Definition of "Direct Control"

Ok I have read through this whole thread. I just want to make sure I am in compliance..LTC-A ALP

1) I can carry my loaded handgun in my pocket in a holster.

2) I can carry an unloaded handgun in a hard sided locked case on my passenger seat.

3) I can carry my unloaded handguns in my soft sided unlocked range bag that is locked in my trunk.

4) I can carry my unloaded rifles in unlocked soft cases that are locked in my trunk.

Just to be clear- Carry (direct control), Transport, and Storage are 3 different legal terms under Mass law.

In your examples for a LTC-A ( B would be different):

1. "Carry" is correct

2. should say "Transport or Store", probably doesn't qualify as under Direct Control, law only specifies locked in a secure container, not hard or soft.

3. should say, "Transport or Store"

4. should say, "Transport or Store"- true for both rifles and shotguns including large capacity.
 
If she has an LTC-A, she must have the gun "under her control" which can be subjective and is the whole purpose of this thread.

In my opinion, that would qualify as under her control as long as the purse is that close to her and within her reach.
 
Ok what about my daughter with her pistol in her purse on the seat next to her?

Probably fine but just remember that she has to have that with her at all times. If she leaves it in the car for even a minute , she's breaking the law. Most gun lawyers in MA strongly advise against off body carry for this reason... it only takes 10 seconds of inattention to be on the wrong side of the law. Purse carry sucks anyways, unless its one of the ones designed for it.. otherwise, her getting at the gun if she ever needed it it will likely be difficult.

-Mike
 
Ok what about my daughter with her pistol in her purse on the seat next to her?

Probably fine but just remember that she has to have that with her at all times. If she leaves it in the car for even a minute , she's breaking the law. Most gun lawyers in MA strongly advise against off body carry for this reason... it only takes 10 seconds of inattention to be on the wrong side of the law. Purse carry sucks anyways, unless its one of the ones designed for it.. otherwise, her getting at the gun if she ever needed it it will likely be difficult.

-Mike

Women also have this bad habit of dropping their purses by the front door of any house that they visit! If it has a firearm in it, said females are looking for a world of hurt and legal bills. And this seems to be a terribly difficult habit for most women to break out of. It seems to be in their genes that they dump their purses everywhere they go (or leave them in shopping carts while they peruse the next aisle)!
 
If correct, than a person with a class A license could transport an unloaded handgun in an unlocked case, out of direct control ? right or wrong?

That's a very tricky issue. It could be out of your "direct control" in such a situation, but would still have to be within your "control," or the storage laws would come into play.

This is one of the most poorly written pieces of the MGL. While that is a literal reading of the law, it wouldn't surprise me if it has been interpreted differently by MA courts. My recommendation would be to carry an unloaded handgun in a locked trunk or locked case.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the 1st and 3rd sentences. On the 2nd, however, the Mass. courts have repeatedly held that a literal reading of the law is the only way to go. But many cops have interpreted the law to suit their own whims, so unless you have $10,000-$20,000 burning a hole in your pocket to spend on fighting your case to the SJC, I also think you should just use a locked case.

Just to be clear- Carry (direct control), Transport, and Storage are 3 different legal terms under Mass law.

Sort of. The issue is that one situation can have two or three different laws/definitions that must be complied with. In some settings the mere possession of a handgun is "carrying," in others it's only when true when it'd done in the literal sense. To further complicate this, certain groups are making a strong effort to misinform everyone as to what the law actually says, so many cops believe that certain laws apply where they don't. If you try to simplify things too much you can get tripped up on the little details.
 
On the 2nd, however, the Mass. courts have repeatedly held that a literal reading of the law is the only way to go.
Oh? Then you think that the large capacity "legislative intent" interpretation of "capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept" by EOPS would be overturned by the SJC?

Do you have any precedent to support the literal reading of the transportation law for class A holders?
 
Oh? Then you think that the large capacity "legislative intent" interpretation of "capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept" by EOPS would be overturned by the SJC?

You're reading things into the law that aren't there. EOPS hasn't made a mighty list of every large capacity weapon in existence. They have used what they believe to be the intent of the legislators to create a list of weapons that they have identified as large capacity, but on that list they plainly state that other guns are also large capacity, and refer to the applicable laws. EOPS hasn't ever said which guns aren't large capacity, they have only pointed to a few that are, so there's nothing for the SJC to overturn.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/422/422mass740.html

"We are required by ordinary rules of statutory construction to construe any criminal statute strictly against the Commonwealth." Commonwealth v. Gagnon, 387 Mass. 567 , 569, S.C., 387 Mass. 768 (1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 921, and cert. denied, 464 U.S. 815 (1983). When a statute is found plausibly to be ambiguous, the defendant is given the benefit of the ambiguity. Commonwealth v. Roucoulet, 413 Mass. 647 , 652 (1992). This "does not mean that an available and sensible interpretation is to be rejected in favor of a fanciful or perverse one." Id.

In the present case, however, construing the term "repeatedly" in favor of the defendant is not a fanciful construction. Since the term "repeatedly" has two possible meanings, it is not fanciful or perverse to conclude that the term is ambiguous when applied to the facts of this case.

There's nothing ambiguous about the definitions of large capacity in MGL or CMR, so the law must be plainly read.

Do you have any precedent to support the literal reading of the transportation law for class A holders?

There isn't a single piece of caselaw on transportation by Class A holders in Mass. There are two mangled cases where thugs were prosecuted for violating the transport requirements for LTC holders, but neither case got into the specifics of how the law was violated; if they had, the charges wouldn't have made it as far as they did.

But yes, I have precedent for a literal reading of MGL.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/451/451mass599.html

We reach this conclusion for the following reasons. "Where the language of a statute is plain, it must be interpreted in accordance with the usual and natural meaning of the words." Commonwealth v. Rahim, 441 Mass. 273 , 274 (2004), quoting Gurley v. Commonwealth, 363 Mass. 595 , 598 (1973). "In particular, absent clear indication to the contrary, statutory language is to be given its 'ordinary lexical meaning.' " Commonwealth v. Rahim, supra at 275, quoting Surrey v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 384 Mass. 171 , 176 (1981). We are not appropriately guided by a definition of the term "corporation" contained in a law dictionary cited by the defendant.

This next one is more along the lines of what you're looking for.

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/421/421mass117.html

We agree with the judge that, in light of the broad disciplinary authority historically conferred on school officials, it appears that the Legislature intended to leave the determination whether a particular object is a dangerous weapon to the sound judgment of the principal. Section 37H does not explicitly limit the types of knives which could be considered dangerous weapons. Instead, the Legislature used an all inclusive phrase, "including but not limited to a gun or a knife." If the Legislature had intended the term "dangerous weapon" to include only those items set forth in G. L. c. 269, Section 10 (b), it could easily have done so expressly, which it did not. As the judge pointed out, "[t]his omission can only be viewed as intentional since, in the very same sentence [of Section 37H], the Legislature specifically defined prohibited illegal substances as `controlled substance as defined in chapter ninety-four C.' G. L. c. 71, Section 37H." If the Legislature intentionally omits language from a statute, no court can supply it. Boylston Water Dist. v. Tahanto Regional School Dist., 353 Mass. 81 , 84 (1967), quoting Mitchell v. Mitchell, 312 Mass. 154 , 161 (1942).
 
EOPS, attorney Keith Langer and the late attorney Darius Arbabi all disagree with your interpretation. There is a reason that they came to their conclusion.

There's something called the rule of lenity which effectively states when there is a vagueness, the tie goes to the citizen. Lenity is the construction favored by the SJC when dealing with ambiguity and vagueness. "readily adapted to" is what one would call ambiguous and vague...

But more importantly, it was the desire of the anti gunners to effectively ban semi auto's over time. But they didn't want to ban them by name because by doing so, they would have a more difficult fight on their hands then simply arguing capacity >10 was evil. Lets face it, the >10 is evil resonated back then and is resonating today with the supposed pro gun crowd (bob levy, dick cheney, etc) whereas a semi auto ban would not. So in splitting the baby, they introduced a lot of ambiguity/vagueness and as a result this opened up the door for the interpretation we have today.

Remember, legislation begets regulation. When 1998 happened, a lot of good people busted their butts to have EOPS interpret the statutes when creating their regulations as broadly as possible. It is my opinion that the legislature intended a B to not cover semi autos and the ambiguity in this aspect (and the carry aspect) is why I believe glidden counsel's against writing class B permits. So these people did a good job in making sure class B holders could get at least SOME SAs like 1911s and the such. They also made it so that some penalty enhancements don't apply in the cases of single stack SA firearms.

The rule that single stacks are OK for class Bs and that the capacity of the firearm is determined by the existence of OEM >10 mags or not has created some weird results but this is how EOPS interpreted the statute. It's effectively going to give class B's a lifetime much longer than it ever deserved but it is in keeping with the ambiguity in the statute. If the legislature had intended for hi-cap to equal semi auto they should have said that, no?

Anyhow, the weirdness I mentioned is this. DWM made a Luger with a 32 rd drum magazine and a stock. Yet Lugers are routinely sold as <10 cap single stacks (and the ATF exempts lugers from their AOW regs BTW...).
Arty08.jpg
There are aftermarket 1911 mags that hold 11 or more rounds. Take the case of Glock 27s, 29s and 33s. Are they high cap? They can't hold more than 10 rounds with the OEM mags?
Reconcile that. In reality you can't because it's a direct result of the ambiguity and vagueness in the statute.

I believe that if EOPS had interpreted the statute as intended, they would have classed out SAs but by tying the "or readily adapted to" clause to the existence of OEM mags, they sent the tie in our favor.

Long way of saying I believe that in the vacuum of the legislation without the additional EOPS regs and interpretations, GSG is right.
 
The intent of the regulation was to create two classes of semi-autos: large capacity and non-large capacity. Using the literal interpretation of the law would have defeated the intent. So that is why the law has been interpreted as it has been -- by referring to the intent of the legislation. And that is something that Cross-X and Scrivener argued forcefully.

I don't think you can always count on the courts to use a literal, logical reading of the law, and in the absence of precedent one is wise to act as though the most conservative reading is in effect.
 
Remember, legislation begets regulation. When 1998 happened, a lot of good people busted their butts to have EOPS interpret the statutes when creating their regulations as broadly as possible. It is my opinion that the legislature intended a B to not cover semi autos and the ambiguity in this aspect (and the carry aspect) is why I believe glidden counsel's against writing class B permits. So these people did a good job in making sure class B holders could get at least SOME SAs like 1911s and the such. They also made it so that some penalty enhancements don't apply in the cases of single stack SA firearms.

The rule that single stacks are OK for class Bs and that the capacity of the firearm is determined by the existence of OEM >10 mags or not has created some weird results but this is how EOPS interpreted the statute. It's effectively going to give class B's a lifetime much longer than it ever deserved but it is in keeping with the ambiguity in the statute.

The issue of course is that EOPS hasn't put anything in writing re: identifying what is not large capacity, just a partial list of what is. So while obviously the letter of the law isn't being pushed, it doesn't mean that it can't or won't be. It also doesn't mean that EOPS will leap to anyone's defense if they're prosecuted, or testify against the prosecution. I also doubt they'd answer a public records request for internal communications in a timely enough manner to save your butt in a court case.

If the legislature had intended for hi-cap to equal semi auto they should have said that, no?

It's obvious that the legislature is ignorant of the basic mechanics of guns. It looks to me like they thought every gun can only operate with flush fit magazines. Following that logic, a standard 1911 would require modification in order to readily accept a large capacity magazine. Their fundamental misunderstanding led to a law being written that was much more broad and sweeping than most people realize.

The intent of the regulation was to create two classes of semi-autos: large capacity and non-large capacity. Using the literal interpretation of the law would have defeated the intent. So that is why the law has been interpreted as it has been -- by referring to the intent of the legislation. And that is something that Cross-X and Scrivener argued forcefully.

While I have great respect for both of them as attorneys (and if I found myself in hot water in Mass., I'd want both of them running my case), I have disagreed with them in the past. Also, their bread and butter cases seem to be low level prosecutions and licensing issues. Things that will work in a fast paced District court setting don't always work higher up where there's greater focus on the details. I also think their viewpoint is slightly skewed on some issues simply because of how many times they've seen things happening one way, whether in court cases or pistol matches. When something is repeated often enough in front of you, you'll begin to accept it as correct. When people on here scoff at the idea of a shotgun tube magazine being a large capacity feeding device, what do they say? "But every gun store in the state sells those to FID holders/sells tube extensions made after 9/94! That can't be illegal!"

I don't think you can always count on the courts to use a literal, logical reading of the law, and in the absence of precedent one is wise to act as though the most conservative reading is in effect.

Unfortunately there's two standards of law in Mass., what it actually says, and how it's enforced. The whole system is a mess, even the SJC has mangled rulings simply because they read one half of the law, but didn't notice the other half buried in another section. But they do consistently rule on the law as it reads. IMO in court having an attorney on hand who can bring up the correct legal arguments to show that your activity was lawful is more important than hoping they'll figure it out on their own.
 
Back
Top Bottom