List of little-known gun law violations that will DQ a Mass. resident from an LTC

[rlee]

I am of the opinion that hunting laws apply to people hunting. Carrying a handgun in MA is illegal unless you have a LTC-A or are hunting with a hunting license. At night above a certain caliber, hunting with a handgun at night is illegal and therefore possession of such is also illegal if you are relying on hunting to be the legal justification for carrying the handgun. I think it is that simple.
My back yard is full of wild squirrels. I am to believe I can not carry a .40 handgun legally on my person in my back yard at night? There seems to be no exemption for private land owners.

Hunting is not a justification for possessing a handgun in MA without a LTC.

 

[Mach]

Hunting is not a justification for possessing a handgun in MA without a LTC.

After some more research, I found that you are right. Possession of a long gun is OK for non-residents with a hunting license, but not a handgun.

I was wrong.

 

[Mach]

MGL 131-67 doesn't mention hunting, because per MGL 131-1, it isn't hunting:



It's not a hunting law, it's a natural resources law.

While the law isn't labeled under 'Hunting' and is labeled under 'Natural Resources' like you say, I think the intent is for hunting because every other section in 131 is regulating hunting and fishing or protecting natural resources.

The no larger than .38 caliber night time possession coincides with the restriction for hunting possum and raccoon at night with nothing larger than a .38 caliber handgun.

I know that what I think means absolutely nothing legally.

How does one go camping and carry a CCW greater than 38 caliber. They can't. What is the intent of the restriction.

5. Black bear may be hunted with handguns only during the September portion of the open season. The only handguns lawful for the hunting of black bear are the .357 Magnum revolver using .357 Magnum ammunition, and other revolvers chambered .40 caliber and larger.

So when bear hunting and walking in or out before 30 minutes before sun rise or after 30 minutes after sunset with your .44 magnum revolver, you are breaking the law because you have a .44 handgun during prohibited hours, simply because you are walking in or walking out at night?

How about on a hunting camping trip? You are legally hunting during the day with a handgun chambered for greater than .38 caliber and now the sun goes down and you are sitting around your campfire. That is now illegal?

How about doing a multi-day trail hike in MA and with your CCW and LTC-A. When the sun goes down you are now in violation of the law with your .40 concealed glock?

I know some of the laws in MA do not make any sense.

Has anybody ever been jacked up for having a CCW and a LTC-A in the woods after dark larger than .38?

MGL 131,Section 58. A person shall not discharge any firearm or release any arrow upon or across any state or hard surfaced highway, or within one hundred and fifty feet, of any such highway, or possess a loaded firearm or hunt by any means on the land of another within five hundred feet of any dwelling in use, except as authorized by the owner or occupant thereof.

According to this, it is illegal to be in possession of a loaded firearm on the land of another within 500 feet of any dwelling in use without permission of the owner or occupant.

So when I CCW with my LTC-A and I shop at the local grocery store that is within 500 feet of an occupied dwelling or I visit a friend and get out of my car in his driveway and his neighbor's house is less than 500 feet away, or I walk across the parking lot at the local library or walk down the street on the sidewalk etc etc etc, I am violating this provision? I think most people would agree, it applies only when hunting, even though it doesn't say that. Just like the being in possession of a handgun chambered greater than .38 after dark in the woods.

I am not an attorney, my opinion matters to no one but me, none of my opinion is advice and my opinions should be completely ignored when it comes to MA laws.

 

[GSG]

Hunting is not a justification for possessing a handgun in MA without a LTC.

It's a complicated fringe issue. See MGL 140-131G.

While the law isn't labeled under 'Hunting' and is labeled under 'Natural Resources' like you say, I think the intent is for hunting because every other section in 131 is regulating hunting and fishing or protecting natural resources.

It's obvious that not all of 131 is limited to hunting. Read MGL 131-63 and MGL 131-65 side by side. If it only applied to licensed hunters, Section 63 would be made redundant by Section 65. That's just one example, there's many more there. These basically are pre-crime laws are aimed at protecting wildlife by outlawing any activity a poacher might take part in, like carrying a gun where mammals may be found without a hunting license. That way he can't say "But I wasn't hunting, I was out for a walk at night with my CCW Mr. Wildlife Officer."

How does one go camping and carry a CCW greater than 38 caliber. They can't. What is the intent of the restriction.

What's the intent of allowing people to buy new M&P's & Beretta's but not new Glocks? Most of these laws make no sense, they were written by people who know nothing about guns.

Has anybody ever been jacked up for having a CCW and a LTC-A in the woods after dark larger than .38?

These laws have been enforced against people who weren't even remotely engaged in hunting, who were in 100% urban areas, with convictions resulting from the charges. I've spent a lot of time poking around on Mass.gov, I've been super busy lately but I'm working on painting a coherent picture of this to share with everyone. Bear with me, I'll provide specifics eventually, I promise.

 

[rlee]

It's a complicated fringe issue. See MGL 140-131G.

I reread that section about 4 times.
It doesn't seem ambiguous at all.
It appears that my statement about a LTC being required for a handgun is simply wrong for non-residents who are hunting.
Are there conflicting sections?

 

[Mach]

These laws have been enforced against people who weren't even remotely engaged in hunting, who were in 100% urban areas, with convictions resulting from the charges. I've spent a lot of time poking around on Mass.gov, I've been super busy lately but I'm working on painting a coherent picture of this to share with everyone. Bear with me, I'll provide specifics eventually, I promise.

There is no way I will go hunting, fishing, hiking, or camping in the woods without the ability to protect myself when I have a license to carry for all legal purposes, which includes personal protection. I don't see how the fish and game department can take that away from me because they are concerned about poachers.

 

[MisterHappy]

I took the Hunter Safety Course this Spring, and the guest EPO said, in plain English, that if you're huntng, and have a 1911, your LTC-A /ALP is NOT valid, and you are in peril of getting jammed up. I didnt ask the question, but was standing next to the guy at the time, and paid attention.

Just like the caliber restriction (.38 max) - .357 mag, 9mm, 30 carbine, or whatever is fine, as the claiber is <.38.

Assinine, but it's the law.

And, remember- the definition of "huntng" is very broad in Mass. I acted as a beater for a bunch of falconers...since I was "harassing" game, I was in violation as I did not have a license. While the EPO said that he'd not have busted my cookies (as falconers are all nuts) he could have....

Just because a silly-ass law is not enforced, does not mean that it can't be.....

 

[Mach]

I took the Hunter Safety Course this Spring, and the guest EPO said, in plain English, that if you're huntng, and have a 1911, your LTC-A /ALP is NOT valid, and you are in peril of getting jammed up. I didnt ask the question, but was standing next to the guy at the time, and paid attention.

Just like the caliber restriction (.38 max) - .357 mag, 9mm, 30 carbine, or whatever is fine, as the claiber is <.38.

My question is ' If I am NOT hunting"

 

[MisterHappy]

If the EPO thinks you are, s/he'll likely cite you. I guess then you'd have ot tell it to the judge.

This EPO made a point that the way the hunting laws are written (that is, poorly) you can run afoul of them easily. "If you bought a box of 12 ga buckshot at the gunroom outside of deer season, I could cite you for unlawful posession of the buckshot rounds..." the operative theory being that you're in posession of them where mammals may be found.

NOT saying that it's right, or that it makes sense. Just the facts, Mach....

I guess the answer is "concealed means concealed".....

 

[rlee]

Hunting is not a justification for possessing a handgun in MA without a LTC.

After some more research, I found that you are right. Possession of a long gun is OK for non-residents with a hunting license, but not a handgun.
I was wrong.

It's a complicated fringe issue. See MGL 140-131G.

I reread that section about 4 times.
It doesn't seem ambiguous at all.
It appears that my statement about a LTC being required for a handgun is simply wrong for non-residents who are hunting.
Are there conflicting sections?

Mach, You may have been right after all.
I'm hoping for a clarification from GSG when he has an opportunity.

 

[billmelater]

Will someone else please ask what happens if you shoot a bear that's hunting you.

 

[exo]

Will someone else please ask what happens if you shoot a bear that's hunting you.

The state will throw you in jail for murder. Didn't you know that bear was just about to turn its life around??

 

[Autoshot]

Good list. It should be a sticky.

Agreed.

 

[MisterHappy]

Will someone else please ask what happens if you shoot a bear that's hunting you.

Actually, there was a case a few years back, where a black bear was trying to rip its way into a house through the back door ( I forget if it was a real or screen door), and the homeowner politely asked it to desist with a 12 ga (racking the slide didn't cut it) and, IIRC, he was cited, or jammed up in some other way.

 

[GSG]

It appears that my statement about a LTC being required for a handgun is simply wrong for non-residents who are hunting.
Are there conflicting sections?

Yeah you're pretty much right. It allows certain non-resident hunters to bring handguns into Mass., but some of the hunting laws prevent them from actually carrying a handgun while hunting. In almost all circumstances an LTC is required to possess a handgun, it's a good rule of thumb to follow, but there are some exceptions. The little things are where MGL gets really wild from a law abiding citizen's point of view.

I don't see how the fish and game department can take that away from me because they are concerned about poachers.

The legislature took it away from you, and municipal/state cops can charge people with these violations the same way that EPO's can. They have in the not-too-distant past.

Just because a silly-ass law is not enforced, does not mean that it can't be.....

Exactly.

My question is ' If I am NOT hunting"

Most of these laws I've listed here, including the ones traditionally associated with hunting, are much broader than that.

 

[waltherlover]

I know [STRIKE=-]some[/STRIKE] most of the laws in MA do not make any sense.

Fixed it

 

[AHM]

I believe the preamble to this law contains a set of definitions and "mammal" is defined somewhat more narrowly than what you were taught in elementary school biology.

Spoiler: (Razor's) Edge Case

 

[one-eyed Jack]

5800 plus posts? Go GREEN and come back. Jack.

 

[drgrant]

5800 plus posts? Go GREEN and come back. Jack.

GSG was green back in 2007 when this thread was originally posted. I want to say he lives down in FL or something like that now.

-Mike

 

[one-eyed Jack]

GSG was green back in 2007 when this thread was originally posted. I want to say he lives down in FL or something like that now.

-Mike

Forgive me. I lose track of time. Jack.

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

How about this crazy one under Licenses to Carry Firearms, Conditions and Restrictions:

M.G.L. c.140 §131 (just a excerpt)

Such club shall not permit shooting at targets that depict human figures, human effigies, human silhouettes or any human images thereof, except by public safety personnel performing in line with their official duties.

So it is technically a violation of MA licensed carry to shoot a B-27 target, which is insane because every shooting range has these targets for civilian purchase and use, as well as being one of the NRA target forms.

 

[swatgig]

How about this crazy one under Licenses to Carry Firearms, Conditions and Restrictions:

M.G.L. c.140 §131 (just a excerpt)

Such club shall not permit shooting at targets that depict human figures, human effigies, human silhouettes or any human images thereof, except by public safety personnel performing in line with their official duties.

So it is technically a violation of MA licensed carry to shoot a B-27 target, which is insane because every shooting range has these targets for civilian purchase and use, as well as being one of the NRA target forms.

To my knowledge, the Andover Sportsmen's Club is the only club in the Commonwealth that ever applied for a Class A license. I don't know if they still have one. So that's the only place that you can't shoot at human silhouettes.

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

To my knowledge, the Andover Sportsmen's Club is the only club in the Commonwealth that ever applied for a Class A license. I don't know if they still have one. So that's the only place that you can't shoot at human silhouettes.

I stand corrected. I just assumed that all clubs had to have Class A. I guess I don't really understand that distinction then.

 

[swatgig]

I stand corrected. I just assumed that all clubs had to have Class A. I guess I don't really understand that distinction then.

The legislature put that in back in 1998 when they wanted us to all store our handguns at the gun club. Nobody did. If you look at the FID statute (Chapter 140, § 129B) it says that the ONLY place you can possess a handgun with an FID is at a licensed club.

 

[AHM]

Forgive me. I lose track of time.

If you keep telling people to Go Green,
we're all gonna think that you get a piece of the action.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

so as an attorney, it is your opinion, that hunting laws apply to people that are not hunting, don't have a hunting license and even when the time frame is outside any hunting season?

I have no position on that.

My position is that humans are not considered mammals for the purposes of the hunting laws due to the definitions.

And no, I am NOT an attorney, and I don't frequent bars so no bar has made me a member.

 

[MisterHappy]

I stand corrected. I just assumed that all clubs had to have Class A. I guess I don't really understand that distinction then.

My work around: add antennae to the silhouette, and it's not a human, but an alien.

 

[AHM]

My work around: add antennae to the silhouette, and it's not a human, but an alien.

Spoiler: Your microaggression has been duly noted

By all concerned.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

If you keep telling people to Go Green,
we're all gonna think that you get a piece of the action.

I know. It's just that this is just a great forum and I like to see it supported. Jack.

 

[MisterHappy]

Spoiler: Your microaggression has been duly noted

By all concerned.

My apologies to Uncle Martin. However NOBODY likes Andorians. (yes, I'm a Trek nerd, I didn't have to look him up )