AWB Investigations and Prosecutions in Mass.

I know of instances of AWB charges against LTC holders. One was a constable charged with a preban glock mag the other was an AR that had an adjustable stock fitted but not pinned.
Sorry for the necro post but you caught my curiosity with “fitted not pinned”. Did he have it so you needed a tool to adjust it? Or were they charging him because it was not specifically roll pinned? If you are able to answer of course.👍🏻

Also, why the charge for the pre-ban Glock mag?
 
Now the question is what is the status of the person's license to carry and or FID card now that he has been vindicated of all the charges. A voluntary admission to a psych ward is not a commitment under the law and cannot be used to deny him. But then again we are excuse me he is in Massachusetts and subject to discretionary licensing. I wonder if the same judge would order that his LTC be reinstated. I wonder if his weapons were sent to a bonded Warehouse never to be seen again.
 
Sorry for the necro post but you caught my curiosity with “fitted not pinned”. Did he have it so you needed a tool to adjust it? Or were they charging him because it was not specifically roll pinned? If you are able to answer of course.👍🏻

Also, why the charge for the pre-ban Glock mag?
The AR stock was an ordinary adjustable stock not pinned in any way. The preban case that I mentioned I only have second hand info on. Evidently the police were mad at his lack of respect. That was all they needed.
 
Last edited:
This is the dichotomy with red flag laws/ “take the guns first” mentality and putting mental health in the spotlight.
It puts a large portion of the population on edge when faced with difficult times.
Depression isn’t a rare thing. Owning guns isn’t a rare thing (in the is country).

If someone is going through some shit, having their life turned upside down by seizing guns and pressing charges without due process isn’t helping the situation at all. In fact, it’s making it worse. People in need having to weigh possible outcomes with regards to needing to seek mental health advice, is counterproductive and downright dangerous.
 
Well there you have it Small town.....guy was known to police (in fact he was one of their town hall buddies). Was deemed by chief to be suffering some sort of "crisis" so the chief disarmed him, drove him to the hospital, never arrested him, did not issue any Miranda warnings and then searched his car without a warrant, illegally entered and searched his house without a warrant , took his gun safe and broke into it (unless they chopped his finger off and used it to open the biometric safe) and then charged him based on finding a magazine inside. There was no red flag warrant issued by any court.

Judge basically says "Are you guys kidding me??? Case dismissed". Chief says the department will use it as a "learning opportunity."

File under "you can't make this shit up".
Unfortunately for Mr. Magri, it took about two years for the courts to come to this determination.
 
I'm a bit irritated that the judge found all sorts of 4A violations but said nothing of the 2A violation that is the mag ban.

Why would he? Cart + Horse problem; nobody is going to bother to pontificate about the fruit when the evidence is overwhelming it came off a poisonous tree.
 
Why would he? Cart + Horse problem; nobody is going to bother to pontificate about the fruit when the evidence is overwhelming it came off a poisonous tree.
Similarly I haven't seen anything in detail about the mags and am not at all sure they're actually post-ban or not; it could be a bullshit case all the way down. If it was my ass on the line I'd start with the easier win on an illegal search too.
 
Similarly I haven't seen anything in detail about the mags and am not at all sure they're actually post-ban or not; it could be a bullshit case all the way down. If it was my ass on the line I'd start with the easier win on an illegal search too.
If possession of post-ban mags gets model jury instructions similar to those for handgun possession charges, a necessary component of the offense for conviction is "knowingly possess" (meaning you knew you possessed the item and knew it was a firearm or banned magazine) which is why holding yourself out as an expert on various nuances of pre/post ban (particularly when some of those nuances have never been confirmed by the manufacturer) on NES could work against you.
 
Why would he? Cart + Horse problem; nobody is going to bother to pontificate about the fruit when the evidence is overwhelming it came off a poisonous tree.
Question for the lawyers: If the LE searches my home without a warrant and seizes an illegal item and charges me with criminal possession and subsequently a judge throws disallows the evidence and dismisses the charges...........do I get my 30 round mags back? Do I get my fruit back that they picked from the poisonous tree LOL? Somehow I doubt it, but I'd like to know for a friend.
 
Unfortunately for Mr. Magri, it took about two years for the courts to come to this determination.
2 years !!!! holy f***!!! Glad the courts can pick up a case and make a decision about an under or over in inflated ball within a week.
[thinking]
 
Well there you have it Small town.....guy was known to police (in fact he was one of their town hall buddies). Was deemed by chief to be suffering some sort of "crisis" so the chief disarmed him, drove him to the hospital, never arrested him, did not issue any Miranda warnings and then searched his car without a warrant, illegally entered and searched his house without a warrant , took his gun safe and broke into it (unless they chopped his finger off and used it to open the biometric safe) and then charged him based on finding a magazine inside. There was no red flag warrant issued by any court.

Judge basically says "Are you guys kidding me??? Case dismissed". Chief says the department will use it as a "learning opportunity."

File under "you can't make this shit up".
"Here friend, let me help you and simultaneously try to ruin your entire life"
 
2 years !!!! holy f***!!! Glad the courts can pick up a case and make a decision about an under or over in inflated ball within a week.
[thinking]
That case had a few million dollars in... Scratch that. A few Billi n dollars in stuff associated with it. (marketing money. Fan money. Franchise money. Paychecks. Uniform cleaning companies. Sponsorship money. Moneies money. Mike Jones, etc. )
 
Thankfully SCOTUS struck down the community caretaking BS. That gave them way too much unchecked power. The cops don't like your deal....they say you are a danger and PC your ass for a mental evaluation.
 
Question for the lawyers: If the LE searches my home without a warrant and seizes an illegal item and charges me with criminal possession and subsequently a judge throws disallows the evidence and dismisses the charges...........do I get my 30 round mags back? Do I get my fruit back that they picked from the poisonous tree LOL? Somehow I doubt it, but I'd like to know for a friend.
The item is still contraband and would be subject to civil seizure and destruction. Alternatively, they could give it back to you and arrest you again immediately for illegal possession.
 
Aside from worman vs healey, have any lawyers tried calling the AG’s office for clarification on her edict? Would be interesting to hear them skirt the questions about exactly what MGL charges would apply to a violation of the fuhrers commandments.
 
Aside from worman vs healey, have any lawyers tried calling the AG’s office for clarification on her edict? Would be interesting to hear them skirt the questions about exactly what MGL charges would apply to a violation of the fuhrers commandments.
The AG's position is very clear: "This office does not provide legal advice or interpretation for members of the public; hire an attorney to advise you on the law."
 
If possession of post-ban mags gets model jury instructions similar to those for handgun possession charges, a necessary component of the offense for conviction is "knowingly possess" (meaning you knew you possessed the item and knew it was a firearm or banned magazine) which is why holding yourself out as an expert on various nuances of pre/post ban (particularly when some of those nuances have never been confirmed by the manufacturer) on NES could work against you.

Model Jury Instruction​

The defendant is charged with unlawfully possessing a large capacity (weapon) (feeding device). In order to prove the defendant guilty of this offense, the Commonwealth must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:​
...​
Third: That the defendant knew that (he) (she) possessed that (weapon) (feeding device); and​
Fourth: That the defendant knew that the (weapon) (feeding device) met the legal definition of a large capacity (weapon) (feeding device) or was capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.​
...​
To prove the third element, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that (he) (she) was in possession of a (weapon) (feeding device).​
To prove the fourth element, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt either that the defendant knew that that the (weapon) (feeding device) met the legal definition of "large capacity" or that the defendant knew that the (weapon) (feeding device) was capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells.​
This requires you to make a decision about the defendant's state of mind at the time of the alleged unlawful possession of a large capacity (weapon) (feeding device). You may examine the defendant's actions and words, and all of the surrounding circumstances, to help you determine the extent of the defendant's knowledge.​

Underscoring mine.
 
The Fourth point is just plain wrong since it requires the Commonwealth prove one of two things:

a) That the item met the legal definition of large capacity feeding device, which means "manufactured after the ban"
...or...
b) That the defendant knew the device was capable of accepting more than 10/5 rounds. Note that this requirement can be satisfied with a pre-ban magazine.

Proving "b" can be done even with a grandfathered, pre-ban, magazine and this is a legally defective instruction most likely written by a clerk with less than "NES Advanced" knowledge of MA gun laws.

Anyone with a law license care to weigh in?
 
The Fourth point is just plain wrong since it requires the Commonwealth prove one of two things:

a) That the item met the legal definition of large capacity feeding device, which means "manufactured after the ban"
...or...
b) That the defendant knew the device was capable of accepting more than 10/5 rounds. Note that this requirement can be satisfied with a pre-ban magazine.

Proving "b" can be done even with a grandfathered, pre-ban, magazine and this is a legally defective instruction most likely written by a clerk with less than "NES Advanced" knowledge of MA gun laws.

Anyone with a law license care to weigh in?

Rob don't forget that there are two contexts in MA with LCAFDs and you and @AHM might actually be crossing the streams.

The thing that AHM has linked to smells more like the "EZ bake" LCAFD w/o license law. And that law, doesn't care about the MA AWB... at all.

I forget what it is called but its phrased as "Posession of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device"

That law is prosecutable, based on "Joe Someguy McCrappants has an LCAFD and does not have an LTC or some other exemption= he broke da law"

That particularl part of MGL is not even cognizant of the AWB, at all.

There's another part of MGL which focuses on AWB and LCAFDs blah blah, but I think it is different vs the law those instructions were meant for.
 
The thing that AHM has linked to smells more like the "EZ bake" LCAFD w/o license law. And that law, doesn't care about the MA AWB... at all.
(Apologies in advance if it's a bum steer. When I searched for the jury instructions,
what I posted jumped into my lap without me having to read the statutes themselves for
the cite, and then search the model instructions for a match on that.
It did seem at the time to be a little too easy).
 
The Fourth point is just plain wrong since it requires the Commonwealth prove one of two things:

a) That the item met the legal definition of large capacity feeding device, which means "manufactured after the ban"
...or...
b) That the defendant knew the device was capable of accepting more than 10/5 rounds. Note that this requirement can be satisfied with a pre-ban magazine.

Proving "b" can be done even with a grandfathered, pre-ban, magazine and this is a legally defective instruction most likely written by a clerk with less than "NES Advanced" knowledge of MA gun laws.

Anyone with a law license care to weigh in?
The instruction is not invalid, because ch269 s10 (General Law - Part IV, Title I, Chapter 269, Section 10) starts out with "Whoever, except as provided or exempted by statute" and ch140 s131m and (General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131M) specifically refers to Sept. 13 1994 as the cut-off date. Thus, no jury is going to be given those instructions unless the feeding device in question is post-Sept. 13, 1994

Basically, if you are not licensed (no LTC A) and you have a Large Capacity Feeding Device ("LCFD") you'll get charged under ch 269 s10. But even if licensed, if it's a provably post-ban LCFD, you'll get charged under ch140 s131m. I suppose if you have no LTC and a post-ban LCFD, you can get charged under both, as they are indeed separate violations.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom