Unlawful Possession of Ammunition in Massachusetts?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sure this question comes up from time to time. "Who came up with this idea of "Firearm ID Cards" ? " Probably from someone you never heard of, a little history.


Both Massachusetts and Illinois got their inspiration for the ID from New Jersey Firearms ID law dating way back in 1966. Illinois started their FID scheme about 1968 and Mass did sometime later.

The person one has to 'thank' for the idea for these FID schemes is former Attorney General Arthur Sills of New Jersey. Mr. Sills was the architect for the FID scheme, he helped craft the law in NJ and also helped give input to Thomas Dodd on the 1968 GCA hearings and legislation.

Some have speculated that the idea for the Firearms ID card system might have come out of Germany's gun control act from the 1930's. But since we are talking about the U.S.,... Mr. Sills was a major player in gun control legislation in this country even though he was just an Attorney General from New Jersey.

Maybe someone more versed in the history of Massachusetts' gun control laws can explain more in depth on why it was implemented. Furthermore, I believe that there was a ballot with a proposal to ban all handguns in the Commonwealth Of Massachusetts back in the 70's or 80's. Perhaps there is a connection between that proposal and the FID law in Mass.
 
Last edited:
Frank Ettin said:
No, Woody. In Massachusetts that is not right. See posts 4 and 6.
Click to expand...

Frank,

I'm aware of the law in Massachusetts. I used to live there. I was being a bit facetious by stating the only viable definition of "unlawful possession" of something Second Amendment related would have to be stolen. I guess a smiley face emoticon would have helped.

Woody

"There is nothing to fear in this country from free people. But, when freedom is usurped, there is something to fear for people will revolt to remain free. To all usurpers, do the math. But don't wonder the outcome when you miscalculate." B.E.Wood
 
ConstitutionCowboy said:
...the only viable definition of "unlawful possession" of something Second Amendment related would have to be stolen...
Click to expand...
That's not true until/unless a court so rules. And a discussion along those lines would be beyond the scope of this thread.

So stay on topic.
 
michaelbsc said:
Let me see if I understand this. When we go visit my wife's family in MA, it isn't sufficient that I don't bring a gun in the car. I am still breaking the law if I happen to have a box of .22LR shells laying in the trunk? Even if I have nothing to put them in? This is what it means?
Click to expand...


Yep, that's pretty much it. Don't you feel safer already?
 
That's not true until/unless a court so rules.
Click to expand...

The Mass Legislature could repeal it as well.

Let me see if I understand this. When we go visit my wife's family in MA, it isn't sufficient that I don't bring a gun in the car. I am still breaking the law if I happen to have a box of .22LR shells laying in the trunk? Even if I have nothing to put them in? This is what it means?
Click to expand...

Yes, along with at least one year in prison and a felony on your record, meaning anywhere you go in the US after that you may not by law have firearms as a result of something you can do that is NOT against the law in most of the rest of the states. There is obviously something wrong with that.

Woody
 
michaelbsc said:
Let me see if I understand this. When we go visit my wife's family in MA, it isn't sufficient that I don't bring a gun in the car. I am still breaking the law if I happen to have a box of .22LR shells laying in the trunk? Even if I have nothing to put them in? This is what it means?

So I've got to inspect the trunk of the car like a paranoid mental patient just in case officer O'Mally might check the trunk?

What do they think I'm going to do? Stick them in my mouth and bite the primers hoping I can direct the projectiles? What a way to hold up a liquor store! How do you mumble "Give me all the money" with a mouth full of bullets?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the fears of my morning commute to NEW JERSEY (cue Toccata and Fugue in D minor)

That said I thought New Jersey was insane. I have enough paranoia with thoughts of leaving hp ammo or gun (though more ammo) in the car, but man god forbid someone else was driving the car and say some 22lrs were there in Mass.

I mean it's ridiculous since the ammo alone can't do anything...well unless some idiot eats it or does the coke/bullet powder mix.

Reminds me of when a 5.56 round was in my winter dress coat and I was standing in a NJ transit station (I found it when I put my hands in my pocket). I quickly took it out looked at it, realized what it was and chucked it in the trash. Now granted it was just brass and I didn't have an AR then, I was still a little worried. Hell I figure some in LE in NJ (not all and not meant to be a slam on NJ LE) would take that as a reason to do a Terry Frisk, and to try at least not sure it would stand up as probable cause, and conduct a regular search and while most likely just delaying and creeping me out, other bad things could occur. Of course chucking it in the trash with my finger prints on it didn't help (similar to the great routine by the late Patrice O'Neil on why he never littered). Funny thing was I knew (not personally) who it belonged to the night before, meaning my fingerprints and his was on it. Still normally spent brass shouldn't be an issue, when you you go to NEW JERSEY being paranoid isn't really paranoia.
 
ConstitutionCowboy said:
The Mass Legislature could repeal it as well.



Yes, along with at least one year in prison and a felony on your record, meaning anywhere you go in the US after that you may not by law have firearms as a result of something you can do that is NOT against the law in most of the rest of the states. There is obviously something wrong with that.

Woody
Click to expand...
It is not just firearms either. What is perfectly acceptable and normal in one state will get you a felony in another state applies to other items as well. We have to be careful of where we travel and to become almost experts on the laws of the states that we visit in order to stay out of trouble.

For instance here in KY, one can smoke (cigarettes) in a city park. In some areas of NJ, smoking in a city park will get you a $1000 fine. Getting caught with fireworks in your trunk of your car won't even illicit a yawn from law enforcement in some states. In another state, it could be serious jail time and a huge fine. A BB gun in one state won't get a response out of most people. In some states having what amounts to a child's toy can lead to 7 to 10 years jail time if caught in the 'wrong place'.

We need to be aware of the laws whether we like them or not. We can visit or choose not to visit the state. It should not be this way, it is free country and we have rights..etc. But it is what it is. Maybe if we decide not to visit or vacation in these overly restrictive states and tourism drops off...maybe something can be changed.

My question is, where is the NRA and other national gun rights organizations in these states? The comments I have read on other forums seem to feel that the NRA threw NJ gun owners under the bus a long time ago in order to concentrate on states and issues that they CAN win.

Maybe if more people did more, spent more, educated more, more gun owners in other states banding together unified to protect gun owners in other states...maybe today we would not have had the problems in these states like Mass, Ill and NJ. Maybe this thread would not even exist...

What really is the solution then?
 
What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't these states understand.
I guess the residents not only need new representatives, and repeal of these ridiclous laws, but they need so me new residents with the nerve to stand up against this infringement of their God given rights.
NY, NJ and MASS are on my ?avoid at all cost" list.
It's a crying shame that this country was founded on laws protecting us from government control, and the laws now prevent even the simplest form of protection from the same intrusion.
Why don't the citizens stand up against this level of rule. They're letting their rights be taken away from them in less time than the constitution took to be written.

Now I know whay some people call it Mess-a-two-shtts
Gearchecker
 
elrowe said:
(h) Possession of rifles and shotguns and ammunition therefor by nonresidents traveling in or through the commonwealth, providing that any rifles or shotguns are unloaded and enclosed in a case;"
Click to expand...


The part you cited applies to ammunition of rifles and shotguns.
Is there anything similar for handgun ammo?
Or is handgun ammo illegal and not exempted without permit?



I am going to presume that handgun ammo is not exempt because handguns require a state issued permit just to legally possess in the state even unloaded and locked up within a home.

In that case carrying a loose handgun round in the car would be a crime.


What defines a handgun round?
That is why people say not to talk to the police. If in conversation after they found it you just said it was a loose round, that you have a CCW in another state and it went to that, you meant nothing wrong...:
BAM you just admitted to illegal possession of handgun ammunition.
Not knowing that if it was argued as pistol caliber carbine ammunition by a lawyer that knew the laws before speaking perhaps it would be an invalid charge as 'rifle' ammunition.
By offering evidence that it did in fact go to a handgun you confirmed it as handgun ammunition creating evidence to convict you in court.



So a single pistol round possessed by an out of state resident would be a crime?
 
Zoogster said:
elrowe said:



The part you cited applies to ammunition of rifles and shotguns.
Is there anything similar for handgun ammo?
Or is handgun ammo illegal and not exempted without permit?



I am going to presume that handgun ammo is not exempt because handguns require a state issued permit just to legally possess in the state even unloaded and locked up within a home.



In that case carrying a loose handgun round in the car would be a crime.


What defines a handgun round?
That is why people say not to talk to the police. If in conversation after they found it you just said it was a loose round, that you have a CCW in another state and it went to that, you meant nothing wrong...:
BAM you just admitted to illegal possession of handgun ammunition.
Not knowing that if it was argued as pistol caliber carbine ammunition by a lawyer that knew the laws before speaking perhaps it would be an invalid charge as 'rifle' ammunition.
By offering evidence that it did in fact go to a handgun you confirmed it as handgun ammunition creating evidence to convict you in court.



So a single pistol round possessed by an out of state resident would be a crime?
Click to expand...
I can't get us that far down the road. For simplicity's sake, I'll continue to avoid Mass just like I avoid IL to stay out of jail, but my guess is that a 9mm round would cause a SCOTUS case with you waiting in jail until resolved. Would be a really interesting case if you had a .44 mag rifle and .44 mag ammo in the same truck on your way to Vermont. Hmm, I'm currently unemployed, might be worth a shot... A valid VT moose permit would really help the case - anyone know a way to get one? For what it's worth, I'm not only a KY CCDW permit holder, but an instructor too, but MA doesn't recognize my permit - wonder if that would stand up - since they recognize other states' permits, but don't really.
 
Last edited:
Another reason you NEVER consent to have your vehicle searched without a warrent.
Click to expand...

Refusing a search without a warrant is a sure way to get searched. All you are doing is delaying the inevitable for a short period of time.
 
I live in MA and can say it has the worst gun laws. This story is a cautionary tale and he was ignorant towards the law.

Getting your LTC-A in this state is difficult and the laws just don't make sense.
 
gyvel said:
Refusing a search without a warrant is a sure way to get searched. All you are doing is delaying the inevitable for a short period of time.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Even if you get searched anyways the legality of things are very different. A search due to consent need not demonstrate any probable cause or any other burden. A lawyer cannot pull any magical legal maneuvers in court to throw anything out or work with things.
However the same lawyer may very well be able to demonstrate or cast doubt on the legality of a search that had to meet certain criteria to be performed.
Lawyers get things thrown out in court all the time that are the central component of a case on such technicalities.

Plus I would never give consent to a search even with nothing to find. If the cop damages something or goes overboard I reserve every right to sue for damages, replacement parts, or whatever else.
I also don't know there is nothing to find, sometimes other people are in my vehicle, and there is also laws I don't know about that outlaw some pretty mundane things.
Did you know it is a crime to have a hidden compartment in a car in some states?
While in other states they put them in to contain anything from an extra phone, spare money, etc
You don't know the thousands of pages of laws, and it is best to have every possible option available to a lawyer if something goes wrong.
You remove a lot of their options if you gave consent.
 
Refusing a search without a warrant is a sure way to get searched. All you are doing is delaying the inevitable for a short period of time.
Click to expand...

No, consenting to a search is a sure way to get searched. If the officer actually has a good case for probable cause, he's not going to ask if he can search; he'll dive right in. If you consent to a search, whatever is found is admissible as evidence thanks to you waving your fourth amendment rights. You don't have to be a jerk, however. Simply say in response to being asked, "No, officer. I don't consent to any searches. There's simply nothing to find and it would be wasting your time as well as mine."
 
Consenting to a search is never a good idea, and rrefusal itself can never be used as the justification (legally, anyway) for the search. If there is enough probable cause to conduct a search, a refusal won't mean anything. If you are arrested, they can search the area within your reach incident to arrest. If they suspect drug activity, you can be detained a reasonable amount of time until a K9 unit arrives. No warrant is needed for a sniff of gthe exterior of your car, but a positive indication is considered valid probable cause for a search. Refusing a search doesn't always means you aren't going to GET searched, but it means you didn't do the officer's job for him and willingly hand him any evidence that you may or may not be awware of in your vehicle. The idea that a refusal gurantees a search however is fundamentally flawed and not rooted in any legal concepts. There are strict rules as to when a search can occur, and a refusal to give permission in and of itself doesn't justify a search in any of the 50 states
 
Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey are pretty insane and messy. Anyone living there please run for office (change starts locally) and reform the laws on ammo and firearms back to sanity. Remember to remind people that "Gun Control" laws are rooted in old "Jim Crow" racist ideals.
 
Hugo said:
Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey are pretty insane and messy. Anyone living there please run for office (change starts locally) and reform the laws on ammo and firearms back to sanity. Remember to remind people that "Gun Control" laws are rooted in old "Jim Crow" racist ideals.
Click to expand...

Next time an ammunition ship pulls into Boston Harbor, dress up like Mohawks and dump the ammunition into the harbor.

Hard to imagine that the state which started the American Revolution over suppression of liberty has such laws. The first shots of the Revolution were fired trying to protect ammunition stores which the British proclaimed illegal.
 
There is another thing if you force them to get a warrent...they have to tell the judge what they are looking for, so let's say the warrant says they want to look for drugs, but find that box of .22 ammo? Not admissible.

I don't know why, but I've seen a lot of it on TV and a lot of talk about officers wanting to search an automobile but the only place I have ever had my trunk opened by any kind of Law enforcement is coming back from Canada, and they do that as routine these days. Not sure if that is totally legal, but they do it, and I don't object.
 
No, consenting to a search is a sure way to get searched. If the officer actually has a good case for probable cause, he's not going to ask if he can search; he'll dive right in.
Click to expand...

Depends on the officer. Smart ones will ask even if they think they have PC just in case a judge later decides that they didn't have PC. As one of my instructors once told me: "permission covers all manner of sins." Either way it's best to politely say no and not elaborate as to why not. Sometimes you end up saying too much when you say more than "no."

There is another thing if you force them to get a warrent...they have to tell the judge what they are looking for, so let's say the warrant says they want to look for drugs, but find that box of .22 ammo? Not admissible.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They have to tell the judge what they're looking for, and why they think you have it, so the judge can determine if it's a valid reason to search. It also sets some limits on exactly where they can search. E.G. If they want to search your garage for a stolen car it's not reasonable to look inside the heating ducts for it. That having been said, if they're looking for drugs, and find illegal guns (or ammo in this case) you're going to be charged for the guns and it's not likely to get thrown out unless they looked somewhere they weren't allowed or lied on the afadavit for the warrant.
 
This is more a case of a idiot/possible criminal than stupid MA laws. If he had a valid drivers license he couldve flexed his right and refused a search of his vehicle and wouldve been fine. Unless search and seizure laws are skewed in MA too

Bottom line. Follow the law or get out of the state/country

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
arrested for possessing ammo?
Replies
5
Views
599
rbernie
rbernie
D
  • Locked
Lynn Man Convicted for Illegally Transporting Firearms From Alabama to Massachusetts
Replies
19
Views
1K
Tory
T
D
  • Locked
(NJ) Firearm charges are filed after handgun discharges
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
WT
W
D
  • Locked
Yet another illegal "arsenal" found
2 3
Replies
65
Views
3K
jimpeel
J
M
  • Locked
THIS is the cause of MA's gun crime problem.
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
rhubarb
R
Back
Top