Guns at home question

[GSG]

Every adult should have an LTC - more correctly, no adult should need an LTC...

That said, if you have one in the house, every adult should get one. For all the reasons discussed in this thread - it is a legal hassle waiting to happen and you are a felon if you hand over your keys/combos to a non-LTC'er in your house...

Exactly, you are correct on all points.

If you live in a household in Mass. and you have guns, everyone else who is of age to be licensed should be licensed (15 for FID, 21 for LTC). This will remove any gray area if someone accidentally posesses guns/ammo/mags/ a frigging empty shell casing, or anything else. As others have said, sickness, injury, loss of license, or any other number of situations could come up where having multiple licensed persons would be a good idea.

Secondly, I tell anyone who even thinks they might want to own or carry a gun to get licensed (if required) ASAP, simply because there might come a time when they need a gun faster than the licensing process allows (Sylvester Lindsey got hosed by Mass. gun laws because of this, here's a link to his case http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/396/396mass840.html).

 

[Kevlar]

Quick question - wouldn't M. G. L. ch. 269, sec. 10, (a) (1) apply (along with the "castle law" M.G.L. ch 278, sec 8A)?

I don't believe so, due to these portions of that statute :

The provisions of this subsection shall not affect the licensing requirements of section one hundred and twenty-nine C of chapter one hundred and forty which require every person not otherwise duly licensed or exempted to have been issued a firearms identification card in order to possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun in his residence or place of business.

(m) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) or (h), any person not exempted by statute who knowingly has in his possession, or knowingly has under his control in a vehicle, a large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device therefor who does not possess a valid Class A or Class B license to carry firearms issued under section 131 or 131F of chapter 140, except as permitted or otherwise provided under this section or chapter 140, shall be punished by imprisonment

.

 

[GSG]

Quick question - wouldn't M. G. L. ch. 269, sec. 10, (a) (1) apply (along with the "castle law" M.G.L. ch 278, sec 8A)?



Just curious ...

Before the law changed in 1998, the Mass. courts ruled that it was legal to posess and carry a pistol in the home or place of business with only an FID card, but I haven't seen any case law on it since 10-21-98.

 

[Spanz]

yep, an ltc is required to even give her the combo to the safe. However, if she is not interested in learning, getting her to the firearms training course is going to be a hard thing to do! My wife is the same way...got her out to the riange ONCE, and that was it. Maybe if I offered a trip to Europe in exchange for her getting an LTC.....it MIGHT work.

 

[Spanz]

BTW, this is why it is your DUTY to train your kids in firearms hadling! You do not want your daughter causing some poor guy greif like this early in their marriage.

 

[sigp6]

Got it - thanks!

 

[one-eyed Jack]

At the very least, she can get the FID and have a shotgun available. Jack.

 

[Boston_Shooter]

yep, an ltc is required to even give her the combo to the safe. However, if she is not interested in learning, getting her to the firearms training course is going to be a hard thing to do! My wife is the same way...got her out to the riange ONCE, and that was it. Maybe if I offered a trip to Europe in exchange for her getting an LTC.....it MIGHT work.

She actually WANTS to go to the range...but I wanna get a .22 for her to shoot. I don't want her to get intimidated/discouraged...she has very small hands, and weighs like 105 lbs (when she NOT pregnant, lol) I'm not sure the m&p 40c is a good choice for her, and the glock and 1911 are just too big.

 

[Mike1911]

Boston_Shooter

PM, inbound.

 

[holyroler]

rather her judged by 12 than carried by 6


tell her to shoot for center mass...ef the fallout.

 

[Boston_Shooter]

Boston_Shooter

PM, inbound.

You're the man! Reps inbound!

 

[Martlet]

She actually WANTS to go to the range...but I wanna get a .22 for her to shoot. I don't want her to get intimidated/discouraged...she has very small hands, and weighs like 105 lbs (when she NOT pregnant, lol) I'm not sure the m&p 40c is a good choice for her, and the glock and 1911 are just too big.

My wife is tiny as well. She can't pull back the slide on any automatic. She's sticking to wheel guns.

Have her go see Lynne. Lynne rocked it with my wife.

 

[Skeeter]

Sorry, Skeeter, I need to correct you on this (happened to be looking at this just yesterday) ... Massachusetts *does* appear to have a castle law.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/278-8a.htm

Thanks jbos6, I was incorrect on this though I still don't have much faith in our court system. Let's hope this law would hold up!

 

[RFWAVELENGTH]

A case happened in NYC, where a woman was with her off-duty cop husband, when the restaurant they were dining in got robbed. The officer identified himself and confronted the robbers, who promptly shot the officer and severely wounded him. The woman grabbed her fallen husband's .38 service revolver (this happened in the late 1970s) and shot one of the robbers dead. The woman's reward? She faced unlicensed gun possession charges (felony in NY), even though prosecutors agreed that the shooting was justified. Not sure about the disposition of the case, though.

 

[GSG]

A case happened in NYC, where a woman was with her off-duty cop husband, when the restaurant they were dining in got robbed. The officer identified himself and confronted the robbers, who promptly shot the officer and severely wounded him. The woman grabbed her fallen husband's .38 service revolver (this happened in the late 1970s) and shot one of the robbers dead. The woman's reward? She faced unlicensed gun possession charges (felony in NY), even though prosecutors agreed that the shooting was justified. Not sure about the disposition of the case, though.

There was a cab driver in New York who served a year in prison because he found a gun that a customer had left in his back seat, so he brought it to the local precinct and explained the situation, where he was arrested and convicted for criminal posession of a firearm.

 

[cbrburns]

There was a cab driver in New York who served a year in prison because he found a gun that a customer had left in his back seat, so he brought it to the local precinct and explained the situation, where he was arrested and convicted for criminal posession of a firearm.

I guess they would rather he just threw it on the street instead eh?

 

[mikem317]

+1 on the wifey getting one. This ain't New Hampshire.

 

[sigp6]

Quick question - wouldn't M. G. L. ch. 269, sec. 10, (a) (1) apply (along with the "castle law" M.G.L. ch 278, sec 8A)?

I don't believe so, due to these portions of that statute :

(a) [...] The provisions of this subsection shall not affect the licensing requirements of section one hundred and twenty-nine C of chapter one hundred and forty which require every person not otherwise duly licensed or exempted to have been issued a firearms identification card in order to possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun in his residence or place of business.

(m) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) or (h), any person not exempted by statute who knowingly has in his possession, or knowingly has under his control in a vehicle, a large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device therefor who does not possess a valid Class A or Class B license to carry firearms issued under section 131 or 131F of chapter 140, except as permitted or otherwise provided under this section or chapter 140, shall be punished by imprisonment

This is starting to get quite interesting:

The portion you quoted from (a) includes the term "not otherwise duly licensed or exempted". In (a) (1) folks being in their residence are explicitly exempted in this subsection.

An when reading (m) it explicitly only applies to large capacity weapons. Thus, access to a non-high capacity firearm is not regulated by (m), correct?

Combined, this would mean that an unlicensed person may posses a non-high capacity firearm within their residence or business.

Any thoughts (or case law cites) on this?

 

[Kevlar]

The portion you quoted from (a) includes the term "not otherwise duly licensed or exempted". In (a) (1) folks being in their residence are explicitly exempted in this subsection.

That paragraph is referencing c.140 s.129C specifically, and the exemptions contained within that section.

An when reading (m) it explicitly only applies to large capacity weapons. Thus, access to a non-high capacity firearm is not regulated by (m), correct?

Correct

Combined, this would mean that an unlicensed person may posses a non-high capacity firearm within their residence or business.

I don't believe so (see answer #1), but even if that interpretation were correct, there is practically no way for a person to legally acquire any firearm without a FID or LTC, which makes it somewhat of a moot point.

 

[sigp6]

That paragraph is referencing c.140 s.129C specifically, and the exemptions contained within that section.

Hmm, I read it referencing any exemptions, including those in c. 269, s.10, (a) itself. Again, IANAL, and I wouldn't be surprised if you are complete correct.

I don't believe so (see answer #1), but even if that interpretation were correct, there is practically no way for a person to legally acquire any firearm without a FID or LTC, which makes it somewhat of a moot point.

Well, in the context of this thread (wife/GF at home without LTC/FID) it would not be moot: the LTC owns the gun, but the non-LTC/FID holder takes possession during an attack.

 

[Kevlar]

Well, in the context of this thread (wife/GF at home without LTC/FID) it would not be moot: the LTC owns the gun, but the non-LTC/FID holder takes possession during an attack.

The point is moot if said wife/GF cannot legally acquire a firearm. Even if the unlicensed individual could possess a firearm under c.269 s.10(a), there is almost no legal way they could acquire said firearm. The reason I said "legally acquire" is the fact that, at the very least, the LTC holder would likely be charged under c.140 s.131L for failure to prevent access by an unlicensed individual. It doesn't matter if their possession is legal, if the acquisition is illegal.

 

[sigp6]

The point is moot if said wife/GF cannot legally acquire a firearm. Even if the unlicensed individual could possess a firearm under c.269 s.10(a), there is almost no legal way they could acquire said firearm. The reason I said "legally acquire" is the fact that, at the very least, the LTC holder would likely be charged under c.140 s.131L for failure to prevent access by an unlicensed individual. It doesn't matter if their possession is legal, if the acquisition is illegal.

True, but this would be a comparatively small offense without any mandatory jail time. So the LTC holder would probably loose his LTC, but the non-LTC holder can defend against the attacker.

Ahh, speculation ... interesting but pointless.

 

[garandman]

She'd likely be in trouble for having a firearm without an LTC/FID, and you'd be in trouble because you didn't secure your guns. She also likely be alive and unraped.

And no DA with a brain would touch it, as no jury would convict. They'd make noise about an investigation until the press started paying attention to the next shiny thing, then drop it.

 

[GSG]

I guess they would rather he just threw it on the street instead eh?

That's the problem with those stupid "zero tolerance" laws.

Combined, this would mean that an unlicensed person may posses a non-high capacity firearm within their residence or business.

Any thoughts (or case law cites) on this?

I'd like to see some too, since I searched but couldn't find any.

And no DA with a brain would touch it, as no jury would convict. They'd make noise about an investigation until the press started paying attention to the next shiny thing, then drop it.

I doubt that. The Mass. legal system doesn't look favorably upon non-felons caught with guns.