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

[Mike-Mike]

We've been over this, but the federal AWB law on LCFDs had a specific exemption for pump shotguns. The MA version does not.

Even though the Fed exemption was for Fixed Tubes the 500 has a removable tube.

 

[jasons]

Even though the Fed exemption was for Fixed Tubes the 500 has a removable tube.

Not sure I agree, but it's not relevant in any case. The MA version specifies "fixed or detachable," presumably to cover all bases.

 

[jasons]

....whatever that reason is on the ground, is benefiting us.

This is where my tinfoil starts to heat up. I'm not buying that this is an innocent "misinterpretation." (Maybe in Glidden's case given his well documented confusion on other points of law, but certainly not Guida's.)

 

[Franco]

.

 

[jasons]

You are correct, and i see your point. Only if you only read that paragraph and not the next one.

You're quoting an irrelevant portion of the law.

The relevant law is MGL Chapter 140 Section 131M and the specific definition for “Large capacity feeding device” in Section 121.

Section 131M makes post-ban LCFDs illegal, Section 121 defines what LCFDs are. All other definitions in 121 are irrelevant to the topic at hand. QED

 

[Franco]

.

 

[drgrant]

This is where my tinfoil starts to heat up. I'm not buying that this is an innocent "misinterpretation." (Maybe in Glidden's case given his well documented confusion on other points of law, but certainly not Guida's.)

This is all assumption on my part, but this is my impression of why this is the way it is...

I think what happened is there was a case somewhere that never really made it into the books (eg, never went to full trial) and the DA/ADA/prosecutor got their pee pee slapped by a lawyer for attempting to prosecute someone for it, and the way it was done would have been particularly embarassing for the DA if it was brought to trial, to the point where Glidden & Co. came up with this "tube not an LCAFD when not attached" nostrum and a suggestion to not attempt prosecuting on it. It's distinctly possible whatever strategy was used is kept under a hat, so to speak. I remember from previous threads on this in the distant past when both Cohen and Langer were around, that both of them were remarkably dead SILENT on this issue, and there is probably a good reason for that.

-Mike

 

[jasons]

Section 131m is in the context of "assault weapons" and directly realated detachable mags of the semi-auto nature. If they would of wanted to include all firearms types they would of said so. You would not carry around extra mag tubes to reload your pump shotgun , right?

Here's Section 131M in it's entirety (again):

No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.

Note the "or" in "an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device." Both of these things are illegal under this law. Both of these things are also defined in section 121.

 

[jasons]

This is all assumption on my part, but this is my impression of why this is the way it is...

I think what happened is there was a case somewhere that never really made it into the books (eg, never went to full trial) and the DA/ADA/prosecutor got their pee pee slapped by a lawyer for attempting to prosecute someone for it, and the way it was done would have been particularly embarassing for the DA if it was brought to trial, to the point where Glidden & Co. came up with this "tube not an LCAFD when not attached" nostrum and a suggestion to not attempt prosecuting on it. It's distinctly possible whatever strategy was used is kept under a hat, so to speak. I remember from previous threads on this in the distant past when both Cohen and Langer were around, that both of them were remarkably dead SILENT on this issue, and there is probably a good reason for that.

-Mike

This is where my head is too. It would be a huge loss for "them" if 131M were invalidated, so they want to sweep the weaker parts of it under the rug so as to prevent it from being tested. Seems to be more strategy than law.

Which isn't to say that said strategy isn't going to change someday. With Guida gone and Glidden getting older things could change any time.

 

[Franco]

.

 

[jasons]

Maybe we should invalidate 131m and other regs and put them to shame. Maybe thats the start to get this state back in the right track.

If only it were that simple.

 

[inerlogic]

Yeah, but what is their legal reasoning behind their interpretation?

They pulled it out of their ass....

And are their interpretations legally binding?

About as legally binding as anything else someone "says" that is contrary to what's actually written in the law.....

If I ever get jammed up over my Mossberg.... I'm gonna be looking for Len and guida to cover my legal costs....

Sent from my EVO 4G LTE using Forum Runner

 

[Franco]

.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

With that logic, its the same as putting a post-ban mag in your pre-ban(exempt item) rifle and be ok according to some guys non binding interpetation.

wut

 

[Franco]

.

 

[jasons]

But then one somehow is legal and one isnt, doesnt that make sense?

Not really.... Post ban LCFDs themselves are never legal. They are not legal in a tree, they are not legal out at sea. They are not legal at the beach, they are not legal with a peach. They are not legal at the dump, they are not legal on a pump.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Not really.... Post ban LCFDs themselves are never legal. They are not legal in a tree, they are not legal out at sea. They are not legal at the beach, they are not legal with a peach. They are not legal at the dump, they are not legal on a pump.

But what about on the beaches with the sneeches with stars upon theirs?

 

[W.E.C]

not for nothing, but given the current situation, shouldn't this topic be stowed for a future date,till the stirred up anti bees settle down?

I would hate to give that billboard douche any ideas.

 

[SalemCat]

not for nothing, but given the current situation, shouldn't this topic be stowed for a future date,till the stirred up anti bees settle down?

I would hate to give that billboard douche any ideas.

The BEES are still swarming

 

[je25ff]

It's too bad there wasn't some sort of ultimate, logical finality in all this, otherwise it would be a great sticky. The MGL vs. common sense is preventing it I believe. Seriously, if we can't all grasp it, what average LEO is going to ransack your trunk, pull out your Remington, and collar you???

 

[DrNVP]

In that case then nearly every gun shop in the state sells illegal shotguns.

-Mike

I believe normal hunting regs limit capacity in tube fed shotguns and that is in accordance with the size of the shell the gun is originally designed for. Otherwise, even legally plugged shotguns would be illegal due to the fact that minishells exist. Because of this, I think it would be a stretch to say that almost every shotgun is illegal thanks to minishells.

 

[jasons]

It's too bad there wasn't some sort of ultimate, logical finality in all this, otherwise it would be a great sticky. The MGL vs. common sense is preventing it I believe. Seriously, if we can't all grasp it, what average LEO is going to ransack your trunk, pull out your Remington, and collar you???

Yet another reason why it's always bad policy to agree to searches, even if you think you're "legal." You just never know if the cop who happens to be there at that moment is going to read the MGLs with his left eye squinted or his right.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I believe normal hunting regs limit capacity in tube fed shotguns and that is in accordance with the size of the shell the gun is originally designed for. Otherwise, even legally plugged shotguns would be illegal due to the fact that minishells exist. Because of this, I think it would be a stretch to say that almost every shotgun is illegal thanks to minishells.

Nice stretch, but generally EPOs not local police enforce hunting laws. So what one LE group may do/believe has no bearing on the other LE group.

Yet another reason why it's always bad policy to agree to searches, even if you think you're "legal." You just never know if the cop who happens to be there at that moment is going to read the MGLs with his left eye squinted or his right.

Indeed. Lots of charges get filed for non-crimes. If the guy takes a plea deal due to fear or ignorance (his or the attorney's), it really doesn't matter that the person was 100% lawful, does it?

 

[shamrockjr]

It's too bad there wasn't some sort of ultimate, logical finality in all this, otherwise it would be a great sticky. The MGL vs. common sense is preventing it I believe. Seriously, if we can't all grasp it, what average LEO is going to ransack your trunk, pull out your Remington, and collar you???

It would be nice if the politicians that passed these 46-hoop laws at least understood them. Maybe I should just remind myself it's all about protecting the children and baby Jesus.