Storing Someone Else's Gun from another state

[Carguy]

I've reviewed the Gun Laws but can't find a definitive answer to this question.

Can I store a handgun (non Mass compliant) for an out of state relative?

I understand that as long as we both are legally licensed I can hold, store, borrow or loan handuns without issue. I am concerned about transporting one from out of state...the law says no personal transfer without an FFL, but I'm not buying or transfer, just storing, there will be no change of ownership.

If we both drive to NH where he is licensed, pick up the handgun then drive into Mass where I'm licensed (as long as I take direct control once over the state line) will we be breraking the law??

Thanks

 

[szaino]

Based upon a lot of posts here regarding this same issue, temporarily using/storing/possessing this gun (as you stated it) is not violating any laws.

Do a search and you should find a bunch of other threads. I'm sure you will have more replies here.

 

[Cross-X]

No prob. Just leave any post-ban large cap. mags in NH.

You could also post a pic here is you borrow something interesting.

 

[Carguy]

Its not even a borrow! I have a gun safe and my cousin does not.

But while what ever he stores in my little safe may find its way to a range with m...is another story. 8~)

Thanks

 

[M1911]

Carguy: one thing you might want to do is have your cousin put in writing that you are storing the gun for him, but that it remains his property and not yours. Have him sign and date it.

 

[ScottS]

On this note, is an LTC or at least an FID required for the "storer?" Scenario: I finish shooting the MA IDPA match last year, and want to continue on directly from there to vacation with in-laws in Update NY. Can't take the weapon to NY, but didn't think I could store with brother-in-law in MA because he doesn't have an FID or LTC (Single stack 1911). Correct thinking, or overly paranoid?

 

[dwarven1]

On this note, is an LTC or at least an FID required for the "storer?" Scenario: I finish shooting the MA IDPA match last year, and want to continue on directly from there to vacation with in-laws in Update NY. Can't take the weapon to NY, but didn't think I could store with brother-in-law in MA because he doesn't have an FID or LTC (Single stack 1911). Correct thinking, or overly paranoid?

Correct thinking; he cannot even have a gun in his house legally without an FID or an LTC for a handgun.

 

[Lynne]

Correct thinking; he cannot even have a gun in his house legally without an FID or an LTC for a handgun.

+1

That's a definate no-no.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Correct thinking; he cannot even have a gun in his house legally without an FID or an LTC for a handgun.

Well, not entirely true.

Example: You put a safe in said home and you are the only one with the key/combo. Then YOU could store said gun in that safe, even though nobody in the house has a LTC.

ONLY potential problem is "proving a negative". If for any reason the police were there and tried to charge him/them with illegal possession. It is very difficult to prove that someone does NOT have the combo (a key would be an easier thing to prove).

So it might not be the best thing to do, but not illegal (under the right circumstances) if done correctly.

 

[Carguy]

+1
I understand that one must be properly licensed to even "possess" a handgun in their home. And if I remember correctly the 1911 is considered a high capacity pistol, therefore a class A is a definite. Why I'm not sure...maybe someone, somewhere made a 15 round mag for it during a war?!?

I will get a note from my cousin in case there is ever a question regarding what he stores.

 

[dwarven1]

And if I remember correctly the 1911 is considered a high capacity pistol, therefore a class A is a definite.

I believe that you are incorrect here. No one has ever sold a 1911 with a FACTORY magazine of over 10 rounds, so it's not a large capacity. A Para P14, P13 or P12 IS, but a standard 1911 is not.

 

[Scrivener]

I understand that one must be properly licensed to even "possess" a handgun in their home. And if I remember correctly the 1911 is considered a high capacity pistol, therefore a class A is a definite.

NO, a single-stack 1911 is not "high capacity." That's why they are not listed on the "Large Capacity Roster" and why an LTC/B will suffice to own (but NOT carry concealed) one.

Note, however, that possession of a "large capacity" magazine for it WILL require an LTC/A.

 

[dwarven1]

NO, a single-stack 1911 is not "high capacity." That's why they are not listed on the "Large Capacity Roster" and why an LTC/B will suffice to own (but NOT carry concealed) one.

Note, however, that possession of a "large capacity" magazine for it WILL require an LTC/A.

IIRC, you once said that the difference was if the gun had been sold with a large capacity magazine from the factory. Am I correct in that, Scrivener?

 

[Scrivener]

IIRC, you once said that the difference was if the gun had been sold with a large capacity magazine from the factory. Am I correct in that, Scrivener?

Being shipped with factory "large capacity" mags will definitely get a gun included on the LC Roster and is why Ruger Minis and 10/22's are NOT on it. Neither is ANY single-stack 1911.

Go here: http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/largecap_2002.pdf

 

[dwarven1]

OK, that confuses me more, Keith. I see the list of what is considered by the state to be "large capacity' is what was "originally manufactured" as large cap, which the 1911 and the Ruger 10/22 is manifestly not. However, it then goes on to say that "Weapons not listed on this roster may also be large capacity weapons if they are semi-automatic, and are capable of accepting or readily modifiable to accept a large capacity feeding device."

Now, since the Ruger has many 25, 30 and 50 round magazines made for it, and the 1911 has had large capacity drums made for it in the past, why are they not considered large capacity? Is it just because MA doesn't know about said large capacity magazines?

I strongly suspect that that line is why some dealers consider the 10/22 to be large capacity... when I read it, I can't see any other interpretation. Obviously I'm missing something, but what?

This roster has been compiled in accordance with M.G.L. c.140, §131¾. It contains weapons determined to have been originally manufactured for the civilian retail consumer market as large capacity weapons as defined by § 121 of chapter 140. Weapons not listed on this roster may also be large capacity weapons if they are semi-automatic, and are capable of accepting or readily modifiable to accept a large capacity feeding device.
For the purposes of M.G.L. c.140, §121, “Capable of Accepting” shall mean any firearm, rifle or shotgun in which a large capacity feeding device is capable of being used without alteration of the weapon; provided, however, that said feeding device is fully or partially inserted into the weapon or attached thereto, or is under the direct control of a person who also has direct control of a weapon capable of accepting said feeding device

 

[ScottS]

Hell, let's muddy the waters more:

 

[Scrivener]

OK, that confuses me more, Keith. I see the list of what is considered by the state to be "large capacity' is what was "originally manufactured" as large cap, which the 1911 and the Ruger 10/22 is manifestly not. However, it then goes on to say that "Weapons not listed on this roster may also be large capacity weapons if they are semi-automatic, and are capable of accepting or readily modifiable to accept a large capacity feeding device."

Now, since the Ruger has many 25, 30 and 50 round magazines made for it, and the 1911 has had large capacity drums made for it in the past, why are they not considered large capacity? Is it just because MA doesn't know about said large capacity magazines?

I strongly suspect that that line is why some dealers consider the 10/22 to be large capacity... when I read it, I can't see any other interpretation. Obviously I'm missing something, but what?

Because of the proliferation of aftermarket LC mags for guns which never were produced with them, like the 1911, the interpretation is that the greater license (any LTC for a long arm; an LTC/A for a handgun) is not required unless and until the "large capacity" mag is also in the shooter's possession.

If you're shooting that 1911 with a snail drum mag (first produced for WWI air crews), you'd better have an "A." If you're putting banana mags in your 10/22, you'd better have an LTC.

And dealers are NOT necessarily the best source of information. Some have a clue - some don't.

 

[dwarven1]

Because of the proliferation of aftermarket LC mags for guns which never were produced with them, like the 1911, the interpretation is that the greater license (any LTC for a long arm; an LTC/A for a handgun) is not required unless and until the "large capacity" mag is also in the shooter's possession.

Wow... that almost sounds like you mean that MA trusts it's subjects to not get a large cap mag if they don't have the right license...

Seriously, thank you for clearing that up. I guess that's a great illustration of the difference between the law as it's written and how it's enforced.