Any recent change in the MA magazine restriction law?

T

tsh77769

NES Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
94
Likes
116
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
I have some externally dated pre 94 mags for sale on gunbroker and someone contacted me claiming my mags were illegal even though they are pre 94. Everyhting I have read and researched says not so. He claims there's a change in the law saying that they have to have been in MA already before 94. I can find no such reference, quite the opposite, everything I can find now reinforces my previous info.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

tsh77769
 
You are correct.

You pre 94 mags are legal.

There is nothing in the law about them being in state.

The law says they just have to be legally possessed.

Unfortunately GOAL does not have the laws accessible:

GOAL - Home

www.goal.org www.goal.org


But this from Giffords is the same if I am right...

Massachusetts prohibits the sale, offering for sale, transfer or possession of a large capacity feeding device unless such device was lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.1 Under Massachusetts law, a “large capacity feeding device” is defined as: “(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 federal law as it appeared on September 13, 1994 (that federal statute expired on September 13, 2004). This does not include “an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.”2
giffords.org

Large Capacity Magazines in Massachusetts

Massachusetts prohibits the sale, offering for sale, transfer or possession of a large capacity feeding device unless such device was lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.
giffords.org giffords.org

It just says lawfully possessed. It does not say it has to be in state. The government in Mass put that in there to create ambiguity while not going so far as to ban them. This is what Mass law does with guns.


Regarding your sales...

When selling on auction sites - ignorant people would often question my mags.
This was when I had lots of mags for sale and wanted customers. I would spend time and effort educating my customers in the hopes of making the sale. It always worked in my favor but took lots of time.

Nowadays it's not worth it. I only have a couple things for sale that are in high demand and don't need to deal with tire kickers. My stuff will sell sooner or later and I am in no rush. An informed customer is your best customer.

I have a small markup and taking 30 minutes to email back and forth takes away all my profit that I gauge at $15 per hour in effort.

Don't blame this guy for citing Giffords.

GOAL should be the first place to appear on google for this information but they are not so google shows whoever has the more complete website.
 
tsh77769 said:
I have some externally dated pre 94 mags for sale on gunbroker and someone contacted me claiming my mags were illegal even though they are pre 94. Everyhting I have read and researched says not so. He claims there's a change in the law saying that they have to have been in MA already before 94. I can find no such reference, quite the opposite, everything I can find now reinforces my previous info.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

tsh77769
Click to expand...
And just how does someone prove a magazine was in the state prior to 1994?

Ffs stop listening to people on the internet 😂
 
ReluctantDecoy said:
Access to the internet makes everyone an "expert", yet there's very little evidence of any actual expertise. Instead, you just get a bunch of people who like to start sentences with "Well, technically speaking...", as if their 2 minute Google search earned them a PhD on the topic.
Click to expand...
Well, it's better than just sitting around scratching their nuts. Jack.
 
So this guy is a real POS!

He's still harassing me and telling me my mags are illegal and I can't sell them.

So I look him up on GunBroker by his username and it turns out that he's selling pre-94 mags marketed at Massachusetts as well. I think he's just trying to get rid of other sellers. What a POS.
 
Tackdriver said:
Though I’d like this to be true, can you cite anything confirming it? Any case law, Or something one can use as a winning defense in an upcoming trial?

Dave
Click to expand...

Here's the actual law:
Section 131M: Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment
Section 131M. 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.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.
Click to expand...

Does it say anything about being possessed in any specific location?
 
Thanks for posting the actual law that's actually super helpful. It is weird that is not one of the top results when you Google for that.
 
I noticed an interesting carve out for retired cops in the bottom of that. Very interesting and sadly very typical.
 
kalash said:
Here's the actual law:


Does it say anything about being possessed in any specific location?
Click to expand...
I know the constitution says congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech. Yet there are laws that abridge speech and are found to be constitutional. Hence why I am asking about case law, which is how laws are interpreted and applied. Law, unfortunately, is not always applied as it is written.

If you feel secure in the law as written, then you have more faith than I do.

Dave
 
Tackdriver said:
I know the constitution says congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech. Yet there are laws that abridge speech and are found to be constitutional. Hence why I am asking about case law, which is how laws are interpreted and applied. Law, unfortunately, is not always applied as it is written.

If you feel secure in the law as written, then you have more faith than I do.

Dave
Click to expand...
While it didn't deal with in state vs. out of state, that case of the guy with the preban AK mags (originally a conviction) was thrown out on appeal when his lawyer argued the jury didn't get to hear evidence that the mags could have been possessed lawfully by anyone pre Sept 1994 (if I recall, the state only argued the defendant didn't possess them in 1994).

If my memory is correct, the state did not contest the appeal. So, the state chose not to fight a case where the person in question possessing the mags didn't have them lawfully in 1994 himself. Not 1:1 with state location, but pretty close, and gives credence to the prevailing common interpretation that the mags just needed to exist prior to the magical date.

I'd still be curious to see a case where someone proved someone unlawfully possessed the magazine on Sept 1994, making it still illegal, lol.
 
Tackdriver said:
I know the constitution says congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of speech. Yet there are laws that abridge speech and are found to be constitutional. Hence why I am asking about case law, which is how laws are interpreted and applied. Law, unfortunately, is not always applied as it is written.

If you feel secure in the law as written, then you have more faith than I do.

Dave
Click to expand...
If you're worried about following the law, why own any guns at all?
 
kalash said:
If you're worried about following the law, why own any guns at all?
Click to expand...
I don’t abstain from things because there are laws around them. I try to be Informed about laws on things that affect my life. Generally I don’t blindly into subject matter I can be educated in, especially if imprisonment can result.

Dave
 
Tackdriver said:
I don’t abstain from things because there are laws around them. I try to be Informed about laws on things that affect my life. Generally I don’t blindly into subject matter I can be educated in, especially if imprisonment can result.

Dave
Click to expand...

Protip: You're never going to find legal toilet paper / citations / case law for things that aren't actually illegal.

What you are asking about, is like asking for case law that validates the legality of breathing. Think about how fundamentally stupid that is for more than 10 seconds....

ETA: I'm glad I dont live like that, even believing in that sort of illogic is terrifying.

"Oh maybe I should call up the PD and maybe my attorney, before I take a dump today. After all there's no case law on crapping! " [rofl]
 
drgrant said:
What you are asking about, is like asking for case law that validates the legality of breathing. Think about how fundamentally stupid that is for more than 10 seconds....
Click to expand...
stop that nonsense. anybody knows we need to be able to present a proper government permission for an any right we have - to an any law enforcement that can stop us on the street.
the tv box said so.

a good topic also - where is your permission to breath freely? put your mask back on.
 

Similar threads

MA Law: carrying a gun where animals may be present
2
Replies
56
Views
2K
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
SD shooting in Chicopee, MA
Replies
1
Views
220
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
MA compliant uppers - in Mil or shipped to MA
2
Replies
30
Views
923
Lxpony
Lxpony
Study Confirms 10+ Firearm Magazine Capacity Is 'Standard'
Replies
8
Views
452
tuna
tuna
Turkey Hunting in MA
Replies
29
Views
585
HorizontalHunter
HorizontalHunter
Back
Top Bottom