Burden of Proof re. (preban) Large Capacity Magazines

[JAD]

I used to enjoy carrying my Smith 6906. I haven't carried it (in Connecticut) since PA 13-3 passed, since I don't own any 10s for it and I prefer to avoid carrying a partially loaded magazine in CT. My gun was made in 1994 and came with two preban 12 round mags. (Unfortunately, with the 69 series, you can't officially date the magazines like you can with the 59 series magazines i.e. 14 vs. 15 shot, etc....). I have an NR LTC A and have always carried a 10 rd/ less auto, or revolver, in Mass. (guns I usually carry in CT). Being that I miss carrying that Smith, I was thinking about the possibility of carrying it in Mass while up there.

I was reading MGL c. 140 s. 131M and I want to make sure that my understanding of Massachusetts law regarding large capacity magazines is correct.

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 for purposes of law enforcement; 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.

My understanding is that because the law only prohibits possessing large capacity ammunition feeding devices "not otherwise lawfully possessed" on 13 Sep 1994 (as opposed to a general prohibition on possessing large capacity magazines with an exception for those lawfully possessed prior to 13 Sep 1994), one of the elements which the Commonwealth would have the burden of proving is that the large capacity magazine was not lawfully possessed on 13 Sep 1994. Is that a correct assumption?

My second query is regarding what is currently interpreted as being lawfully possessed. I know that I have read in some places that lawfully possessed is sometimes interpreted to mean lawfully possessed within the Commonwealth- despite that not being stated. Being a Smith, I know that my mag(s) was (were) in Mass at some point before 13 Sep 1994- though I could never prove whether they had shipped before or after the ban date (the gun and mags were previously in Michigan and were sold to me, in Connecticut, in 2009). Should I worry about the potential interpretation(s) of the lawfully possessed wording?

 

[clancy dogg]

I'm sure someone with a much greater depth of knowledge than me will be along shortly, but it seems to me that the burden would be on the Commonwealth to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the magazines were not possessed by you before 13 September 1994.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

The law doesn't say they have to be possessed by you. Just that they were possessed. In other words they were already in private hands. Not necessarily your hands though. Hence all the pre ban mags for sale in the classifieds. Perfectly legal for you to buy, own, carry, etc. today if you wanted to.

...and if the state wants to charge you for having a post ban mag... The burden of proof is on them to prove the mag is a post ban manufactured mag.

innocent until proven guilty...

 

[MachineHead]

I believe that you are in the same group of people who possess pre-ban Glock magazines, pre-ban AR-15, and pre-ban (insert brand) magazines.

IANAL and I agree with ThePreBanMan, but the state has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are possessing post-ban magazines.

The State has to prove that you did something illegal before convicting you for doing something illegal.

 

[MisterHappy]

IANAL

The above comments are correct....pre-ban is pre-ban.

That said, there have been posts on here were NESers were told by cops "You can't have a large cap in a carry piece."

Know the laws, know your rights.


I caught an EPO on a large cap question - it took him 10 minutes to find the relevant language on his smart phone. And, this was in a non-confrontational situation, not in the woods.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I believe that you are in the same group of people who possess pre-ban Glock magazines, pre-ban AR-15, and pre-ban (insert brand) magazines.

IANAL and I agree with ThePreBanMan, but the state has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are possessing post-ban magazines.

The State has to prove that you did something illegal before convicting you for doing something illegal.

Absolutely true, but you still get to pay your attorney to defend you against a bogus charge and if you don't take a plea deal you can expect to be hanging in the wind for a couple of years before trial.

 

[Lank]

Everything is illegal in Ma