ColDouglasMortimer
NES Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2024
- Messages
- 10
- Likes
- 27
So to start, I'm in the market for an A300/1301, and as with anything gun-related in the state of Mass, I'm now standing here with more questions than answers. One of the more prominent stores in my area is fully stocked with a wide variety of Berettas (as well as 940 Pro Tacticals), all of which are 7+1 capacity. Alternatively, they also have the neutered and grotesque 5+1 versions for sale, which seemed bizarre to display next to the more robust models. I mentioned this to him and asked how they were even able to sell the former in Massachusetts, to which he replied: "Why wouldn't I be able to?"
And I think that's the general consensus a lot of people have reached from all that I've read, in part frustrated with the slight towards Constitutionality while inheriting their own interpretations in defiance of the tongue-tied "laws" the DEI squads in the state house of implemented. I've done a lot of research though (and scoured through all of the discussions I could find on this forum) and I feel that anyone suggesting the larger capacities are "legal" in the eyes of Massachusetts are doing some serious litigious jiujitsu.
On one hand, we have:
"Assault-style firearm", any firearm which is:
(c) a semiautomatic shotgun that includes at least 2 of the following features: (i) a folding or telescopic stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock or pistol grip; (iii) a protruding grip for the non-trigger hand; or (iv) the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device."
On the other, it clearly states:
“Large capacity feeding device”, (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells; or (ii) any part or combination of parts from which a device can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or control of the same person; provided, however, that “large capacity feeding device” shall not include: (a) any device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells; (b) an attached tubular device designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or (c) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm or on a pump shotgun.
Ultimately, they don't defy the assault weapons ban but they do defy the laws at a state level in terms of what constitutes a "large capacity feeding device"--there's no argument around this. People seem to suggest that these things aren't mutually exclusive and that you have to violate both statutes in order to be committing a felony, but they 100% are in the eyes of a judge and a courtroom, especially in this virtue signaling disaster of a state.
I guess my question in the end is would it still be "illegal" for me to own one of these shotguns if the store was willing to sell it to me? If I walked in there tomorrow, completely removed from the logic of this post, just an innocent person looking to defend themselves, would there ever be any repercussions on me for my purchase? Doesn't the store assume all liability for the sale? I'm all for being a red-blooded American man, but don't want conjugal visits to be the only thing I have to look forward to in life.
And I think that's the general consensus a lot of people have reached from all that I've read, in part frustrated with the slight towards Constitutionality while inheriting their own interpretations in defiance of the tongue-tied "laws" the DEI squads in the state house of implemented. I've done a lot of research though (and scoured through all of the discussions I could find on this forum) and I feel that anyone suggesting the larger capacities are "legal" in the eyes of Massachusetts are doing some serious litigious jiujitsu.
On one hand, we have:
"Assault-style firearm", any firearm which is:
(c) a semiautomatic shotgun that includes at least 2 of the following features: (i) a folding or telescopic stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock or pistol grip; (iii) a protruding grip for the non-trigger hand; or (iv) the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device."
On the other, it clearly states:
“Large capacity feeding device”, (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells; or (ii) any part or combination of parts from which a device can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or control of the same person; provided, however, that “large capacity feeding device” shall not include: (a) any device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells; (b) an attached tubular device designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or (c) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm or on a pump shotgun.
Ultimately, they don't defy the assault weapons ban but they do defy the laws at a state level in terms of what constitutes a "large capacity feeding device"--there's no argument around this. People seem to suggest that these things aren't mutually exclusive and that you have to violate both statutes in order to be committing a felony, but they 100% are in the eyes of a judge and a courtroom, especially in this virtue signaling disaster of a state.
I guess my question in the end is would it still be "illegal" for me to own one of these shotguns if the store was willing to sell it to me? If I walked in there tomorrow, completely removed from the logic of this post, just an innocent person looking to defend themselves, would there ever be any repercussions on me for my purchase? Doesn't the store assume all liability for the sale? I'm all for being a red-blooded American man, but don't want conjugal visits to be the only thing I have to look forward to in life.
