Unloaded magazine storage at home

[huskyal02_R1]

Hi all,

I searched for this topic but can't find anything...but I am SURE it has been asked before...so here it is again.

Do I need to lock the unloaded magazine inside the house? I locked my firearms and ammos, wondering do I need to lock the unloaded mags as well.

Thanks!
Alan

 

[Len-2A Training]

It's illegal to allow unlicensed persons to have access to large-capacity (pre-ban) mags. So that defines what you have to do if others live with you and don't possess a LTC.

 

[greencobra]

the firearms mgl would be easier to follow and understand if they just published what we can do and not what we can't. probably whittle it down to a couple of paragraphs if not a couple of sentences.

 

[Goliathan]

the firearms mgl would be easier to follow and understand if they just published what we can do and not what we can't. probably whittle it down to a couple of paragraphs if not a couple of sentences.

Well, yes. But then how would they get their convictions for stupid crap?

 

[huskyal02_R1]

Thanks everyone!!

 

[Len-2A Training]

"Tackdriver" sent me a PM asking about this subject, however his inbox is full, so I'm posting the reply here for all.

Hi Len,

I was hoping you could give me the chapter and section that criminalizes the accessibility/allowing access of a "high capacity" magazine by an unlicensed individual (spouse etc). I don't recall ever hearing of this and wanted to read the law.

Thanks

My response:

C. 269 S. 10 (m) quoted here from Glidden's book (2014 edition):

Unlawful possession or carrying a large capacity weapon or feeding device
(m) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) or (h), any person not exempted by statute who knowingly has in his possession, or knowingly has under his control in a vehicle, a large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device therefor who does not possess a valid Class A or Class B license to carry firearms issued under section 131 or 131F of chapter 140, except as permitted or otherwise provided under this section or chapter 140, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than ten years. The possession of a valid firearm identification card issued under section 129B shall not be a defense for a violation of this subsection; provided, however, that any such person charged with violating this paragraph and holding a valid firearm identification card shall not be subject to any mandatory minimum sentence imposed by this paragraph.

and his notes on same:

10. Possession of large capacity or feeding device: Subsection (m) also prohibits the possession of a large capacity feeding device as defined in chapter 140, section 121 by any person not licensed with an LTC or not otherwise exempted. There is no requirement for the large capacity feeding device to be with or in the weapon. Mere possession of an unloaded large capacity feeding device without an LTC or exemption is a violation. Possession of an FID Card is not sufficient and only prevents the minimum mandatory sentence from being imposed.

 

[P-14]

Possession does not equal a requirement for locked storage. Cross-X, an attorney that frequented here before he passed away (I miss you Cross-X [sad2]), stated in a post that I am unable to find that there is no requirement for locked storage for prebans, only a requirement that you do not possess them unless you have a LTC-A.

I prefer not to add requirements to our lives that just aren't there. Please show me where it says that locked storage of preban mags is required.

 

[Tackdriver VillenTactical]

Len,

I think we are talking about different things and those laws do not apply here. The original post is about magazine storage and you replied about "allowing access". I am not familiar with the legal violation of "allowing access". That is what I am inquiring about.

As I understand it, my failure to put a trigger lock on a gun allows access to an item required to be locked by statute. Thus I have broken the law by not doing so. I have not violated a law of "allowing access" (maybe I have but I am not aware such a law exists), however I have violated a law about failing to secure the gun with a trigger lock or in a secure container. I do not think any such statute exists for magazines. As such, I do not think a law is broken when a magazine is left unsecured in the home. There is no law requiring my car keys be secured. Would I have broken the law of "allowing access" if my wife, not having a driver's license, took the keys and operated my car while I napped on the couch?

The laws you referenced make no mention of "allowing access". I was hoping by statute or case law you could point me to where that law exists.


Thanks,
Dave

 

[Len-2A Training]

Feel free to discuss this with a DA/ADA (I'm serious, contact and ask). That will give you the best answer you can get.

If you have them (mags) and allow access by an unlicensed party and they are caught with them, they will get jammed up and I am 100% certain that the owner of said mags will too.

So, no there is no specific law that says that they must be locked up, just that you can't allow any unlicensed person to access them.

MGLs do not treat guns or DLs like they do guns and gun licenses. We discuss this frequently. One can make a case that they should but since guns are inherently bad (according to those in charge) and cars aren't, they are treated very differently.

 

[NewGuyRay]

Feel free to discuss this with a DA/ADA (I'm serious, contact and ask). That will give you the best answer you can get.

If you have them (mags) and allow access by an unlicensed party and they are caught with them, they will get jammed up and I am 100% certain that the owner of said mags will too.

So, no there is no specific law that says that they must be locked up, just that you can't allow any unlicensed person to access them.

MGLs do not treat guns or DLs like they do guns and gun licenses. We discuss this frequently. One can make a case that they should but since guns are inherently bad (according to those in charge) and cars aren't, they are treated very differently.

Sorry Len but reading this makes me more confused. Is there any case law available to aid in defining the term "Possession"? Is it the same as under direct control?

Say someone is an LTC holder and his wife is not. They co-own a home and the licensed spouse stores high cap magazines somewhere in the home and not in a locked container. If a LEO entered the home for some reason and discovered the magazines, could/would the wife be charged with unlawful possession and possibly convicted -- assuming she does not have them under her direct control at the time the LEO discovers them?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Sorry Len but reading this makes me more confused. Is there any case law available to aid in defining the term "Possession"? Is it the same as under direct control?

Say someone is an LTC holder and his wife is not. They co-own a home and the licensed spouse stores high cap magazines somewhere in the home and not in a locked container. If a LEO entered the home for some reason and discovered the magazines, could/would the wife be charged with unlawful possession and possibly convicted -- assuming she does not have them under her direct control at the time the LEO discovers them?

Almost every case gets pled down to something and CWOF'd so the end result is nothing like the original charges. Makes tracking case law very difficult.

The questions you ask should be asked of your DA, in writing to get an answer as to what HIS OFFICE would do. I posed some questions to my prior DA (personal friend) and he had one of his legal folks respond to me with a multi-page letter answering my questions. Try it, you have nothing to lose.

 

[MisterHappy]

While it's not about a magazine, per se, a few years back, a car was pulled over in Framingham, and searched.

One gun was found in the console. All four in the car were charged with unlicensed possession of a firearm.

I have no idea of the disposition of the case(s), of if it was a 'charge of convenience' to jam up people that the 5-0 was looking for, but that shows what can be construed as 'possession.'

 

[dcmdon]

Newguy Ray,

The bottom line is that for $100 get your wife a LTC. Then everything goes away. When we moved here from CT, my wife had no interest in a LTC. She had no interest in the CT equivalent and all was fine. She had access to the guns, she took rifles to Appleseeds, etc. No problems in CT.
In CT all a PP is required for is to purchase and to carry a handgun.

When we moved to MA, I told my wife that without a LTC she couldn't legally access any of my guns/ammo/mags. So she agreed to get a LTC.