Need a green card to shoot a MG in MA - citation please

[rep308]

I've seen it stated that you now need to have a green card in MA to fire, not just own a MG in MA. I have failed at my attempts at finding actual case law. Can someone help me out here?

I know the change occurred as a result of the machine gun rental shoot at which a child was killed but I can not find the actual cite of the law.

Thanks in advance

 

[Rob Boudrie]

MA law prohibits possession of firearms*, rifles, shotguns, and machine guns by unlicensed persons. There is a further exception for possession of firearms, rifles, and shotguns under the supervision of a license holder. Absent this law, the prohibition of unlicensed possession of these weapons would be illegal even for a temporary transfer. There is no exception for the temporary transfer of a machine gun. Further backing up this conclusion is the presence of an exemption for the temporary transfer of some types of weapons. If a temporary transfer was not covered by the ban on possession, then there would be no need for a law establishing an exemption allowing such.

There was no change to the law, but the state "noticed" this was a technical violation after the tragedy at the Westfield shoot at which an 8 year old (who did not have a MG license) was killed while under the supervision of a 15 year old (who did not have a MG license but was in the presence of the license holder). I have heard some machine gun shoots circumvented the ban by having a license holder physically in contact with the gun during all phases of the handling and firing process. Unlike the AG AR15 ban, this interpretation is actually technically correct.

Now, I know the first argument is going to be "handing it to someone to shoot while I stand next to him is not a transfer". The precedent I can cite to the contrary is the federal "Felon in Possession" laws. Convictions have been obtained for the mere temporary transfer in the presence of a lawful owner - for example shooting a rental gun at a range.

* - I use "firearm" in the context of the MA definition which specifically means pistol or revolver

 

[MisterHappy]

Succinct, and unfortunately dead-nuts on.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Succinct, and unfortunately dead-nuts on.

But not validated until Len S chimes in with agreement.

 

[MGnoob]

Its unfortunate but a fact that everything is illegal in MA except of corse being an illegal.

There is nothing to cite and im not aware of anyone being charged.They started this after the Westfield death..but never used this new interpretation against the retards responsible.

When i go to this shoot "MAFA2018" im gunna post a sign warning that mere contact with my firerams may be a crime.its going to be pretty lame not being able allow those without a green card to shoot...but if you got one come on by.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is nothing to cite and im not aware of anyone being charged.

Try possession of a machine gun without a license.

I too am not aware of anyone being charged.

 

[MGnoob]

I don't think it would hold up in court, but it might. the exeption for an LTC at a shooting range specifically spells out which firearms are acceptable...MGs aren't include...with intentionally or not when it was written i dont know.

 

[Len-2A Training]

But not validated until Len S chimes in with agreement.

Agreed.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I don't think it would hold up in court, but it might. the exeption for an LTC at a shooting range specifically spells out which firearms are acceptable...MGs aren't include...with intentionally or not when it was written i dont know.

If you read it carefully it says that an unlicensed person can shoot handguns, rifles, shotguns under direct supervision of a person who possesses a LTC. Since a LTC isn't adequate to own/possess a MG, that's why MG isn't in that list and how the AG has ruled even touching one on the wall in a gun shop is a crime . . . punishable by up to life in prison!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

As a realistic matter, there is very little chance the state will track down evidence someone let their non-licensed buddy shoot a MG under their supervision at a range.

The more practical implications:

1. If anything adverse happens while you are doing so, expect it to become an issue.

2. It effectively shuts down "shoot a machine gun for a fee" days at gun clubs.

3. Harvard can no longer open their MG shoots to non-MG license holders who have buddies willing to loan them a gun.

 

[Len-2A Training]

As a realistic matter, there is very little chance the state will track down evidence someone let their non-licensed buddy shoot a MG under their supervision at a range.

The more practical implications:

1. If anything adverse happens while you are doing so, expect it to become an issue.

2. It effectively shuts down "shoot a machine gun for a fee" days at gun clubs.

3. Harvard can no longer open their MG shoots to non-MG license holders who have buddies willing to loan them a gun.

4. Someone videos the person shooting it, posts it on social media (including NES) and police pay that person a visit!

 

[MGnoob]

As always, you guys know the nuances of this stuff extremely well.
It does make sence that the part i was talking about was for LTCs so MGs would be covered...

I definitely wouldn't recommend allowing any children to shoot your MG In MA unless they are your children and i know of at least one incident when someone trespassed and recorded a father letting a young child shoot and they got contacted by DSS.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I definitely wouldn't recommend allowing any children to shoot your MG In MA unless they are your children and i know of at least one incident when someone trespassed and recorded a father letting a young child shoot and they got contacted by DSS.

If they got audio, and the shooters did not see it being recorded, there are grounds for felony prosecution of the trespasser. Good luck getting anyone interested though, it's not like sneakily recording a cop at a traffic stop.

 

[Toast]

If they got audio, and the shooters did not see it being recorded, there are grounds for felony prosecution of the trespasser. Good luck getting anyone interested though, it's not like sneakily recording a cop at a traffic stop.

If you're the one being stopped, you're OK legally (MA is a one-party-consent state), although if you wind up the cop he can cause a ton of grief until your lawyer gets involved to get it all dismissed.

 

[amm5061]

If you read it carefully it says that an unlicensed person can shoot handguns, rifles, shotguns under direct supervision of a person who possesses a LTC. Since a LTC isn't adequate to own/possess a MG, that's why MG isn't in that list and how the AG has ruled even touching one on the wall in a gun shop is a crime . . . punishable by up to life in prison!

Meanwhile, I'm visiting my parents in Pittsburgh, and at the Pittsburgh gun show we went to on Sunday there was a whole table of machine guns that got pawed at. Anyone want to loan me $42k for a Thompson?

 

[Tackdriver VillenTactical]

Op, not to split hairs but you asked where it is in "case law". Its not case law but is found in criminal law. C140 S129c (m) The temporary holding, handling or firing of a firearm for examination, trial or instruction in the presence of a holder of a license to carry firearms, or the temporary holding, handling or firing of a rifle or shotgun for examination, trial or instruction in the presence of a holder of a firearm identification card, or where such holding, handling or firing is for a lawful purpose;

This exempts handguns and rifles/shotguns. There is no exemption for MGs.

DM

 

[uwaeve]

So who gets life in prison, the toucher or the owner?

 

[Dennis in MA]

1. Glad I got to the machine gun shoots many moons ago to shoot my fill.

2. They are too expensive to run. No my cup of tea even though I considered buying a few about 15 years ago just for investment purposes.

3. This is the dumbest of all the Commonwealth's laws that I've heard of. I recall hearing Len and El Presidente talking about this at Mansfield once but I didn't ask why. Now that I know why, I'm more flummoxed than I can imagine.

 

[Rockrivr1]

1. Glad I got to the machine gun shoots many moons ago to shoot my fill.

2. They are too expensive to run. No my cup of tea even though I considered buying a few about 15 years ago just for investment purposes.

I just got my green card last month and am looking for one now that could possibly fit into my budget. As you indicated if nothing else, they are a fairly good investment as the prices just continue to go up.

Also went to several of the Machine Gun Shoots back in the day and even though they are expensive to run, I still want one.

 

[drgrant]

I've seen it stated that you now need to have a green card in MA to fire, not just own a MG in MA. I have failed at my attempts at finding actual case law. Can someone help me out here?

I know the change occurred as a result of the machine gun rental shoot at which a child was killed but I can not find the actual cite of the law.

Thanks in advance

There is no case law there's just AG spew, which after Westfield every Club basically believes is Gospel.... as far as I can remember nobody's actually ever been convicted of it. I don't even think they managed to convict the people from Westfield of it either....

 

[drgrant]

4. Someone videos the person shooting it, posts it on social media (including NES) and police pay that person a visit!

That will happen right after somebody gets prosecuted for using the competition exemption. (the one that's also 110% legally invalid).

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If you're the one being stopped, you're OK legally (MA is a one-party-consent state), although if you wind up the cop he can cause a ton of grief until your lawyer gets involved to get it all dismissed.

This is absolutely, positively, wrong. Following this advice can, and has, resulted in a felony conviction.

Although MA does not require two-party consent, MGL law considers surreptitious recording in which one or more parties does not know they are being recorded to be felony wiretapping. [you will frequently see people describe this as "two party consent", but it is somewhat different] This was brought to light when a driver, Hyde, recorded a police officer at a traffic stop in a surreptitious manner. He brought the recording to the PD to complain about how he was treated and was charged with felony wiretapping and convicted. It went all the way to the Massachusetts Supreme Marsupial court, which upheld the conviction (see Commonwealth v. Hyde). One of the reasons the SJC cited for upholding the law is that allowing such behavior would permit criminals to document police misconduct. (Yes, the court really said this!!!)

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That will happen right after somebody gets prosecuted for using the competition exemption. (the one that's also 110% legally invalid).

The difference is that an in-state resident who lets someone use their MG at a range is a ripe target for extra-judicial punishment.

 

[drgrant]

This is absolutely, positively, wrong. Following this advice can, and has, resulted in a felony conviction.

Although MA does not require two-party consent, MGL law considers surreptitious recording in which one or more parties does not know they are being recorded to be felony wiretapping. [you will frequently see people describe this as "two party consent", but it is somewhat different] This was brought to light when a driver, Hyde, recorded a police officer at a traffic stop in a surreptitious manner. He brought the recording to the PD to complain about how he was treated and was charged with felony wiretapping and convicted. It went all the way to the Massachusetts Supreme Marsupial court, which upheld the conviction (see Commonwealth v. Hyde). One of the reasons the SJC cited for upholding the law is that allowing such behavior would permit criminals to document police misconduct. (Yes, the court really said this!!!)

Doesn't Glik partially nullify it? (eg as long as the recording activity is captain obvious, its legal- EG, no "consent" is required but you cannot
"secretly" record... )

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

The difference is that an in-state resident who lets someone use their MG at a range is a ripe target for extra-judicial punishment.

That could be said for virtually every gun related activity in MA though. One has to decide how much hiding from their own shadow they want to do.

Even if it was arguably legal someone could still face some ponce chief going "after what happened at westfield, who would let a minor use a MACHINE GUN! ZOMG.... bad judgement.... no renewal for you. "

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Doesn't Glik partially nullify it? (eg as long as the recording activity is captain obvious, its legal- EG, no "consent" is required but you cannot
["secretly" record... )

The crux of the Hyde case was the surreptitious recording. Glick was in response to the police arresting someone for open and obvious recording.

 

[Toast]

If you're the one being stopped, you're OK legally (MA is a one-party-consent state), although if you wind up the cop he can cause a ton of grief until your lawyer gets involved to get it all dismissed.

This is absolutely, positively, wrong. Following this advice can, and has, resulted in a felony conviction.

Although MA does not require two-party consent, MGL law considers surreptitious recording in which one or more parties does not know they are being recorded to be felony wiretapping. [you will frequently see people describe this as "two party consent", but it is somewhat different] This was brought to light when a driver, Hyde, recorded a police officer at a traffic stop in a surreptitious manner. He brought the recording to the PD to complain about how he was treated and was charged with felony wiretapping and convicted. It went all the way to the Massachusetts Supreme Marsupial court, which upheld the conviction (see Commonwealth v. Hyde). One of the reasons the SJC cited for upholding the law is that allowing such behavior would permit criminals to document police misconduct. (Yes, the court really said this!!!)

True, but if you look at my post, specifically "if you wind up the cop", it's implicit that the cop knows he's being recorded (else he would not be getting upset over it). I could have made that more explicit.

 

[Horrible]

Op, not to split hairs but you asked where it is in "case law". Its not case law but is found in criminal law. C140 S129c (m) The temporary holding, handling or firing of a firearm for examination, trial or instruction in the presence of a holder of a license to carry firearms, or the temporary holding, handling or firing of a rifle or shotgun for examination, trial or instruction in the presence of a holder of a firearm identification card, or where such holding, handling or firing is for a lawful purpose;

This exempts handguns and rifles/shotguns. There is no exemption for MGs.

DM

So, a MG does not fall into the definition of a “firearm” per MGL? Whereas handguns and rifles/shotguns do?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

True, but if you look at my post, specifically "if you wind up the cop", it's implicit that the cop knows he's being recorded (else he would not be getting upset over it). I could have made that more explicit.

With the current technology you sometimes have to out of your way to notify the other person they are being recorded. The most common methodology is turning on a recorder on a cell phone.

Plus, despite the assumptions you made, it is completely inaccurate to refer to MA as a "one party consent state". It is not.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So, a MG does not fall into the definition of a “firearm” per MGL? Whereas handguns and rifles/shotguns do?

Machine guns, rifles, and shotguns are not firearms under MGL. Handguns, SBRs, short barreled shotguns and sawed off shotguns are. (but sawed off shotguns are specifically banned).

A firearms ID card (FID) does not allow you to buy or possess a firearm (despite that claim being made when it can be used against us in court). But then you part on a driveway and drive on a parkway.