Massachusetts Cop Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
885 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The following questions are in regards to a Class A Mass LTC Holder.

Whats the deal with "high cap" magazines in regards to handguns?.
(Capacity, civilian posession of "leo only", purchasing from out of state, etc)

What is the waiting period in Mass (Never addressed and I'm getting conflicting reports)

What is the legality of things such as folding ./ telescoping stocks on rifles / shotguns?

Thanks a lot in advance!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
LTC-A required to own/possess/buy handgun mags >10 round that were MFD PRIOR to 9/13/1994. Any mags (rifle or handgun) marked "LEO/Military Only" are a felony to own/possess/buy unless you fit one of those categories and they are for LE purposes (you can carry/use them off-duty, but for-instance if your department ONLY authorizes use of handguns and you buy LE AR-15 mags you have NO defense against a felony charge).

As much as mags are no longer a "controlled substance" in most states, if you live in MA you do NOT live in a "Free State" and if you bring them into MA you have committed a felony (unless you are LE). So, yes any dealer will sell them to you but you better be very careful of what you buy (when it was made, how it is marked, etc.).

Waiting period in MA: You have to wait until you clear a NICS check. Could take a few minutes and it could take a few days (or denied). MA has NO "waiting periods" as such in the laws.

Folding/telescoping stocks, bayonet mounts, rifle mags >10 rounds, shotgun mags >5 rounds, etc. all fit same basic requirements as I noted above regarding your question on high capacity handgun mags.

You're welcome!

Come to Chief Ron Glidden's Seminar on MA Firearms Laws at Braintree R&P on Sunday, 1/23/05, 9AM-12Noon. It is Free and you will learn all this and a ton of additional info. See one of my earlier posts (and I'll bump it when we get closer to the date) for more details on this event. Ron is the only person in MA who really understands the laws and what they mean (many pretend to know, but he is the true expert).
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
885 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
LenS";p="52907 said:
Folding/telescoping stocks, bayonet mounts, rifle mags >10 rounds, shotgun mags >5 rounds, etc. all fit same basic requirements as I noted above regarding your question on high capacity handgun mags.
So any of thos products made before 1994 are legit?
 

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
On the stocks and such: If your gun is a PREBAN gun and configured as such PRIOR to the ban you can have it in MA.
Now that the ban is gone in most other states, they can have new guns with those old evil features. We can not.

There is a REAL problem with the magazines...in the old days no magazines were marked, then they were marked LE Only during the ban, now they are not being marked anymore...so my concern is how do you prove that your old preban mags are really preban? A bit scary if you ask me. Now certainly if you have a high capacity magazine for a gun made after the AWB first took place that's an easy GO TO JAIL...but what happens if a guy get's stopped with an old sig and an old preban mag...hmmmm.

Curious EMT";p="52845 said:
The following questions are in regards to a Class A Mass LTC Holder.

Whats the deal with "high cap" magazines in regards to handguns?.
(Capacity, civilian posession of "leo only", purchasing from out of state, etc)

What is the waiting period in Mass (Never addressed and I'm getting conflicting reports)

What is the legality of things such as folding ./ telescoping stocks on rifles / shotguns?

Thanks a lot in advance!
 

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
Yes and Sort of:

1. Yes that's the spirit of the law. It may be hard for your to prove a magazine is a real preban magazine now that magazines are not marked anymore.

2. The guns would have to be configured as an "assault wepaon" prior to the ban. You couldn't buy a preban gun, then configure it with all the evil features today -that's making a "new" assault weapon .

Example:
Colt preban, switch out the stock to a new style M4 or club foot...a quick no no because both were post 1994.

Curious EMT";p="52908 said:
LenS";p="52907 said:
Folding/telescoping stocks, bayonet mounts, rifle mags >10 rounds, shotgun mags >5 rounds, etc. all fit same basic requirements as I noted above regarding your question on high capacity handgun mags.
So any of thos products made before 1994 are legit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
To SOT's point:

- Dealers are like real estate agents! Many will tell you anything to make a sale! The burden of proof will be on the possessor of the mags.

- In 10 years, I'm sure that many mags underwent modifications in materials and construction techniques. Thus, we may not be able to tell the difference, but an aspiring DA (running for higher office) who wants to "get tough on crime" may just make an example of someone and bring in experts who can testify that an unmarked mag is post-ban due to the construction. It's easy to get screwed on this one, even if you try hard to do everything legal! [GOAL knows that they couldn't get the mag ban dropped this legislative cycle, so they chose not to try to get it changed.]
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
885 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
LenS";p="52918 said:
To SOT's point:
- In 10 years, I'm sure that many mags underwent modifications in materials and construction techniques. Thus, we may not be able to tell the difference, but an aspiring DA (running for higher office) who wants to "get tough on crime" may just make an example of someone and bring in experts who can testify that an unmarked mag is post-ban due to the construction. It's easy to get screwed on this one, even if you try hard to do everything legal! [GOAL knows that they couldn't get the mag ban dropped this legislative cycle, so they chose not to try to get it changed.]
That would require an officer making an arrest on this mag. What PC would an officer have unless there's a datestap somewhere on it to be able to reasonably suspect that magazine is post-ban not pre-ban???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
That's an easy one SOT, we just wait for MA to take these rediculous laws off the books. I'll call them up and see if it can be fixed by this afternoon.
:uc:
They informed me that the state is too liberal to do anything sensible with the gun laws. :uc: I guess we're out of luck.....

SOT_II";p="52909 said:
On the stocks and such: If your gun is a PREBAN gun and configured as such PRIOR to the ban you can have it in MA.
Now that the ban is gone in most other states, they can have new guns with those old evil features. We can not.

There is a REAL problem with the magazines...in the old days no magazines were marked, then they were marked LE Only during the ban, now they are not being marked anymore...so my concern is how do you prove that your old preban mags are really preban? A bit scary if you ask me. Now certainly if you have a high capacity magazine for a gun made after the AWB first took place that's an easy GO TO JAIL...but what happens if a guy get's stopped with an old sig and an old preban mag...hmmmm.

Curious EMT";p="52845 said:
The following questions are in regards to a Class A Mass LTC Holder.

Whats the deal with "high cap" magazines in regards to handguns?.
(Capacity, civilian posession of "leo only", purchasing from out of state, etc)

What is the waiting period in Mass (Never addressed and I'm getting conflicting reports)

What is the legality of things such as folding ./ telescoping stocks on rifles / shotguns?

Thanks a lot in advance!
:uc: :uc: :uc: :uc: :uc: :HS: :uc:
 

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
To that end most of the time the mag charges are going to be "add on" charges. MV stop leads to a search, search leads to an arrest, all of a sudden those preban mags are now post ban.

Wife and husband are getting a divorce, wife takes out a restraining order on husband, police have to confiscate the guns, those preban mags are now postban.

Reply to a guy selling something on gunbroker etc. Yes these are preban magazines, (now it doesn't matter for most of the US), so he sends you a LE Mag as they are "legal" in most of the US. Now what? Or what if it's unmarked and the wrapper is clearly dates it as a post AWB mag.

This mag thing is dangerous not because it limits the capacity (although that sort of sucks) but because there is little way to prove your post bans are just that.

When I was 18, 19 I bought 4 ruger 10/22's and dressed them up in folding stocks and bought BOXES of 25 round magazines. I've moved about 8 times since then, 1t's be 15 or so years. Some of those mags are NIW still. How do I prove it?

Curious EMT";p="52947 said:
LenS";p="52918 said:
To SOT's point:
- In 10 years, I'm sure that many mags underwent modifications in materials and construction techniques. Thus, we may not be able to tell the difference, but an aspiring DA (running for higher office) who wants to "get tough on crime" may just make an example of someone and bring in experts who can testify that an unmarked mag is post-ban due to the construction. It's easy to get screwed on this one, even if you try hard to do everything legal! [GOAL knows that they couldn't get the mag ban dropped this legislative cycle, so they chose not to try to get it changed.]
That would require an officer making an arrest on this mag. What PC would an officer have unless there's a datestap somewhere on it to be able to reasonably suspect that magazine is post-ban not pre-ban???
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
885 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
SOT_II";p="52953 said:
When I was 18, 19 I bought 4 ruger 10/22's and dressed them up in folding stocks and bought BOXES of 25 round magazines. I've moved about 8 times since then, 1t's be 15 or so years. Some of those mags are NIW still. How do I prove it?
How does the police / da prove it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Curious EMT";p="53018 said:
SOT_II";p="52953 said:
When I was 18, 19 I bought 4 ruger 10/22's and dressed them up in folding stocks and bought BOXES of 25 round magazines. I've moved about 8 times since then, 1t's be 15 or so years. Some of those mags are NIW still. How do I prove it?
How does the police / da prove it?
Just remember, as soon as you need to hire an attorney to defend yourself, YOU LOST!

It'll cost you big $, you get an arrest record that never goes away and that you need to explain away on every job application, LTC application, etc. And it WILL affect people's perception of you and cost you job opportunities thru life.

If you doubt me, I can give you the name and phone number of someone who is living proof of the above! I know of someone who is a real know-it-all jerk, did everything wrong, and proceeded to get arrested for "trespassing" inside a PD (his real crime was probably best described by Joseph Wambaugh as "contempt of cop" in his excellent books). The charges were bogus, the DA wanted to drop the case but the PD insisted on pursuing it (no doubt the PD probably had had enough of his antics over the years) and after many court appearances (over a year or so, IIRC), $20K in legal fees (although he did a lot of "representing himself" since he considers himself an "expert" on the US Constitution), the judge dismissed all the charges. His attempts to expunge the arrest record failed and he's now suing the judge, police chief, 5 or 6 officers, ADA and anyone else he can think of. Two other Constables and myself refused to serve the lawsuit papers for him, as did the Sheriff's Office.

So, although the law may read "innocent until proven guilty", the system works against you if you are ever charged with a crime. You will forever be punished by the arrest record.

I recently asked GOAL about trying to get the high-cap mag ban dropped, because I foresee some good people getting jammed up, but I was told that we don't have the support in the legislature to get this passed. It'll take some "super good guy" getting jammed up real bad to get the publicity necessary to change minds about this law. Don't know about you, but I have no desire to be the "poster boy" to get the law changed.
 

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
It doesn't matter, if you are arrested it's that hassle that's not worth it.
To the end of actual forensic proof...over the years the magazines have been made different. It's sort of easy to tell on some, not so easy on others.
But again you may have to prove they are NOT...and exactly how would you do that? Spend a lot of money or have receipts dating back to the purchase date.

Curious EMT";p="53018 said:
SOT_II";p="52953 said:
When I was 18, 19 I bought 4 ruger 10/22's and dressed them up in folding stocks and bought BOXES of 25 round magazines. I've moved about 8 times since then, 1t's be 15 or so years. Some of those mags are NIW still. How do I prove it?
How does the police / da prove it?
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
simple answer, carry 10 rnd mags, if ur are worried about the amount of ammo u carry then simply carry an extra 10 rnd mag.

hey Dan H i thought u were a ruger fan? whats up with your avatar! u looking at para's now?
 

·
Thread Killa
Joined
·
6,056 Posts
That's entirely NOT the point.
It an issue of having three types of magazines in this world legal high caps, illegal high caps, and illegal high caps that look just like the legal high caps. Not how many rounds you can or can not carry. MA in it's wisdom has put a hwole "class" of people in a position to get screwed over for no good reason except for a "feel good" bit of law making.

EOD1";p="53370 said:
simple answer, carry 10 rnd mags, if ur are worried about the amount of ammo u carry then simply carry an extra 10 rnd mag.

hey Dan H i thought u were a ruger fan? whats up with your avatar! u looking at para's now?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
Macop";p="53558 said:
Keep it simple, become a cop and carry high cap, concealed anywhere in the country.
That is still a risky business!

See my post of yesterday in another thread on FOPA. Seems like BATFE has determined that hi-cap mags aren't covered under FOPA (only the gun). NJ doesn't allow retired LEOs to carry HP ammo and I've read that they are considering arresting visiting LEOs that carry HP ammo (which is probably 99% of all LEOs these days). . . they could take the same position on hi-caps and it wouldn't surprise me. MPTC has posted on their website that ALL firearms quals are suspended until further notice, making me wonder if this the way they will avoid the question of re-cert of retired LEOs in MA.

The law that was passed wasn't really a panacea if you read it carefully. Personally I think it was very poorly written, leaving lots of problem areas as traps for some asshole LEO (and most departments have at least one) or administrator to flex his muscles.
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,712 Posts
Ya know...............

The whole idea behind HR 218 was for enhancing homeland security and public safety in general by empowering/encouraging a group of certified/trained individuals to carry weapons off-duty without being restricted by state/municipal foolishness.
:roll:
F*CK BATF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Attorney General of the U.S. and Justice Department needs to do a better job of reining in and overseeing those bureaucratic ******* who should perhaps focus on illicit gun trade issues rather than what COP is carry what off-duty!!!!
:evil:
And for every state/municipal prosecutor who goes forward with charges against any qualified LEO carrying under HR 218
:FM:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
456 Posts
mpd61";p="53710 said:
Ya know...............

The whole idea behind HR 218 was for enhancing homeland security and public safety in general by empowering/encouraging a group of certified/trained individuals to carry weapons off-duty without being restricted by state/municipal foolishness.
:roll:
F*CK BATF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Attorney General of the U.S. and Justice Department needs to do a better job of reining in and overseeing those bureaucratic ******* who should perhaps focus on illicit gun trade issues rather than what COP is carry what off-duty!!!!
:evil:
And for every state/municipal prosecutor who goes forward with charges against any qualified LEO carrying under HR 218
:FM:
HR218 (or something like it) was a dream of LEAA when they were formed. Some version of this bill was filed every legislative session going back to at least 1990 (and probably earlier). It didn't have a "state qual requirements" provision IIRC, a "bug" that caused the FL AG to declare that NO retired LEOs living in FL qualify under HR218 (they don't have "state standards" for qual). HR218 (the final version) was written by a union (FOP) to protect only union members, leaving retired PT LEOs (even though we qualified as often as FT POs) and a number of small town FT LEOs out in the cold when they retire because they don't get a pension! When this was first proposed, terrorism in the US was not part of the equation. And according to the response that I received from my DA to a theoretical query, if you are outside your jurisdiction (off-duty) and spot a terrorist lining up an RPG to take out an airplane and you shoot him, expect to be charged with murder! [I'm not kidding here.]

As for the AG, the new AG (to be confirmed) released the following info. Do you really think he wants folks (even retired LEOs) to carry guns? I think not!

HoustonChronicle.com -- http://www.HoustonChronicle.com | Section: National

Jan. 18, 2005, 1:59PM

AG nominee supports assault weapons ban
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales told the Senate today that he supports extending the expired federal assault weapons ban.

Gonzales also said he wants Congress to get rid of a requirement that would eliminate part of the Patriot Act this year, despite complaints that it is too intrusive.

"I believe the USA PATRIOT Act has greatly improved our nation's ability to detect and prevent terrorist attacks," Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee in written answers to questions left over from his confirmation hearing.

Gonzales, who served as President Bush's lawyer during his first term, is expected to be confirmed when the Senate returns after Bush's inauguration Thursday. He would be the nation's first Hispanic attorney general and replace John Ashcroft.

Democrats, including Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., pressed Gonzales for written answers to several of their questions during his daylong confirmation hearing. Those answers were delivered today to the committee, which planned a Wednesday meeting to consider nominations.

Congress let the 10-year-old assault weapons ban expire in September. The measure outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons, banned certain features on firearms such as bayonet mounts, and limited ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

Gonzales pointed out that his brother Tony is a SWAT officer in Houston.

"I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street," Gonzales said. "The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."

Antigun groups criticized Bush during the presidential campaign for failing to press for an extension of the ban.
.
.
.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top