Mossberg 500 Tactical, can be sold new by FFL in MA?

jasons said:
Not to nitpick, but it's not the gun that's in question. It's the mag tube in and of itself. Unless someone can tell me how I'm misreading the definition of "large capacity feeding device." (I've been wrong before, and when I am I admit it.)
Click to expand...

The way I read it is this: A large capacity device can be defined as a magazine AND a shell tube. The exclusion being the tube used on some .22s.

Limitations
For a magazine: 10 rounds
For a tube extension: 5 rounds

Isn't this what it says?
 
je25ff said:
The way I read it is this: A large capacity device can be defined as a magazine AND a shell tube. The exclusion being the tube used on some .22s.

Limitations
For a magazine: 10 rounds
For a tube extension: 5 rounds

Isn't this what it says?
Click to expand...

Not "and," but "or." Also not just a box mag or a tube but pretty much anything that feeds ammo. Old school canvas machine gun belts, links, etc.

And the limits have nothing to do with whether it s a box or a tube, but rather if it holds shotgun shells or some other type of ammo. A post-ban Henry Big Boy that holds 10 rounds in it's tube would be legal.
 
Last edited:
Yea, so........ heres the thing. I see a lot of talk (confusing talk I might add) about the extended choke tubes. THe thing about this is, they didnt pull the gun because of the extended choke tubes. They still have a bunch of shotguns featuring extended choke tubes on the sales floor. It is my belief that they pulled this gun because of its collapsible stock. It is pulled from every Dicks in MA. Just wondering why. Besides the fact that the higher-ups dont know thier ass from thier elbow, im wondering what reason they thought this to be MA law.
 
jeffC said:
Yea, so........ heres the thing. I see a lot of talk (confusing talk I might add) about the extended choke tubes. THe thing about this is, they didnt pull the gun because of the extended choke tubes. They still have a bunch of shotguns featuring extended choke tubes on the sales floor. It is my belief that they pulled this gun because of its collapsible stock. It is pulled from every Dicks in MA. Just wondering why. Besides the fact that the higher-ups dont know thier ass from thier elbow, im wondering what reason they thought this to be MA law.
Click to expand...

That I don't know... Any stock ~should~ be legal the way I read the law, but I'm not Dick's corporate counsel. (Or anyone else's, thankfully.) I think MassMark works there though, so maybe PM him and see what he says?
 
TBalls said:
Dick's = clueless.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Here's Martha grinning at the people who think pump shotguns are "illegal" in MA. :
3937591817_75378_TrollFace_xlarge.png


On that note OP, buy that shotgun! Not from Dick's though, they're dicks.
 
I am simply stating that to even think that a pump would be illegal is just MA brainwashing at it's finest. You shouldn't have to question everything in a gunshop and worry about compliant BS. I totally understand the OP's honest question and can see why you may hesitate, but with pump shotguns/lever action type firearms, I wouldn't worry too much.
 
ColdDayInHell said:
I am simply stating that to even think that a pump would be illegal is just MA brainwashing at it's finest. You shouldn't have to question everything in a gunshop and worry about compliant BS. I totally understand the OP's honest question and can see why you may hesitate, but with pump shotguns/lever action type firearms, I wouldn't worry too much.
Click to expand...

Again, nobody is saying that a pump is illegal. What I'm saying is that whether you or I like it, and despite "expert" opinions from Glidden and his sycophants, a post-ban "large capacity feeding device" is most certainly illegal if you read the actual words in the statute.

Should people worry about it? NO. We CAN'T worry too much because if we did we'd all go crazy. Like I've said before, the MA gun laws are so ****ed up that literally even "legal" stuff can be "illegal" depending on who has it out for you. As someone said in the other thread it's "Heads you lose, tails they win." Remember the "grenade launcher" that the guy in Marblehead got jammed up for? Or the guy in Lowell who got charged for making explosives (aka reloading ammo in his basement?) Or even the CO in Salem who got convicted up for "carrying" a gun in his glove box when he wasn't even in the car? You really think the DA is going to make those kind of specious legal leaps and not call an extended magazine tube a LCFD? Really?

The only reason that I even commented, against my better judgement, was to point out yet another area in the MGLs that's not nearly as "cut and dried" as many people here think it is. If anyone is brainwashed, it's the people who think that what some retired cop says to some other retired cop has any legal precedence whatsoever, despite how much they paid for the seminar.
 
Last edited:
jasons said:
Again, nobody is saying that a pump is illegal. What I'm saying is that whether you or I like it, and despite "expert" opinions from Glidden and his sycophants, a "large capacity feeding device" is most certainly illegal if you read the actual words in the statute.

Should people worry about it? NO. We CAN'T worry too much because if we did we'd all go crazy. Like I've said before, the MA gun laws are so ****ed up that literally even "legal" stuff can be "illegal" depending on who has it out for you. As someone said in the other thread it's "Heads you lose, tails they win." Remember the "grenade launcher" that the guy in Marblehead got jammed up for? Or the guy in Lowell who got charged for making explosives (aka reloading ammo in his basement?) Or even the CO in Salem who got convicted up for "carrying" a gun in his glove box? You really think the DA is going to make those specious legal leaps and not call an extended magazine tube a LCFD? Really?

The only reason that I even commented, against my better judgement, was to point out yet another area in the MGLs that's not nearly as "cut and dried" as many people here think it is. If anyone is brainwashed, it's the people who think that what some retired cop says to some other retired cop has any legal precedence whatsoever.
Click to expand...

+1

Well said. At least you back up your arguments with facts. I swear NES is going FR almost every thread. If the state wants to get you, they can at any moment. Worrying about stupid shit like this is why this state's laws got progressively worse. I appreciate your post above too, hopefully those people reading this and not posting, thinking they'll hear helicopters outside if they even post something like "post-ban", can be put at ease.
 
I just take the mag tube apart and remove the spring and follower, can't be large capacity if it can't hold any ammo. Anyone who comes in my house will think twice and run away when hear me rack the action, they won't know it is empty.
 
jasons said:
Not "and," but "or." Also not just a box mag or a tube but pretty much anything that feeds ammo. Old school canvas machine gun belts, links, etc.

And the limits have nothing to do with whether it s a box or a tube, but rather if it holds shotgun shells or some other type of ammo. A post-ban Henry Big Boy that holds 10 rounds in it's tube would be legal.
Click to expand...

You're right. I thought I implied that they were mutually inclusive. What I was getting at is that a magazine and tube extension are, in effect, the same thing in the statute and that both had different stipulations on the capacity.

I think attila clued me in on the fact that even belt links need to be pre ban. Something I never even thought of.
 
Last edited:
je25ff said:
What I was getting at is that a magazine and tube extension are, in effect, the same thing in the statute and that both had different stipulations on the capacity.
Click to expand...

Not to beat a dead horse even more deader, but that's not the case. The statute basically creates two different categories of large capacity feeding devices; those that hold shotgun shells and "other." It doesn't matter if it's a box mag that holds the shotgun shells or a tube mag that holds centerfire cartridges. It's the type of ammo that matters, not the type of feeding device. (With the sole exception of tube mags that hold .22s, for whatever inane reason.)

On a side note, the law very clearly specifies "fixed OR detachable." The opinion of some "experts" that "a shotgun mag tube doesn't count because it can't hold shells if it's removed" is clearly irrelevant since it can when it's fixed.

I think that given the obvious flaws in this particular law, a good lawyer in front of a reasonable jury would be able to get it thrown out. Then again this is MA, where good lawyers are as rare as are reasonable juries. Either way it would be expensive.
 
TBalls said:
Dick's = clueless.
Click to expand...

Are they? Or perhaps they're trying to protect a multi-billion dollar business in the midst of insanity? Gee, I don't know...[thinking] The "clueless" Dicks Sporting Goods is now approaching 500-stores and pulls in billions of dollars. As clueless as they are, The Lodge in many stores accounts for over half of their business and if you multiply the number of stores by the number of gun sales, I'd say there's an odd chance that they have at least a minimal functional knowledge about what they are doing. Much like Midway, Brownells, J&G et al that will hardly do business in this state at all, Dicks has bigger fish to fry than worrying about getting entangled in the web that is Massachusetts - so forgive them if they err on the side of caution - even to a point of what you or I believe to be stupidity. For all the bitching that goes on about DSG by the superstars of the interwebs, Dicks Sporting Goods is pretty successful - at least out here. I haven't heard of any Massachusetts stores closing due to lack of business, so they must be preying on idiocy...And guess what? Despite what you may think, I'm no cheerleader for big-box anything and have had hair-pulling moments with corporate decision making, but guess what else? I don't own or hold stock in the company - I have no risk. I'm treated and paid pretty well for my customer service and knowledge base - that's it. I have however used my knowledge base to derail more than a few misadventures with over-interpretation of the law, including some pretty humorous edicts about what constituted "high capacity" and/or prohibited firearms. I'll save that for another day.

My opinions on Dicks Sporting Goods are pretty well-known. I do indeed work there - albeit part time. I was hired by them for my functional knowledge on firearms, (as well as kayaks and camping gear - ask me about fishing tackle however and I glaze over). It was not however for my prowess on interpreting the largely uninterpretable. That being said, I have had to use my google-fu on more than one occasion when dealing with inventory. Are all Dicks Sporting Goods employees knowledgeable? Nope. Are some clueless about firearms? Yup. Again, ask me about anything but basic fishing tackle, (jitterbugs, poppers, red devils, etc) and you'll find out what clueless is. [wink] I do not however endeavor to advise corporate on how to best traverse an icy slope, so if they seem "clueless", then my guess is they find fiscal longevity and safety in that cluelessness...

jasons said:
That I don't know... Any stock ~should~ be legal the way I read the law, but I'm not Dick's corporate counsel. (Or anyone else's, thankfully.) I think MassMark works there though, so maybe PM him and see what he says?
Click to expand...

We indeed had that question arise about the collapsable stock and the gun was held from sale for a time for that very reason, until it was determined that a collapsable stock on a pump shotgun was a non-issue. So to answer your question about the collapsable stock, the store employee may indeed have been clueless, but was acting on higher power. These guns are non-issues just about everywhere but here. You can buy everything from soup to bananas at many Dicks Sporting Goods locations outside Massachusetts. Hell, some stores have rack of AR's from Troy, Stag, Smith and Wesson and another rack full of evil shotguns with all the goodies. I know it seems hard to believe with the flat selections we see here, but check Troy's website and you'll see what I mean. If the Dicks Sporting Goods location dealt with refused to sell the gun due to a collapsable stock, it may simply be a matter of tip-toeing through a minefield. The shotgun in question by the way is a 5+1....
 
MassMark said:
Are they? Or perhaps they're trying to protect a multi-billion dollar business in the midst of insanity? Gee, I don't know...[thinking] The "clueless" Dicks Sporting Goods is now approaching 500-stores and pulls in billions of dollars. As clueless as they are, The Lodge in many stores accounts for over half of their business and if you multiply the number of stores by the number of gun sales, I'd say there's an odd chance that they have at least a minimal functional knowledge about what they are doing. Much like Midway, Brownells, J&G et al that will hardly do business in this state at all, Dicks has bigger fish to fry than worrying about getting entangled in the web that is Massachusetts - so forgive them if they err on the side of caution - even to a point of what you or I believe to be stupidity. For all the bitching that goes on about DSG by the superstars of the interwebs, Dicks Sporting Goods is pretty successful - at least out here. I haven't heard of any Massachusetts stores closing due to lack of business, so they must be preying on idiocy...And guess what? Despite what you may think, I'm no cheerleader for big-box anything and have had hair-pulling moments with corporate decision making, but guess what else? I don't own or hold stock in the company - I have no risk. I'm treated and paid pretty well for my customer service and knowledge base - that's it. I have however used my knowledge base to derail more than a few misadventures with over-interpretation of the law, including some pretty humorous edicts about what constituted "high capacity" and/or prohibited firearms. I'll save that for another day.

My opinions on Dicks Sporting Goods are pretty well-known. I do indeed work there - albeit part time. I was hired by them for my functional knowledge on firearms, (as well as kayaks and camping gear - ask me about fishing tackle however and I glaze over). It was not however for my prowess on interpreting the largely uninterpretable. That being said, I have had to use my google-fu on more than one occasion when dealing with inventory. Are all Dicks Sporting Goods employees knowledgeable? Nope. Are some clueless about firearms? Yup. Again, ask me about anything but basic fishing tackle, (jitterbugs, poppers, red devils, etc) and you'll find out what clueless is. [wink] I do not however endeavor to advise corporate on how to best traverse an icy slope, so if they seem "clueless", then my guess is they find fiscal longevity and safety in that cluelessness...
Click to expand...

That has got to be just about the longest response to a 2-word post I've seen. Very well said (and FWIW I was just trying to be snarky). Reps!
 
Cap said:
And here I was thinking you were pretty much gtg with any features on a pump...
Click to expand...

Exactly. Pure bullshit with the MGL. Maybe I'm just ignorant but I truly believe they just have those ****ed laws to make it almost impossible for you to protect yourself and solely rely on your local police dept.

Great post Mark. Reps inbound when I get home.
 
I purchased a 500 tactical from DSG here on the southcoast within the last 60 days, w/ collapse stock, but only a 3 slug tube, which obviously has the spacer in it. guess I lucked out on that one, price was right too, only $425.00. :)
 
Idoktr said:
CRAP! why the hell did Cohen have to be banned?

:)

Was he banned recently???????????
Click to expand...

Obviously he did something that the boss didn't like. His forum, his rules. It's really none of our business.
 
jasons said:
I agree that it's not an AWB thing. I also agree that the shotgun itself isn't a "large capacity weapon." The magazine tube, if it holds more than 5 shells, is a large capacity feeding device. That in and of itself is illegal regardless of the gun it's attached to (or even if it's not attached to a gun at all.)

Post-ban "large" capacity feeding devices are not legal in MA. Period. The same law that says that you can't buy a post-ban "large" capacity Glock mag says that you can't buy a post-ban "large" capacity shotgun mag tube.
Click to expand...

drgrant said:
In that case then nearly every gun shop in the state sells illegal shotguns. [rofl]

-Mike
Click to expand...

Not only that, but under Jasons' logic almost every Remington 870 would be illegal to sell because even those regular capacity magtubes "can be readily converted to accept...more than five shotgun shells" buy purchasing a tube extender. http://www.brownells.com/items/remington-870-magazine-extension-tube.aspx

If they were selling these guns during the federal ban, I wouldn't be concerned.

I see where the literal reading does provides some evidence, but common sense has to come in at some point here.

ETD: I see the extended mag tube issue was covered later in this thread. FWIW, three years ago I bought an 870 from Dicks with a 7 rd extended mag already installed.

Does anyone know if the ATF had an opinion on this from 1994-2004? I would consider that a definitive answer.
 
Last edited:
OfficerObie59 said:
I see where the literal reading does provides some evidence, but common sense has to come in at some point here.
Click to expand...


Since when is "common sense" a guiding principle with regard to MA law?

I can't help but note (with our previous discussion in mind) that this is a great example of one of those laws that has been "passed by the will of the people," but that morally shouldn't be enforced.
 
Last edited:
jasons said:
Since when is "common sense" a guiding principle with regard to MA law?

I can't help but note (with our previous discussion in mind) that this is a great example of one of those laws that has been "passed by the will of the people," but that morally shouldn't be enforced.
Click to expand...
Ah, touche...but is it enforced at all?

And is the reason for the present non-enforcment a matter of statutory interpretation and constructed yet to be considered in this thread, or a matter of morality? I don't think we've gotten there yet.
 

Similar threads

Bolt gun - paralysis by analysis
Replies
3
Views
145
MickeyD’s
M
MA Compliant question..
Replies
11
Views
703
drgrant
drgrant
Ar15 new handguard
Replies
2
Views
152
allen-1
allen-1
2024 in Review at Derr Precision
Replies
8
Views
308
fencer
fencer
New Fall Classic .38 Super Match Colt
Replies
1
Views
178
Picton
Picton
Back
Top Bottom