Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

[Rockrivr1]

Going to have to be extra careful when attending an out of state gun show. I would not be surprised if there are undercover MA LEs in the parking lot keeping track of MA license plated cars and what those folks are putting in them. Probably just looking for folks buying “illegal” mags to bring back into the state.

 

[milktree]

Going to have to be extra careful when attending an out of state gun show. I would not be surprised if there are undercover MA LEs in the parking lot keeping track of MA license plated cars and what those folks are putting in them. Probably just looking for folks buying “illegal” mags to bring back into the state.

What happens when you point to §131M(c) and tell them you’re driving home?

 

[DJBrad]

What happens when you point to §131M(c) and tell them you’re driving home?

“Sir, we don’t make the laws, we just enforce them.”

 

[drgrant]

Going to have to be extra careful when attending an out of state gun show. I would not be surprised if there are undercover MA LEs in the parking lot keeping track of MA license plated cars and what those folks are putting in them. Probably just looking for folks buying “illegal” mags to bring back into the state.

This happened with CA (with NV gun shows and AR15 rifles/mags) but it's pointless in new england, as there are at least two entire states filled with dealers (excepting the like 3 box stores) where you can walk into the store and walk out with a bag containing magazines of your choosing. No need to even go to a gun show.

Not to mention the justification for a search is a lot more difficult then say what they used to do with the fireworks. If they were doing these kind of things we could literally set up Comm2A to f*** the state directly up the ass. It's going to be pretty funny when the state gets whacked on a USC 1983 suit or similar over a clearly illegal search, because the guy bought a bag filled with cleaning patches from a Maine gun store. At least when MSP used to do the fireworks bullshit they could have the argument that /nearly everything/ sold in the store was illegal to bring into Massachusetts and that's not the case with a gun shop.

Even in the CA cases.... they literally had to track the person through the show, wach what they bought, watch them put the gun in the car, then rat them to an intercept car.

Also having experienced these people before, they're not great at being undercover. Work in an NH or ME shop for a year or three. A not insignificant portion of your customer base is going to be hardcore rkba, retired MA LE types. They would rat that motherf***er out to the staff in a nanosecond.

 

[dgrafton]

You just mentioned “license” in that original question. The one license covers ammo, lcfd, and large capacity firearms. The use of human silhouettes according to the new law for such a club is illegal.

Gotcha!
Thanks

 

[pastera]

What happens when you point to §131M(c) and tell them you’re driving home?

131m(c) only excludes possession

(c) Subsection (a) shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 only if such possession is:
(i) on private property owned or legally controlled by the person in possession of the large capacity feeding device;
(ii) on private property that is not open to the public with the express permission of the property owner or the property owner’s authorized agent; (iii) while on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purpose of lawful repair;
(iv) at a licensed firing range or sports shooting competition venue; or
(v) while traveling to and from these locations;
provided, that the large capacity feeding device is stored unloaded and secured in a locked container in accordance with sections 131C and 131L.
A person authorized under this subsection to possess a large capacity feeding device may only transfer the device to an heir or devisee, a person residing outside the commonwealth, or a licensed dealer.

131m excludes a lot more than just possession:

Section 131M. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device.

Driving back into Mass with LCFDs could be seem as importing especially if they have price tags or are retaol packaged in any way.

 

[drgrant]

131m(c) only excludes possession


131m excludes a lot more than just possession:


Driving back into Mass with LCFDs could be seem as importing especially if they have price tags or are retaol packaged in any way.

Assuming the person actually puts the things inside a locked container under transport (as apparently you are supposed to do after 10/22) you have to have a wonderful probably borderline illegal search to get into that container so think about that for more than 10 seconds and how stupid all of this tail chasing is.

 

[pastera]

Assuming the person actually puts the things inside a locked container under transport (as apparently you are supposed to do after 10/22) you have to have a wonderful probably borderline illegal search to get into that container so think about that for more than 10 seconds and how stupid all of this tail chasing is.

If you had an LTC prior to the effective date of the bill, it's almost impossible for the state.to prove import.of preban magazines if the person does basic due diligence and keeps their mouth shut.

But if they are going down that path then they should at least know exactly where the legal boundaries are.

 

[Len-2A Training]

This happened with CA (with NV gun shows and AR15 rifles/mags) but it's pointless in new england, as there are at least two entire states filled with dealers (excepting the like 3 box stores) where you can walk into the store and walk out with a bag containing magazines of your choosing. No need to even go to a gun show.

Not to mention the justification for a search is a lot more difficult then say what they used to do with the fireworks. If they were doing these kind of things we could literally set up Comm2A to f*** the state directly up the ass. It's going to be pretty funny when the state gets whacked on a USC 1983 suit or similar over a clearly illegal search, because the guy bought a bag filled with cleaning patches from a Maine gun store. At least when MSP used to do the fireworks bullshit they could have the argument that /nearly everything/ sold in the store was illegal to bring into Massachusetts and that's not the case with a gun shop.

Even in the CA cases.... they literally had to track the person through the show, wach what they bought, watch them put the gun in the car, then rat them to an intercept car.

Also having experienced these people before, they're not great at being undercover. Work in an NH or ME shop for a year or three. A not insignificant portion of your customer base is going to be hardcore rkba, retired MA LE types. They would rat that motherf***er out to the staff in a nanosecond.

What bags?

Having sold every AR mag that I owed prior to 8/1 to MA residents, yesterday I stopped in Manchester Firing Line and purchased two new 30 rd AR mags. No bags offered. If I think back to the old days shopping at Four Seasons, I don't think I got bags for my purchases there either. Certainly no bags offered at gun shows.

 

[drgrant]

What bags?

Having sold every AR mag that I owed prior to 8/1 to MA residents, yesterday I stopped in Manchester Firing Line and purchased two new 30 rd AR mags. No bags offered. If I think back to the old days shopping at Four Seasons, I don't think I got bags for my purchases there either. Certainly no bags offered at gun shows.

If you're only buying a couple of things nobody will offer you a bag, but I think you get the drift. I've worked for like 3 different shops and we usually had bags behind the
counter. Sometimes we even had cool logo ones from different manufacturers.

ETA: some shops also would put a bunch of stuff in an empty cardboard box as well, much like the way a liquor store will put bottles in a box.

 

[dans]

I just got an email from our friend arKAG Arms. In it he says that Maura is threatening to file an emergency preamble to this bill.

Anyone hear about this? This is the first I’ve heard about this.

Can she do that? This bill has been passed and signed can she change the rules now?

 

[headednorth]

Can she do that? This bill has been passed and signed can she change the rules now?

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Whenever I’m feeling like a downer pill I stop by this thread to take a read…works like a charm every time

 

[EJFudd]

I just got an email from our friend arKAG Arms. In it he says that Maura is threatening to file an emergency preamble to this bill.

Anyone hear about this? This is the first I’ve heard about this.

Can she do that? This bill has been passed and signed can she change the rules now?

So how was your vacation?

Seriously, it's been the news for a week now... and yes, she can do it. So far, we are all still waiting.

 

[jek]

I just got an email from our friend arKAG Arms. In it he says that Maura is threatening to file an emergency preamble to this bill.

Anyone hear about this? This is the first I’ve heard about this.

Can she do that? This bill has been passed and signed can she change the rules now?

Covered many times in a couple of threads. Short answer is YES. What rules do you think she is changing?

 

[pastera]

I just got an email from our friend arKAG Arms. In it he says that Maura is threatening to file an emergency preamble to this bill.

Anyone hear about this? This is the first I’ve heard about this.

Can she do that? This bill has been passed and signed can she change the rules now?

Unfortunately, yes she can file one at any time.

 

[dans]

So how was your vacation?

Seriously, it's been the news for a week now... and yes, she can do it. So far, we are all still waiting.

No vacation. I tend to avoid threads when the useful information falls off, they digress into crap ,and name calling. On NES All threads eventually get there.

ETA: Add a little clarification.

 

[EJFudd]

No vacation. I tend to avoid threads when they digress into crap and name calling.

Smart man... ... usually!

 

[safetyfirst2125]

I just got an email from our friend arKAG Arms. In it he says that Maura is threatening to file an emergency preamble to this bill.

Anyone hear about this? This is the first I’ve heard about this.

Can she do that? This bill has been passed and signed can she change the rules now?

It would have no effect in law, but could provide guidance to enforcement. Although, why not just issue direct executive orders to enforcement agencies?

 

[milktree]

131m(c) only excludes possession

Not ownership? So you can possess a pre '94 mag in all the named places, but you can't own it? In which case, all pre-ban mags are illegal in MA. period.

(c) only says possession, not own. (a) has a comma separated list that puts "possess", "own", "offer for sale", and "sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth" (or maybe it's "sell", and "otherwise transfer", depending on if the legislature believes in the Oxford comma) as equals.

So, if (c) only allows possession but not ownership, it's outright confiscation.

It's reasonable to assume that (c) applies to more than just possession, even though possession is the only thing listed, as it would render the entire subsection meaningless if you weren't allowed to own anything.

131m excludes a lot more than just possession:

Right. And 131M(c) excludes all of 131M(a) under the named circumstances.

And really, where does "importation" even happen? Is it the instant you cross the boarder from NH? If so, who has jurisdiction in that "in neither or both states" location? Once you're in Mass, you're not importing, you're possessing it.

Or if you really want to get into the weeds, the exemption from (a) says "... travel to and from ..." and not "... travel to or from...", does that mean you have to make round trips between any of those named places, you can't go home -> range -> other private property -> home, because that's not "to and from"?

We know what they want, but what they wrote isn't that.

 

[milktree]

The overwhelming majority of people actually punished by low grade shit here is still going to be fun things that get prosecution easy wins like:

...

"CUI violations" (although at least this is getting a BAC standard, which helps)

This isn't true.

The 0.08% BAC language is part of an "or" statement.

New language allows them to get you at 0.0800000001% even if you're showing zero behavior that you're "under the influence.
And they can get you at 0.002% if they can demonstrate/convince a DA/jury that you were "under the influence, regardless of your actual BAC.

New and old language: (blue is new)

Section 10H. Whoever, having in effect a license to carry firearms issued under section 131 or 131F of chapter 140, carries on his person, or has under his control in a vehicle, a loaded firearm, as defined in section 121 of said chapter 140, while with a percentage, by weight, of alcohol in their blood of eight one-hundredths or greater, or while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, all as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C, or the vapors of glue shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one-half years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Honestly I have trouble imagining that anyone could be at 0.08% BAC and not show signs of being drunk, so this addition is probably meaningless.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

or the vapors of glue

 

[MAJoe]

What bags?

Having sold every AR mag that I owed prior to 8/1 to MA residents, yesterday I stopped in Manchester Firing Line and purchased two new 30 rd AR mags. No bags offered. If I think back to the old days shopping at Four Seasons, I don't think I got bags for my purchases there either. Certainly no bags offered at gun shows.

If it opens up any more of your supply, prebans are still good to go regardless of where they were owned up until 10/22 or sooner if an emergency preamble is signed. The 8/1 date only applies to “assault rifles” but it needed to be ON 8/1 in MA so anything you had before but kept in NH until now is not allowed.

Thanks for helping out.

 

[drgrant]

This isn't true.

The 0.08% BAC language is part of an "or" statement.

New language allows them to get you at 0.0800000001% even if you're showing zero behavior that you're "under the influence.
And they can get you at 0.002% if they can demonstrate/convince a DA/jury that you were "under the influence, regardless of your actual BAC.

New and old language: (blue is new)



Honestly I have trouble imagining that anyone could be at 0.08% BAC and not show signs of being drunk, so this addition is probably meaningless.

So basically they managed to make it worse.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

This isn't true.

The 0.08% BAC language is part of an "or" statement.

New language allows them to get you at 0.0800000001% even if you're showing zero behavior that you're "under the influence.
And they can get you at 0.002% if they can demonstrate/convince a DA/jury that you were "under the influence, regardless of your actual BAC.

New and old language: (blue is new)



Honestly I have trouble imagining that anyone could be at 0.08% BAC and not show signs of being drunk, so this addition is probably meaningless.

At least there isn’t a consequence for not blowing like there is for OUI.

 

[pastera]

Not ownership? So you can possess a pre '94 mag in all the named places, but you can't own it? In which case, all pre-ban mags are illegal in MA. period.

(c) only says possession, not own. (a) has a comma separated list that puts "possess", "own", "offer for sale", and "sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth" (or maybe it's "sell", and "otherwise transfer", depending on if the legislature believes in the Oxford comma) as equals.

So, if (c) only allows possession but not ownership, it's outright confiscation.

It's reasonable to assume that (c) applies to more than just possession, even though possession is the only thing listed, as it would render the entire subsection meaningless if you weren't allowed to own anything.




Right. And 131M(c) excludes all of 131M(a) under the named circumstances.

And really, where does "importation" even happen? Is it the instant you cross the boarder from NH? If so, who has jurisdiction in that "in neither or both states" location? Once you're in Mass, you're not importing, you're possessing it.

Or if you really want to get into the weeds, the exemption from (a) says "... travel to and from ..." and not "... travel to or from...", does that mean you have to make round trips between any of those named places, you can't go home -> range -> other private property -> home, because that's not "to and from"?

We know what they want, but what they wrote isn't that.

Mass can place the word own in the text of the law but the state's jurisdiction ends at the border.
It cannot regulate you owning an item located in another state, it can only regulate your possession in Mass.

Neither can they regulate your offer to sell your property outside Mass - you can be a Mass resident and offer to sell as many ASF or LCFDs in places where it is legal for to do so. And you can do so from within Mass as long as the item doesn't originate or end up in Mass (unless excluded IE law enforcement)

As far as importing - it has little to do with actual possession at a specific time or location.
Importing is an act - the moving of an item across a political boundary.
But the truly prohibited act is possession of the banned items within Mass.

So 131m in it's entirety is about possession within the borders of Mass or bringing a banned item into Mass (import) not through Mass.

 

[milktree]

Mass can place the word own in the text of the law but the state's jurisdiction ends at the border.
It cannot regulate you owning an item located in another state, it can only regulate your possession in Mass.

Neither can they regulate your offer to sell your property outside Mass - you can be a Mass resident and offer to sell as many ASF or LCFDs in places where it is legal for to do so. And you can do so from within Mass as long as the item doesn't originate or end up in Mass (unless excluded IE law enforcement)

As far as importing - it has little to do with actual possession at a specific time or location.
Importing is an act - the moving of an item across a political boundary.
But the truly prohibited act is possession of the banned items within Mass.

So 131m in it's entirety is about possession within the borders of Mass or bringing a banned item into Mass (import) not through Mass.

Right. And §131M(c) says you can possess and own in the enumerated places and while transporting between them.

Where does the importation happen? In MA? In NH? At the infinitely thin line between MA and NH? When does the importation stop?

Is pretty easy to read (c) to include “import” as exempt from (a), especially since the final paragraph explicitly calls out “transfer” but not any of the other naughty behaviors.

 

[pastera]

Right. And §131M(c) says you can possess and own in the enumerated places and while transporting between them.

Where does the importation happen? In MA? In NH? At the infinitely thin line between MA and NH? When does the importation stop?

Is pretty easy to read (c) to include “import” as exempt from (a), especially since the final paragraph explicitly calls out “transfer” but not any of the other naughty behaviors.

No it is not easy to read it as exempting anything but possession in the enumerated locations and conditions and transfer in the defined circumstances.

(c) Subsection (a) shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 only if such possession is:

(i) on private property owned or legally controlled by the person in possession of the large capacity feeding device;
(ii) on private property that is not open to the public with the express permission of the property owner or the property owner’s authorized agent;
(iii) while on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purpose of lawful repair;
(iv) at a licensed firing range or sports shooting competition venue; or
(v) while traveling to and from these locations; provided, that the large capacity feeding device is stored unloaded and secured in a locked container in accordance with sections 131C and 131L.​

A person authorized under this subsection to possess a large capacity feeding device may only transfer the device to an heir or devisee, a person residing outside the commonwealth, or a licensed dealer

It is clear that the first subsection addresses only possession and the conditions under which possession is exempt.
And the second subsection addresses the only conditions where transfer within Massachusetts is exempt.

There is no mention of importation, sales or offers to sell as those have no exemption (not legal under any circumstances in Mass).

 

[milktree]

No it is not easy to read it as exempting anything but possession in the enumerated locations and conditions and transfer in the defined circumstances.


It is clear that the first subsection addresses only possession and the conditions under which possession is exempt.

I suspect I know what they wanted to say.

But it actually says that subsection (a) shall not apply under any of the five conditions that follow.

(c) doesn't make any distinction whatsoever about which bits of (a) it's talking about.

And the second subsection addresses the only conditions where transfer within Massachusetts is exempt.

There is no mention of importation, sales or offers to sell as those have no exemption (not legal under any circumstances in Mass).

Except they do. Subsection (a) shall not apply ... on private property, on private property, at a dealer, at a range, or traveling to and from those places.

Where in (c) does it say anything about (excluding) importation from it's exclusion to (a)?

 

[pastera]

I suspect I know what they wanted to say.

But it actually says that subsection (a) shall not apply under any of the five conditions that follow.

(c) doesn't make any distinction whatsoever about which bits of (a) it's talking about.




Except they do. Subsection (a) shall not apply ... on private property, on private property, at a dealer, at a range, or traveling to and from those places.

Where in (c) does it say anything about (excluding) importation from it's exclusion to (a)?

(c) Subsection (a) shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 only if such possession is:

See how it is calling out only possession.

Next you have the final clause

A person authorized under this subsection to possess a large capacity feeding device may only transfer the device to an heir or devisee, a person residing outside the commonwealth, or a licensed dealer.

Notice this clause speaks to authority to possess not completr exemption from (a)
If you try to read (c) the way you are trying then a person with lawful possession of any preban magazine would be exempt from possession of ASFs also.
But that's not true - (c) exempts only possession and transfer of LCFDs under the proscribed conditions.