MA exemption to 10 round capacity limit

[bill o]

Thanks for the info. I guess I just assumed, going into my first USPSA competition, that most people would be shooting Limited-10 because of the laws. It never really entered my mind that people would just disregard it. Im looking into a Para Pro Comp 16.40 for my next purchase. The STIs are nice but I saw quit a few shooters have feeding issues yesterday with them (not to mention they're much more expensive than the Para).

Pre ban mags are plentiful for STI/SV, and some people at any given match people are exempt (police and FFLs). I honestly don't know a single person competing with a Para, probably for good reason. If I had to shoot Limited on a low budget it would be with a Glock 35. An STI Edge should run 100% though.

 

[drgrant]

Is there a text of this?

Basically the deal is this- MA only allows for a comp exemption if the person's home makes even shitty low grade drug offenses a disqualifier for touching guns. Since MA is the only state that does that (low grade drug offense makes you a state PP in MA unless weed because new laws) none of the other 49 states qualify for the exemption.

There's a few references here to it (one of which I made) but if you do enough digging you'll find some more....

https://www.northeastshooters.com/v...ed-in-Newbury-MA-for-driving-into-MA-with-gun

Years ago Jason Guida discovered this flaw in the law. Basically the deal is that the competition exemption "its a trap!" but the reality is nobody has actually been prosecuted for
it yet, but if you read a plain interp of the law its not that hard to pick out... I'll post 131G and highlight for emphasis...

Section 131G. Any person who is not a resident of the commonwealth may carry a pistol or revolver in or through the commonwealth for the purpose of taking part in a pistol or revolver competition or attending any meeting or exhibition of any organized group of firearm collectors or for the purpose of hunting; provided, that such person is a resident of the United States and has a permit or license to carry firearms issued under the laws of any state, district or territory thereof which has licensing requirements which prohibit the issuance of permits or licenses to persons who have been convicted of a felony or who have been convicted of the unlawful use, possession or sale of narcotic or harmful drugs; provided, further, that in the case of a person traveling in or through the commonwealth for the purpose of hunting, he has on his person a hunting or sporting license issued by the commonwealth or by the state of his destination. Police officers and other peace officers of any state, territory or jurisdiction within the United States duly authorized to possess firearms by the laws thereof shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have a permit or license to carry firearms as described in this section.

The problem is that MA is literally, as far as I know- the ONLY state that meets that requirement. (maybe other shithole ones do but don't know of any offhand). I know the free states certainly don't!

EG- short version- if you live in a state where you can still get a firearms license despite being convicted for a misdemeanor for having a joint in your pocket, then that state's residents are all DQed for the MA competition exemption.

ETA: To further reiterate (not so much for you xtry because you already know this) but for people speed reading the thread.... nobody has actually been bagged on this yet; but by a strict reading of the law someone COULD get bagged on it. I just don't think that:

-A- most mass DAs are quite going to go full retard (when they can get someone on something easier to prosecute, usually)
-B- even without the flaw existing, most of the individuals likely to use this exemption are pretty cautious and generally don't attract undue attention from LE while traveling in MA
-C- even with this flaw existing, non-jerk LEOs are unlikely to "enforce to the hard edge".
-D- even with the flaw existing, most of the individuals can likely store "FOPA Compliant" and can "Fake/Spoof FOPA requirements" if they really
needed to. "I'm coming from RI and going to NH, I've been on the road for 2 hours I'm lost!!!" pssst - these aren't the droids your looking for."

All of these make prosecution unlikely unless someone's terminally stupid.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

The guida interpretation of the MA comp exemption makes it completely null/ invalid. No test cases yet, though. Doubt there ever will be, either. most of the uspsa folks i know play by big kid rules anyways... nobody actually worries about this crap other than protecting themselves from the obvious problems. (Eg safe storage bs, other 4A precautions, etc.)

This is exactly the case and in the past few years the LE update on gun laws has been explaining the Guida interpretation.

People ignore this law daily. The AG doesn't go around arresting people and the PDs do NOT work for the AG. However, inaction does not make something legal.

131G - if you run it by a high school English teacher who teaches sentence construction, they will confirm Guida's interpretation. Most police officers have a hard enough time writing a police report, they certainly are not grammarians, which probably accounts for why prosecution of this law doesn't happen.

That said, I've had a few lawyers sit thru my Mass Gun Law Seminar and as soon as I read the sentence in the law verbatim, one picked up on it and said he saw exactly what the problem was with the grammar in that law.

Do as you like, but it is irresponsible for anyone to give others specific advice contrary to the law . . . someone could think it valid and get jammed up.

 

[drgrant]

This is exactly the case and in the past few years the LE update on gun laws has been explaining the Guida interpretation.

People ignore this law daily. The AG doesn't go around arresting people and the PDs do NOT work for the AG. However, inaction does not make something legal.

131G - if you run it by a high school English teacher who teaches sentence construction, they will confirm Guida's interpretation. Most police officers have a hard enough time writing a police report, they certainly are not grammarians, which probably accounts for why prosecution of this law doesn't happen.

That said, I've had a few lawyers sit thru my Mass Gun Law Seminar and as soon as I read the sentence in the law verbatim, one picked up on it and said he saw exactly what the problem was with the grammar in that law.

Do as you like, but it is irresponsible for anyone to give others specific advice contrary to the law . . . someone could think it valid and get jammed up.

I know what it says Len, I just think that people need to make their own decisions and evaluate the risks (or lack thereof) themselves. It strikes me as the kind of thing that probably will never come up unless a DA/prosecutor gets desperate, but that could change at any time and then the law actually gets enforced as written. People with guns who are afraid of their own shadow probably shouldn't set foot in MA. (not to mention these folks are the ones most likely to talk themselves into handcuffs, too. )

The "correct lawyerized, fully covering the rim with legal toilet paper" answer, of course, is for any out of stater engaging in competitive/recreational shooting in MA to seek and obtain a valid MA nonresident LTC. (or resident LTC, if qualified for that eg business or some kind of real partial resident).

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Mike, I spent 3 hrs with Sen. Jim Timilty going over this and other issues 3 yrs ago (he was Sen. Chair of the Jt. Comm. on Public Safety), asking for "technical corrections" to our laws to make this a real exemption (especially since MJ has been legalized for medicinal use back then) and fix other things. He was realistic in the lack of a possibility to do this, even though he was sympathetic to our cause.

If/when someone else is appointed to that position who is pro-2A, I will rinse and repeat. I don't have high hopes however. Jim was an anomaly, being a Dem from a very powerful family and yet being a strong 2A supporter.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Pre ban mags are plentiful for STI/SV, and some people at any given match people are exempt (police and FFLs). I honestly don't know a single person competing with a Para, probably for good reason

Yup. I got my pre-ban mags for my SVs in both super and fortay back in 94. I also bought a dozen para 45 high caps, which I sold about 10 years later at a slight loss.

A local once said that a Para ordnance with the barrel, trigger, hammer, sear, disconnector and extractor replaced with premium parts will give several weeks of acceptable service. I've seen tiny casting bubbles in Paras, but never in an STI or SVI.

As to "not enforcing the law" - why don't police set up checkpoints just down the road from bars? Two on Rt 135 just outside of TJ's on the Ashland/Hopkinton line would probably necessitate putting a dedicated booking officer on the night shift at both the Ashland and Hopkinton PDs.

I am going to test the lack of enforcement. Here goes : I do not believe in the existence of God. Even though I created strong evidence I said this, I am not going to stay awake in fear I will be served with a warrant for violation of MGL Chapter 272 Section 36.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Is there a text of this?

It's called Chapter 140, Section 131G:

Section 131G. Any person who is not a resident of the commonwealth may carry a pistol or revolver in or through the commonwealth for the purpose of taking part in a pistol or revolver competition or attending any meeting or exhibition of any organized group of firearm collectors or for the purpose of hunting; provided, that such person is a resident of the United States and has a permit or license to carry firearms issued under the laws of any state, district or territory thereof which has licensing requirements which prohibit the issuance of permits or licenses to persons who have been convicted of a felony or who have been convicted of the unlawful use, possession or sale of narcotic or harmful drugs; provided, further, that in the case of a person traveling in or through the commonwealth for the purpose of hunting, he has on his person a hunting or sporting license issued by the commonwealth or by the state of his destination. Police officers and other peace officers of any state, territory or jurisdiction within the United States duly authorized to possess firearms by the laws thereof shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have a permit or license to carry firearms as described in this section.

Note that this exemption would also prohibit felons who are not federal PPs. Let's see who comes up with an example first. (Len S - no fair if you answer, I know you understand of what I speak)

MA has a history of imprecise language in gun laws, probably because the authors didn't know what they were talking about. Note, for example, that the above exemption (if it were to apply) would seem to allow concealed defensive carry, not just going to a match - provided a match is why you are in the DPRM. Furthermore, there is no definition of what a "match" is or how long before/after you are covered.

Contrast this to NY penal code 265.20/13 which both defines that a match is (NRA or IMHSA sanctioned) and the time (+/- 48 hours from the event).

Gun owners tend to mis-interpret laws, or just plain make stuff up thinking "if it makes sense, it must be true". One of my favorites is the "Vermont Exemption" ... "if you are from VT it is the same as having a permit required under 131G" (yes, some idiots actually believe this).

EG- short version- if you live in a state where you can still get a firearms license despite being convicted for a misdemeanor for having a joint in your pocket, then that state's residents are all DQed for the MA competition exemption.

Fletcher v. Haas and Wesson v. Fowler might give the defense some wiggle room on this.

That's interesting on the 60 day. Was this something that arose at a competition, or just a possession case? Can you post the case for me to look at? Did they just plea out/dismiss the charge?

It had nothing to do with competition. I forgot the cite, but I expect Len S can chime in

 

[eisenhow]

Pre ban mags are plentiful for STI/SV, and some people at any given match people are exempt (police and FFLs). I honestly don't know a single person competing with a Para, probably for good reason. If I had to shoot Limited on a low budget it would be with a Glock 35. An STI Edge should run 100% though.

Jeff R ran one this year. It was a John S gun that was a Para frame with just about every other part replaced

 

[xtry51]

Just got back to this thread after a work bender. Thank you for all of the cites above and as always I appreciate people taking the time to go in depth. I'll try to find some time this week to read up on some of the points.

Len S if you know the case Rob and I are talking about above I would like to read about it.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I don't usually follow case law, Rob usually does that. And I gave up reading what you wrote above because it was so wrong and I had limited time to deal with NES.

 

[drgrant]

One of my favorites is the "Vermont Exemption" ... "if you are from VT it is the same as having a permit required under 131G" (yes, some idiots actually believe this).

People **** varations of this up all the time- I have to explain to them because Vermont has no permits at all, they also have "Reciprocity" with precisely ZERO states.

MA post sandy hook gun owner nipplehead: "But people from vermont can carry in alaska...."

Yeah, because EVERYONE who isn't some kind of prohibited person can legally carry in Alaska, nipplehead!

People don't understand things like that are NOT reciprocity.

The other one that drives me nuts is "Texas has reciprocity with MA" no, it doesn't. Texus just feels bad for us and honors our
license, there's a huge difference.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I have contacted the Comm2a Brain Trust and hope to get the cite on the 60 day thing.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The Comm2a braing trust came through: CORNELIUS, COMMONWEALTH vs., 78 Mass. App. Ct. 413

http://masscases.com/cases/app/78/78massappct413.html

Also, the definition set forth in G. L. c. 140, § 121, for a "large capacity weapon" includes specific language that "[t]he term 'large capacity weapon' shall be a secondary designation and shall apply to a weapon in addition to its primary designation as a firearm, rifle or shotgun" (emphasis added).
The answer to question three is "no," satisfaction of G. L. c. 140, § 129C(j), does not provide a defense to a violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10(m).

The entire case is worth a read. It also establishes that the 60 day exemption applies to possession only, not carry (note that transport in the trunk of a car is carry), so new residents who teleport their low capacity guns into MA are covered.