rare cases where I get to disagree with Len S.

Just because something is the action, a/k/a "the firearms" in BATFE parlance does not mean that it is a firearm, shotgun or rifle under MA law. It has to be operable, or readily convertible to operable. For example, a stripped 1911 or AR15 lower is not a firearm, rifle or shotgun under MGL. A receiver for a rifle, particularly without the bolt, trigger or stock would quite likely not be a gun under MA law.

BUT..... I doubt any dealer or gunsmith in MA would be interested in receiving such an item from someone without an LTC or FID (as appropriate for the weapon type), thus rendering discussion of this finer point an academic exercise.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
53,408
Likes
12,499
Location
90% in NH
Question for Rob:

Wasn't their a court case where a judge ruled that even though some critical part was missing, it could easily be replaced and thus it was still considered a gun?

This is what I recall and why I stated that possession w/o a LTC/FID would be a crime in MA. I wouldn't chance it, just like the possession of ammo in a locked car on school property is now illegal even though MGL doesn't make it illegal. Your "Marsupial judges" at work!
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
873
Likes
110
Location
Gardner, Ma
Thank you all for the information. I probably won't risk it.. Even though it's annoying I have to head out for a week for work and was hoping to have this done before I got back :).. But don't want to risk the wife.

But this does point out a interesting thing. If you have a C&R and had a firearm delivered to your home. Isn't the postal worker in violation for transporting a firearm without a LTC if this is truly the case ??

I know none of these draconian rules really make sense, and trying to make them make sense is futile but it's still a interesting debate.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
873
Likes
110
Location
Gardner, Ma
This is one of those rare cases where I get to disagree with Len S.

BUT..... I doubt any dealer or gunsmith in MA would be interested in receiving such an item from someone without an LTC or FID (as appropriate for the weapon type), thus rendering discussion of this finer point an academic exercise.

I wouldn't think they would have an issue with it since they are receiving it ( for smithing work of course). Now as somebody pointed out earlier handing it back to someone without and LTC would be an issue. Now granted of course they are a business and wouldn't risk it of course. But no reason why they couldn't receive it.
 
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
8,436
Likes
1,502
Thank you all for the information. I probably won't risk it.. Even though it's annoying I have to head out for a week for work and was hoping to have this done before I got back :).. But don't want to risk the wife. But this does point out a interesting thing. If you have a C&R and had a firearm delivered to your home. Isn't the postal worker in violation for transporting a firearm without a LTC if this is truly the case ?? I know none of these draconian rules really make sense, and trying to make them make sense is futile but it's still a interesting debate.

Common carriers are protected when delivering packages. I think a better question is what happens if the wife signs for your package and it's a firearm.
 
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
39,050
Likes
18,118
Question for Rob:

Wasn't their a court case where a judge ruled that even though some critical part was missing, it could easily be replaced and thus it was still considered a gun?

This is what I recall and why I stated that possession w/o a LTC/FID would be a crime in MA. I wouldn't chance it, just like the possession of ammo in a locked car on school property is now illegal even though MGL doesn't make it illegal. Your "Marsupial judges" at work!

This is why I said "quite likely not". It's hard to know where the line is, and it is not possible to say with certainty that it is, or isn't. What is certain is that not possessing it without the FID/LTC is an appropriate precaution.

I wouldn't think they would have an issue with it since they are receiving it ( for smithing work of course).
If the smith keeps it overnight, it must be entered into their bound book. Given the aforementioned uncertainty, I'm not sure many in the business would take a chance. Also, returning it to someone else would be a transfer, rather than a return, under federal law and require a new 4473.

I wouldn't chance it, just like the possession of ammo in a locked car on school property is now illegal even though MGL doesn't make it illegal.
What is curious about this decision is that this little bit of dicta was delivered in a case in which no argument regarding the issues ("on ones person", "definition of dangerous weapon") was issued. It would be interesting to see the SJC opinion if a clear case where brought where this issue could be argued. In the meantime, this can be both cited as precedent and used in plea negotiations which, until now, pretty much universally had the "gun in car not one one's person on school property" charge dropped if there was competent defense counsel.
 
Last edited:

Cuz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
2,355
Likes
533
Location
MA
Sounds like the solution is to have your wife get her LTC. It won't help this time, but there will be a next time. In MA it just makes sense all the way around even if she has no interest at all in guns/shooting.
 
Top Bottom