Minimum age to shoot in MA?

[M1911]

What people do or don't do doesn't help me understand what the law actually is.

 

[Mach]

What people do or don't do doesn't help me understand what the law actually is.

With the way these laws are written, it's not possible to understand them. All you can do is do what makes sense, don't do what isn't commonly done, and hope for the best.

 

[fencer]

I just visited GOAL's website and went to the Juniors page as well as the Mass Wildlife Site for youth programs. Neither site lists any age restrictions or capacity restrictions. But as you stated, the definition of "Furnish" is vague. I guess you will have to contact an attorney.

 

[Mark from ?]

What people do or don't do doesn't help me understand what the law actually is.

Which is the whole point of writing these laws make them as confusing as possible so everyone is scared to even touch a gun.....like someone said you want a legal opinion worth a rats ass you'll have to pay for it.....

 

[M1911]

I just visited GOAL's website and went to the Juniors page as well as the Mass Wildlife Site for youth programs. Neither site lists any age restrictions or capacity restrictions. But as you stated, the definition of "Furnish" is vague. I guess you will have to contact an attorney.

The juniors most likely shoots non large capacity long guns, which are treated quite differently in that section of the law than handguns or large capacity long guns.

I actually have contacted an attorney over this, and he didn't answer the question.

 

[dba62]

The juniors page most likely shoots non large capacity long guns, which are treated quite differently in that section of the law than handguns or large capacity long guns.

I actually have contacted an attorney over this, and he didn't answer the question.

Even if he did answer your question, it doesn't mean you don't end up in court defending your interpretation of the law does it?

 

[M1911]

With the way these laws are written, it's not possible to understand them. All you can do is do what makes sense, don't do what isn't commonly done, and hope for the best.

Sorry, but 1) "makes sense" has nothing to do with the nonsensical MA gun laws and 2) "everyone else does it" didn't work with your Mom and won't work with a judge. Most folks seem to be whistling past the graveyard, assuming nothing bad will happen to them. The luck of the draw being what it is, they are likely correct. But it would really suck to be the poor son-of-a-gun who has the misfortune to be some ADA's Great White Defendant.

 

[M1911]

Even if he did answer your question, it doesn't mean you don't end up in court defending your interpretation of the law does it?

If there was precedent, then you could argue that a) another court(s) determined that the law meant X, and b) that the fact that you sought legal advice and then followed it based on that precedent at the very least shows that you had no intent to break the law and, in fact, went above and beyond most to follow the law as you could understand it. How much that would help in court is completely beyond my knowledge.

It would appear, however, that there isn't any precedent for this law, so you are correct, that you could end up in court defending your interpretation of the law. That said, I would expect that an attorney's interpretation of the law would likely be closer to a judge's interpregation than mine.

 

[T Dog]

If there was precedent, then you could argue that a) another court(s) determined that the law meant X, and b) that the fact that you sought legal advice and then followed it based on that precedent at the very least shows that you had no intent to break the law and, in fact, went above and beyond most to follow the law as you could understand it. How much that would help in court is completely beyond my knowledge.

It would appear, however, that there isn't any precedent for this law, so you are correct, that you could end up in court defending your interpretation of the law. That said, I would expect that an attorney's interpretation of the law would likely be closer to a judge's interpregation than mine.

New to this discussion but I see the logic behind both M1911's questions and points.

I am also an certified instructor and have taught people of various ages. Massachusetts defines "firearms" (legally, not in the normal sense of the word) as handguns. There is a specific exemption for .22's with tubular magazines. As much as we may wish it were otherwise, the current law seems to prohibit minors from using so-called "high capacity" handguns and rifles. There is an ongoing case, that I will not comment on but is fairly well-known involving a now former COP and a club, that is wrestling with the issue of "furnishing".

Black's Law Dictionary, a standard legal reference, defines "furnish" as, "to supply, provide, or equip, for accomplishment of a particular purpose. As used in the liquor laws, "furnish" means to provide in any way, and includes giving as well as selling."

While I am sure that plenty will disagree, the definition seems clear. The law needs to be changed but, until then, an individual who furnishes a "high capacity" gun to a minor risks prosecution if anything goes wrong.

I heard one lawyer, who disagreed with what the current law should be, state that the wording of the law was clear and that minors could not be provided with, or "furnished", guns that had "high capacity" magazines - pistols or rifles. Someone present, who was not a lawyer but wanted to play like one for the crowd, argued that this was just an interpretation, that HE knew better 'cause lots of people... etc. and then attacked the messenger as not supporting teaching minors to shoot. I guess the guy thought that arguing loud and long enough trumped actually reading the law.

Bottom line is you tend to be safe until something goes wrong.

There is pending a bill re: machine guns that restricts who may be allowed to shoot / handle them. I'm not sure that the two issues aren't really the same: Who gets to determine (parents or the government) at what point it is appropriate for child to learn to handle guns safely.

 

[M1911]

T Dog, I'm familiar with the tragedy that you allude to, and agree that the court case might shed light on the definition of "furnish." Or it might not.

I also agree with you that providing for the purposes of instruction is likely within the legal definition of "furnish." I think many folks and clubs are basically ignoring this law and might end up in the deep end as a result.

To badly paraphrase Ayoob, lots of us gun owners carry guns because we know that, although relatively rare, evil men do evil things and we want to be prepared for such circumstances. We generally look down on folks who say that such things won't happen to them, often calling them sheep, precisely because we know they can happen to anyone. And yet sometimes it seems that gun owners do the very same thing when it comes to legal jeopardy -- they say such things won't happen to me. Lots of other gun owners in MA teach their kids (or kids' friends, or nieces and nephews, or boy scouts, etc.) to shoot using an AR15, so it must be fine, right? After all, I'm a good guy and don't intend to break any law, and I'm not hurting anyone, so no ambitious assistant district attorney will prosecute me, right?

Whistling past the graveyard.

 

[Mach]

Sorry, but 1) "makes sense" has nothing to do with the nonsensical MA gun laws and 2) "everyone else does it" didn't work with your Mom and won't work with a judge. Most folks seem to be whistling past the graveyard, assuming nothing bad will happen to them. The luck of the draw being what it is, they are likely correct. But it would really suck to be the poor son-of-a-gun who has the misfortune to be some ADA's Great White Defendant.

Then what do you suggest people do about the language in the gun laws that is not capable of being understood?

At some point I have to decide what I think is legal and what is not.

I am not going to pay an attorney every time I read a MA gun law and don't understand it. I will do what I always do. I read it, try to find out how the law is implemented ( what is prosecuted), listen to other people's opinions and then draw my own conclusions and live my life by my conclusions and hope for the best.

If the wording of the law is so vague that it makes no sense to me, and there are no cases that point to how it's being enforced, then what the hell else am I supposed to do?

I'm not saying that approach is foolproof, but I have little else for recourse.

 

[Mach]

whoever sells or furnishes any alien or any person under eighteen years of age a rifle, shotgun, machine gun or ammunition, or whoever sells or furnishes to any person under 21 years of age a firearm or large capacity rifle or shotgun or ammunition therefor shall have his license to sell firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns and or ammunition revoked and shall not be entitled to apply for such license for ten years from the date of such revocation and shall be punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000, or by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than ten years or by imprisonment in a house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

I don't have a license to SELL. Everyone is talking as this applies to individual people with an FID/ LTC A or B. It sure does sound to me like the law is specifically talking about a dealer and his license to sell firearms and long guns.


So tell me why this isn't talking about a dealer selling / furnishing. The punishment is to take his license to sell away. I don't have a license to sell firearms.

 

[fencer]

T Dog, I'm familiar with the tragedy that you allude to, and agree that the court case might shed light on the definition of "furnish." Or it might not.

I also agree with you that providing for the purposes of instruction is likely within the legal definition of "furnish." I think many folks and clubs are basically ignoring this law and might end up in the deep end as a result.

To badly paraphrase Ayoob, lots of us gun owners carry guns because we know that, although relatively rare, evil men do evil things and we want to be prepared for such circumstances. We generally look down on folks who say that such things won't happen to them, often calling them sheep, precisely because we know they can happen to anyone. And yet sometimes it seems that gun owners do the very same thing when it comes to legal jeopardy -- they say such things won't happen to me. Lots of other gun owners in MA teach their kids (or kids' friends, or nieces and nephews, or boy scouts, etc.) to shoot using an AR15, so it must be fine, right? After all, I'm a good guy and don't intend to break any law, and I'm not hurting anyone, so no ambitious assistant district attorney will prosecute me, right?

Whistling past the graveyard.

So it sounds to me that you feel it is probably unwise to let minors to shoot AR's or large cap handguns? That is likely to be good advice.

 

[Mark from ?]

T Dog, I'm familiar with the tragedy that you allude to, and agree that the court case might shed light on the definition of "furnish." Or it might not.

I also agree with you that providing for the purposes of instruction is likely within the legal definition of "furnish." I think many folks and clubs are basically ignoring this law and might end up in the deep end as a result.

To badly paraphrase Ayoob, lots of us gun owners carry guns because we know that, although relatively rare, evil men do evil things and we want to be prepared for such circumstances. We generally look down on folks who say that such things won't happen to them, often calling them sheep, precisely because we know they can happen to anyone. And yet sometimes it seems that gun owners do the very same thing when it comes to legal jeopardy -- they say such things won't happen to me. Lots of other gun owners in MA teach their kids (or kids' friends, or nieces and nephews, or boy scouts, etc.) to shoot using an AR15, so it must be fine, right? After all, I'm a good guy and don't intend to break any law, and I'm not hurting anyone, so no ambitious assistant district attorney will prosecute me, right?

Whistling past the graveyard.

Owning a gun in this state could be considered "whistling past the graveyard"....there are so many vague laws to trip you up.

You mention Ayoob and self defense...well....use a gun for self defense in this state and I think you'll get to know the meaning of legal jeopardy very well....so if you even carry your whistling past the graveyard.

Have an undated but supposedly preban hicap magazine?

Forget to lock up a couple boxes of ammo you just bought cause you had something more immediate that needed your attention?

Let a kid shoot a ruger 10/22 with a preban hicap mag?

Didn't have time to clean your gun, but left it out because you'll have time to clean it in an hour or two?

Carry your .45 while walking the dog where birds and mammals are found?

Alll whistling past the graveyard.......

I understand you being a range officer and all wanting to clarify the law, it seems to me if there was case law you would have gotten a legal opinion....since you don't want to be the test case you lean conservative. Others won't...nature of the MA gun laws being so open to interpretation. And I'm the first to say a liberal judges interpretation will be different than ours.

 

[Vos]

Here is an update to the law mentioned above that I found. It says: Section 1301/2. Notwithstanding section 130 or any general or special law to the contrary, it shall be lawful to furnish a weapon to a minor for hunting, recreation, instruction and participation in shooting sports while under the supervision of a holder of a valid firearm identification card or license to carry appropriate for the weapon in use; provided, however, that the parent or guardian of the minor granted consent for such activities.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section1301~2

 

[dcmdon]

Thankfully, its up to the parent. With my oldest, my judgement was age 6.

Don