Winchester Repeating Rifle, No License Needed?

June4th

NES Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
5,444
Likes
7,543
Location
SE MA
Feedback: 39 / 0 / 0
This is just a mental exercise: I stumbled upon the history of Winchester Repeater, and saw that the manufacturing of the rifle started in 1894. So having this rifle that's made pre-1899 (pre-1898 for federal laws) would not require an FID?

A bunch of money is needed aside, this would be a great gun for someone otherwise not able to get a license. And does same apply to pre-1898 Colt SAA? Now you can have a rifle and a carry gun without a license, and won't be prosecuted for the crime of being unfashionable. [laugh]

And add to the school zone etc. with regard to weapons...

Correct?
 
Would you run into an issue with ammunition though? I'm not nearly as well versed on MA and Fed laws as most here, but in MA there would be no date applied to ammunition so even one round without a license would be an issue? Even if you could have the rifle, you'd not be able to have it loaded or own any ammo for it, correct?
 
This is just a mental exercise: I stumbled upon the history of Winchester Repeater, and saw that the manufacturing of the rifle started in 1894. So having this rifle that's made pre-1899 (pre-1898 for federal laws) would not require an FID?

A bunch of money is needed aside, this would be a great gun for someone otherwise not able to get a license. And does same apply to pre-1898 Colt SAA? Now you can have a rifle and a carry gun without a license, and won't be prosecuted for the crime of being unfashionable. [laugh]

And add to the school zone etc. with regard to weapons...

Correct?

Well, the gun yes. No ammo however.

The school prohibition includes everything including the blown glass tubing that we used (from chemistry class) to use to make spit-ball shooters . . . and I'm not kidding either. Read the definition of what is prohibited on school property in 269-10.
 
Would you run into an issue with ammunition though? I'm not nearly as well versed on MA and Fed laws as most here, but in MA there would be no date applied to ammunition so even one round without a license would be an issue? Even if you could have the rifle, you'd not be able to have it loaded or own any ammo for it, correct?

Well, the gun yes. No ammo however.

Darn it, I thought I have found a rare and scary loooophooole. [laugh]
 
Go black powder. Colt 1860 Cap and Ball for a handgun.

For a long gun, one of these:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/63...r-revolving-carbine-44-caliber-18-blue-barrel

Not a gun; no license requirement for possession of the powder, cap and ball (need FID to purchase, in Mass., go to NH with money).

Best part is you can vanish in the smokescreen! [laugh]

School zone still applies.

There's a controversy about whether you can posses the caps and power in MA without a license because they're ammunition components. I disagree, hence why they call muzzloader season, "felony" gun hunting season. Plenty of poor DUI guys are stuck with muzzleloaders all December.
 
Go black powder. Colt 1860 Cap and Ball for a handgun.

For a long gun, one of these:

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/63...r-revolving-carbine-44-caliber-18-blue-barrel

Not a gun; no license requirement for possession of the powder, cap and ball (need FID to purchase, in Mass., go to NH with money).

Best part is you can vanish in the smokescreen! [laugh]

School zone still applies.

Except that c. 269 s. 10 prohibits taking even an antique handgun ( blackpowder revolver) out of ones home or business without an LTC. In Commonwealth v. Bibby the appellate court (Bristol County) upheld the firearms conviction of an individual who claimed that his (purportedly) pre-1899 revolver was excluded c. 269 . 10 based on the primitive firearm definition/exclusion in c. 140 s. 121. The court held, in summary, that the exclusion was only applicable to pertinant portions of c. 140, thus leaving the antique pistol within the scope of c. 269 s. 10.

In relevant excerpt:

 3. The firearm conviction.   General Laws c. 269, § 10(a),  prohibits the unauthorized possession, or control in a vehicle, of a firearm while not at home or work.   General Laws c. 140, § 121, defines the word “firearm” as a pistol, revolver, or other weapon capable of discharging a shot and having a barrel less that sixteen inches in length.   See Commonwealth v. Sampson, 383 Mass. 750, 753, 422 N.E.2d 450 (1981);  Commonwealth v. Nieves, 43 Mass.App.Ct. 1, 2, 680 N.E.2d 561 (1997).   The Commonwealth presented testimony of a State police officer assigned to the firearms identification section that showed that the weapon in question was capable of discharging a bullet and had a barrel length of less than sixteen inches.   During cross-examination, the witness acknowledged that he did not know whether the weapon in question was manufactured prior to 1899.It is the defendant's argument that if the weapon in issue had been manufactured in or prior to 1899, it was not a “firearm” within the scope of G.L. c. 269, § 10(a).   He claims that the judge was in error in refusing to allow him to make this argument to the jury and to instruct the jury accordingly.   The defendant bases this argument on that part of G.L. c. 140, § 121, as in effect at all times here relevant, that provides that “any firearm, rifle or shotgun including any firearm, rifle or shotgun with matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system manufactured in or before eighteen hundred and ninety-eight” is, in effect, exempt from the definition of a firearm and therefore, he contends, outside the scope of G.L. c. 269, § 10(a).   The argument is contrary to the legislative purpose of G.L. c. 269, § 10(a), and the clear and unambiguous language of G.L. c. 140, § 121.
In the first instance, § 10(a) “seeks to control the carrying of firearms so as to ‘protect the public from the potential danger incident to ․ [their] unlawful possession.’ ”  Commonwealth v. Jackson, 369 Mass. 904, 911, 344 N.E.2d 166 (1976), quoting from Commonwealth v. Bartholomew, 326 Mass. 218, 219, 93 N.E.2d 551 (1950).   See also Commonwealth v. Seay, 376 Mass. 735, 743, 383 N.E.2d 828 (1978).   Secondly, the cited exemption provided for in G.L. c. 140, § 121, expressly and unambiguously limits itself to G.L. c. 140,  §§ 122 to 129D, inclusive, and §§ 131, 131A, 131B and 131E.4  This limitation is consistent with the purpose of G.L. c. 269, § 10(a).   See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 369 Mass. at 911, 344 N.E.2d 166.   See also Opinion of the Attorney General, Rep. A.G., Pub. Doc. No. 12, at 95-96 (1975).5
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-court-of-appeals/1014006.html#sthash.pT7ubzMt.dpuf
 
The only controversy that I'm aware of is the 209 primers for in-line muzzle loaders, as they are primers, and not caps.

yes. This. My group of hunters was stopped a couple of years ago during muzzleloader season. Epo didn't ask for ltc or fid from us. Just licenses and tags.

Stopped last year during shotgun and we had a guy with us who was using a muzzleloader. Epo only asked for ltc fid from shotgun holders. Didn't ask the muzzle guy for a gun license.

Take me it for what it's worth. All of the epos I have spoken with in the field and personally say that the 209a primer is fine to possess without a license. But then I've heard of people getting jammed for it. Seems like a controversy that won't go away.

- - - Updated - - -

Bibby was overturned by a subsequent case. No longer need a LTC to carry a BP handgun.

Learn something new every day. Does that include new production replicas?
 
Except that c. 269 s. 10 prohibits taking even an antique handgun ( blackpowder revolver) out of ones home or business without an LTC. In Commonwealth v. Bibby the appellate court (Bristol County) upheld the firearms conviction of an individual who claimed that his (purportedly) pre-1899 revolver was excluded c. 269 . 10 based on the primitive firearm definition/exclusion in c. 140 s. 121. The court held, in summary, that the exclusion was only applicable to pertinant portions of c. 140, thus leaving the antique pistol within the scope of c. 269 s. 10.

That was true, until Bibby was mooted by the SJC in Comm. v. Jefferson

2. "Antique" firearm. The defendants claim that the motion judge erred in denying their joint motion to dismiss the counts alleging carrying a firearm without a license and possession of a loaded firearm. In that motion, the defendants argued that their firearms expert, Gregory Danas, had determined from the serial number of the revolver that it was manufactured "before 1899," and therefore it was an "antique" that was not a "firearm" as defined in G. L. c. 140, § 121.

>snip<

A firearm manufactured before 1900 is a "firearm" within the definition of G. L. c. 140, § 121, which defines a "[f]irearm" as "a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured." However, § 121 also provides that the "provisions of [§§] 122 to 129D, inclusive, and [§§] 131, 131A, 131B and 131E shall not apply to . . . any firearm, rifle or shotgun manufactured in or prior to the year 1899." Because G. L. c. 140, § 131, governs licenses to carry firearms, and because § 131 does not apply to firearms manufactured before 1900, a person does not need a license to carry a firearm made before 1900. The carrying of such an antique firearm, therefore, is exempted by § 131 from the prohibition in G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a), against carrying a firearm without a license. See G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a) ("Whoever, except as provided or exempted by statute, knowingly has [a firearm] in his possession . . . or . . . under his control in a vehicle" without license to carry firearms issued under G. L. c. 140, § 131, is guilty of crime). As a result, a defendant may not be convicted under § 10 (a) of carrying a firearm manufactured before 1900 without a license to carry because the defendant is permitted to carry such an antique firearm without a license to carry.

In allowing the motion in limine, the judge relied on Commonwealth v. Bibby, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 158 , 163 (2002) (Bibby), where the Appeals Court found no error in a judge's refusal to allow a defendant to argue to the jury that he would not be in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a), if the firearm he carried was manufactured before 1900. The Bibby court held that the argument that a firearm manufactured before 1900 falls outside the scope of § 10 (a) "is contrary to the legislative purpose of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a), and the clear and unambiguous language of G. L. c. 140, § 121." Bibby, supra. The Appeals Court correctly recognized that the purpose of § 10 (a) is "to control the carrying of firearms so as to 'protect the public from the potential danger incident to . . . [their] unlawful possession.' " Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Jackson, 369 Mass. 904 , 911 (1976). But the court failed to recognize that the Legislature also had a valid purpose in exempting firearms manufactured before 1900 from the statute governing the issuance of a license to carry, namely to allow individuals to carry antique firearms to Revolutionary War and Civil War reenactments without requiring them first to obtain a license to carry. By invoking "the clear and unambiguous language of G. L. c. 140, § 121," id., the Bibby court appeared to be under the misimpression that § 121 did not exempt firearms manufactured before 1900 from the licensing requirement in G. L. c. 140, § 131.

>snip<

While firearms manufactured before 1900 are exempt from the licensing requirement in G. L. c. 140, § 131, a defendant may still be convicted of the unlawful possession of ammunition loaded in a firearm manufactured before 1900 if the defendant does not have a firearm identification card and the ammunition does not fall under some exemption. See, e.g., G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h) (crime to possess ammunition without firearm identification card); G. L. c. 140, § 129C (listing exemptions including "so-called black powder rifles, shotguns, and ammunition therefor"). Therefore, a defendant in possession of a loaded firearm manufactured before 1900 may not be guilty of the unlawful carrying of a loaded firearm, but may still be guilty of the unlawful possession of ammunition.
 
Thank you for teaching me something new. I did some research and the cite for that is Commonwealth v. Jefferson and Commonwealth v. Burton-Brown. (Supreme Judicial Court, 2012).

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/461/461mass821.html

Glad to help and glad that citations were posted. I was running out so didn't have time to look it up and post it earlier.


Since the case cited was about and "antique", not just BP, would a Broomhandle Mauser be GTG?

It's a pre-1900 design, after all....

Remember C&R and antiques only apply by DOB of gun by S/N, not DOB of design. They still make 1873 lever action guns too but the new ones qualify as neither!
 
Back
Top Bottom