Question about MA Gun restrictions for LEO

[MisterHappy]

* Police are civilians,...

Spoken like a true non-cop, or cop-basher, or cop-hater.

What's next? Expecting cops to obey traffic laws?

 

[Darksideblues42]

Spoken like a true non-cop, or cop-basher, or cop-hater.

What's next? Expecting cops to obey traffic laws?

I hope you just missed the sarcasm tag!

 

[secamp32]

Can off duty out of state officers carry +10 round mags or only on duty or in state officers?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Can off duty out of state officers carry +10 round mags or only on duty or in state officers?

Here's the only statutory guidance that exists:

MGL C. 140 S. 129C(o) lists exemptions

(o) Persons in the military or other service of any state or of the United States, and police officers and other peace officers of any jurisdiction, in the performance of their official duty or when duly authorized to possess them;

and MGL C. 140 S. 131M

Section 131M. 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;

Per discussion with EOPS attorney, S. 131M is generally interpreted as active officers, not retirees, but it is not crystal clear.

 

[WJ406]

Can off duty out of state officers carry +10 round mags or only on duty or in state officers?

Also MGL Ch. 140, s. 131G addresses out of state LEOs carrying in MA. Obviously though this doesn't address the magazine issue.

Police officers and other peace officers of any state, territory or jurisdiction within the United States duly authorized to possess firearms by the laws thereof shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have a permit or license to carry firearms as described in this section.

It should be noted that in S. 131M, "law enforcement officer" is not defined. Several other states with magazine bans specifically define who is considered a "law enforcement officer" for exemption purposes. "Law enforcement officer" is defined in MGL Ch. 6E, s. 1:

"Law enforcement officer'' or "officer'', any officer of an agency, including the head of the agency; a special state police officer appointed pursuant to section 57, section 58 or section 63 of chapter 22C; a special sheriff appointed pursuant to section 4 of chapter 37 performing police duties and functions; a deputy sheriff appointed pursuant to section 3 of said chapter 37 performing police duties and functions; a constable executing an arrest for any reason; or any other special, reserve or intermittent police officer.

Ch. 6E didn't exist until a couple of years ago, so this definition of "law enforcement officer" wasn't necessarily what the legislature intended when they wrote S. 131M.

 

[secamp32]

Thanks

 

[PappyM3]

Felon


MGL C. 140 S 131M

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131M

malegislature.gov

The Ethics laws/regs make the bolded part illegal.

TTBOMK nobody has been prosecuted for this, but there have been some "close issues" where guns were confiscated and upon trying to return them, "issues" came up.

MGLs are very convoluted and most dealers and LEOs really don't understand them or the nuances.

I don’t have the text of the ethics laws, but I’m guessing the ethics laws/regs prevent agencies from giving them as gifts. They probably don’t prohibit the retiring officer from receiving anything.

Oh well, none of it matters anyway because it’s all unconstitutional. This whole thread is just about trying to find out to what degree the state violates the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment. Does the state only violate it while the officer is still employed, or does the state also violate the 14th amendment when he/she retires?

 

[Len-2A Training]

I don’t have the text of the ethics laws, but I’m guessing the ethics laws/regs prevent agencies from giving them as gifts. They probably don’t prohibit the retiring officer from receiving anything.

Oh well, none of it matters anyway because it’s all unconstitutional. This whole thread is just about trying to find out to what degree the state violates the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment. Does the state only violate it while the officer is still employed, or does the state also violate the 14th amendment when he/she retires?

Yes, the ethics laws prohibit "giving" agency property to retirees.

 

[TomMalthus]

@secamp32 The answer appears to be yes you can , both on duty and off, per MaGL Ch. 140, Sec. 131M, (if you trust the wording of this text):

General Law - Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 131M

malegislature.gov

"The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; 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."

 

[dmc51]

Too bad that a member of the firearms ban Department of the AG or MSP would come forward to add a opinion.

 

[Coyote33]

and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement

and here is where it is ALWAYS otherwise prohibited:

Yes, the ethics laws prohibit "giving" agency property to retirees.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Too bad that a member of the firearms ban Department of the AG or MSP would come forward to add a opinion.

The MA AG's office position is that they will only answer legal questions for MA STATE agencies, not even local PDs. MSP are not lawyers, they are LEOs and they fit the description of people that you do NOT want to ask legal questions as the answers are oftentimes incorrect or reflect personal (politically correct) opinions.

 

[Kisspik002]

Try to go in and buy a Glock with high caps from a dealer in MA without a letter from your Chief, it isn't going to happen

Hell a retired cop visiting MA can carry his personally owned Glock on POPA, but not with "post ban" high capacity magazines.

I wouldn't risk carrying one on vacation on POPA in MA with high caps

On duty handling an investigation or extradition is another story, as is training, but even "on the badge" an out of state cop can't walk into a gun shop in MA and buy ammo even for training purposes.

Remember the law about buying guns on lists only applies to dealers, you can buy almost any gun in a FTF sale cop or not, and there are creative ways of getting guns that supposedly made out of unobtanium

Letter From Chief is no longer required for LE to buy personal Glocks. credentials only and most gun shops will proceed with the sale.

 

[PaulR]

[Peanut Gallery]
I'm so glad that people who have studied this stuff and have taught it their entire lives are in disagreement on the interpretations


No ill will intended, just goes to show how convoluted and complicated it is to understand the laws.
Purposefully vague. I see it in my line of work of taxes as well.

[/Peanut Gallery]

 

[HuntMaine]

I find the less said the better

 

[Justin-Observer]

Not true. Once retired, they lose those privileges per MGL even if they purchased the items with their own money.

Section 131M. 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...................

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; 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.

I believe some may be reading into this law. No where in the second paragraph is it stating that it ONLY applies to a retired duty weapon. There are two stipulations.
1) An individual who is retired from service with a LE agency
AND
2) That the individual was not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device at the time of retirement.

There is no reference that this only applies to a duty weapon being transferred to a retired LE....Not sure who or why anyone would read into that....Just read the law as it is written.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Section 131M. 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...................

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; 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.

When an officer retires, If the duty weapon had high capacity magazines, the officers would retire with that weapon AND the magazines for that weapon upon retirement. They are NOT switched out for 10 rounders. This law specifically protects the retired LE.

Believe what you will. I vetted my info with the director of FRB and her attorney a few years ago. Also, chief Glidden affirmed the same a few times in my presence.

 

[Jared]

This thread has disagreement because people are mixing federal definitions with state definitions.

There are 10 types of firearms under the GCA of 68. 3 are excluded from LEOSA and one is largely irrelevant (antique firearms).

There are 6 types of firearms that one can possess/carry under LEOSA. State definitions are irrelevant to federal statute.

 

[Justin-Observer]

Believe what you will. I vetted my info with the director of FRB and her attorney a few years ago. Also, chief Glidden affirmed the same a few times in my presence.

The law is plain an laid out....

Some may be reading into this law and inserting their own words or interpretation. No where in the second paragraph is it stating that it ONLY applies to a retired duty weapon. Please show me the words in Section 131.

There are two stipulations.

1) An individual who is retired from service with a LE agency
AND
2) That the individual was not otherwise prohibited from receiving that type of weapon or feeding device at the time of retirement. ( I know of some whom were early retirement due to domestic abuse and /or other felony so did not retire in good standing but forced retirement )

There is no reference that this only applies to a duty weapon being transferred to a retired LE....

Not sure who or why anyone would read into that, Just read the law as it is written.....

 

[Len-2A Training]

The law is plain an laid out....

Some may be reading into this law and inserting their own words or interpretation. No where in the second paragraph is it stating that it ONLY applies to a retired duty weapon. Please show me the words in Section 131.

There are two stipulations.

1) An individual who is retired from service with a LE agency
AND
2) That the individual was not otherwise prohibited from receiving that type of weapon or feeding device at the time of retirement. ( I know of some whom were early retirement due to domestic abuse and /or other felony so did not retire in good standing but forced retirement )

There is no reference that this only applies to a duty weapon being transferred to a retired LE....

Not sure who or why anyone would read into that, Just read the law as it is written.....

Obviously, you are the real expert.

Good luck with your interpretation.

 

[Coyote33]

otherwise prohibited from receiving that type of weapon or feeding device at the time of retirement.

Go back and look at post 41 again.

 

[nstassel]

I am in the position of having to convince prosecutor that a police officer can possess a lcfd after they quit the force. I truly do not think that the statute had anything to do with taking possession of a device from the department. My sense is that the retirement language exists so that officers who the state believes are sufficiently trained to possess these "dangerous" devices on and off duty can continue to possess them. I note that in 2014 the wording requiring that the item be possessed for "law enforcement purposes" was deleted. This reinforces the impression that the item was not owned by the police and then transferred to the cop since all equipment owned by a police department is for such purposes.

I believe that the language of being legally able to receive them upon retirement is driven by the desire to weed out officers who no longer have an ltc due to suitability or even disqualification at the time of their retirement.

This is the interpretation that I have convinced the DA the statute means. The issue I have now is what does "retirement" mean. After a brief career or even termination? I'm trying to dig up the legislative history.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I am in the position of having to convince prosecutor that a police officer can possess a lcfd after they quit the force. I truly do not think that the statute had anything to do with taking possession of a device from the department. My sense is that the retirement language exists so that officers who the state believes are sufficiently trained to possess these "dangerous" devices on and off duty can continue to possess them. I note that in 2014 the wording requiring that the item be possessed for "law enforcement purposes" was deleted. This reinforces the impression that the item was not owned by the police and then transferred to the cop since all equipment owned by a police department is for such purposes.

I believe that the language of being legally able to receive them upon retirement is driven by the desire to weed out officers who no longer have an ltc due to suitability or even disqualification at the time of their retirement.

This is the interpretation that I have convinced the DA the statute means. The issue I have now is what does "retirement" mean. After a brief career or even termination? I'm trying to dig up the legislative history.

Great job if you convinced a DA of that. Info that I have from a reputable and involved source contradicts that. I'd love for your interpretation to be the law thru-out MA, then I could carry my NH legal mags even if I travel into MA. If you'd like to discuss this and the thinking behind that section of law, please feel free to give me a phone call.

 

[alan226]

I am in the position of having to convince prosecutor that a police officer can possess a lcfd after they quit the force. I truly do not think that the statute had anything to do with taking possession of a device from the department. My sense is that the retirement language exists so that officers who the state believes are sufficiently trained to possess these "dangerous" devices on and off duty can continue to possess them. I note that in 2014 the wording requiring that the item be possessed for "law enforcement purposes" was deleted. This reinforces the impression that the item was not owned by the police and then transferred to the cop since all equipment owned by a police department is for such purposes.

I believe that the language of being legally able to receive them upon retirement is driven by the desire to weed out officers who no longer have an ltc due to suitability or even disqualification at the time of their retirement.

This is the interpretation that I have convinced the DA the statute means. The issue I have now is what does "retirement" mean. After a brief career or even termination? I'm trying to dig up the legislative history.

See if they will accept the LEOSA definition of retirement?

 

[WJ406]

See if they will accept the LEOSA definition of retirement?

I was thinking the same thing. I know a couple people who are considered “retired” under LEOSA but never qualified for a Mass pension. They did a few years at several departments part time and their total time of service was greater than 10 years.

 

[KH56010]

Great job if you convinced a DA of that. Info that I have from a reputable and involved source contradicts that. I'd love for your interpretation to be the law thru-out MA, then I could carry my NH legal mags even if I travel into MA. If you'd like to discuss this and the thinking behind that section of law, please feel free to give me a phone call.

I've seen a couple of your posts on this Len. Specifically on the language about receiving the firearm at retirement and you wrote "Yes, the ethics laws prohibit "giving" agency property to retirees." And I could even come up with a second argument of simply reading it to mean that a retired LEO is now a MA civilian who would not legally be allowed to possess anything in the AWB language and therefore could not "receive" it.

Two counterpoints I would like to apply to these scenarios.

When I retired from my law enforcement agency in Massachusetts. I actually had a home in NH. I would work Friday night until Monday morning (literally sleeping in the parking lot) and spend monday through friday at my home in NH. As a NH resident, I was able to receive and possess anything related to AWB Language.

So then it comes down to the "ethics laws". There is no mention of ethics laws in this section of the MGL that I can see. So I will only go off my experience with purchasing handguns that were not on the roster after I retired and before our friends learned how to transfer a frame. The MGL said that "a dealer" could not transfer an off roster firearm to a civilian. Unethical as it may be, it is not illegal for me to "receive" said firearm. And when my house was broken into in MA, a corrupt officer took possession of my off roster firearm. I took him, the chief and the PD to court with the help of Comm2a and we used the counterpoints I laid out and the PD was forced to return my "illegal" firearm back to me.

Laws are not meant to be written in an ambiguous way. When I read the the MGL on Retired LEO Possession, (and after already going to court on this and winning) I can't justify interpreting it and somehow adding in sentences about agency property and ethics that don't exist in the actual wording. BTW my father retired from his PD in 2010. His department M&P 45 with standard capacity mags is in my safe. He was gifted it at his retirement.

 

[Len-2A Training]

@KH56010 I'm glad that you won.

The MGL on ethics (I don't have a cite handy) forbids gov't employees from accepting gifts with significant value. MGL also dictates how gov't agencies may legally dispose of gov't property. This is what put an end to a PD gifting a firearm to a retiree. It used to be a common practice until the Ethics Commission became involved.

The 2014 law didn't add any clarity to the law allowing retired LEOs from possessing large cap feeding devices or so-called AWs. It merely removed the words "for law enforcement use only" (or similar, I don't have precise words handy) from the existing law.

I had a discussion with the FRB attorney on this matter some years ago and that was the source of my info.

 

[nstassel]

See if they will accept the LEOSA definition of retirement?

Turns out that's ten years usually.

 

[alan226]

Turns out that's ten years usually.

Any update on what happened?

 

[nstassel]

Any update on what happened?

Still in play. I did learn that the magazine was a Scherer not a Glock.