Magazine Capacity Restrictions and FFL Holders

T

turkeestalker

New member
I ask this because I had an online auction to sell some high capacity magazines on an online firearms auction site. I had stated in the auction that they were available for sale where legal. The winning bid came from an individual in MA, which has a magazine capacity restriction of ten rounds.
When I addressed this with the auction winner, he said that it was no big deal but if I would feel better about it I could ship them to his FFL holder that does his transfers. I phoned his transfer guy and he concurred what the winning bidder said.
Something doesn't feel right about the whole thing to me.
Not looking to start an argument and I realize that it's kind of vague but...

Can an FFL holder in a state with a magazine capacity restriction receive magazines with a greater capacity than the restriction simply because they hold an FFL?
 
If you're not certain of the law in a state, then I wouldn't sell it there.
Something seems funny about what you mentioned. And how do you know the FFL is in reality a legit FFL ?(had a discussion with "an FFL" that turned out to be a crook using someone elses FFL).

From what you've said, if it were me, I'd cancel it. Who knows, it might be legit, or it might be a sting, or a gangbanger.
 
turkeestalker said:
When I addressed this with the auction winner, he said that it was no big deal but if I would feel better about it I could ship them to his FFL holder that does his transfers. I phoned his transfer guy and he concurred what the winning bidder said.
Click to expand...
"No big deal" does not necessarily equate to "legal."
 
I agree Aguila.
He emailed me the contact info for his transfer guy, but I looked the shop up on the internet to verify that it was legit. That however doesn't mean that they do in fact hold an FFL as it was a 'gunsmith' shop.

I called my local ATF office and posed the question, sadly they said that they did not know and could not answer.
They gave me the number of the MA ATF Industry Operations Dept. and I did phone and left a message. I'm betting that I'll not get a response until Monday maybe. I was just hoping that it would be a simple question with a simple answer that a member here could shed some light on.
 
turkeestalker said:
...I called my local ATF office and posed the question, sadly they said that they did not know and could not answer. ....
Click to expand...
No, ATF wouldn't be able to help. This is a state law issue.

Also I certainly wouldn't rely on the FFL for advice. Some know what they are doing. On the other hand, I've heard some preposterous, and wrong, legal information from FFLs.
 
I did an Internet search on Massachsetts laws and firearms magazine capacity. Curiously, one of the first hits was a legal research document from MA neighbor Connecticut:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0039.htm

It says, in regard to Massachusetts:

Massachusetts prohibits anyone from possessing, transferring, selling, or offering large capacity feeding devices for sale, unless they were lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140 § 131M). The ban does not apply to attached tubular devices designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber ammunition (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140 §§ 131M & 121). It also does not apply to (1) manufacturers or wholesalers, (2) law enforcement officers who possess the devices for law enforcement purposes, and (3) any retired law enforcement officer not otherwise prohibited from receiving the devices from his or her agency upon retirement.
Click to expand...
This research document was compiled in January of 2013, so it's not that old. But ... laws change. It also offers a reference to the MA statute, so ...

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140 § 121 said:
''Large capacity feeding device'', (i) a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; or (ii) a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994. The term ''large capacity feeding device'' shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.
Click to expand...


Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140 § 131M said:
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; 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.
Click to expand...
The last two citations are directly from the Massachusetts state web site. It seems pretty clear to me that, since you aren't in Massachusetts, nobody in Massachusetts could have lawfully possessed your magazines prior to September 13, 1994, which means the prospective buyer's "no big deal" very much does not equate to "legal." It's unclear if the law would apply to you as a seller if you are out of state, but it's perhaps possible. It's clearly not legal for him (or his FFL, since FFLs are not excepted) to possess or to transfer large capacity magazines.
 
The last two citations are directly from the Massachusetts state web site. It seems pretty clear to me that, since you aren't in Massachusetts, nobody in Massachusetts could have lawfully possessed your magazines prior to September 13, 1994, which means the prospective buyer's "no big deal" very much does not equate to "legal."
Click to expand...

I had actually found that this morning prior to leaving for work, copied it and took it with me in order to phone the winner when I had time through the day. He attempted to spin it as meaning that it was manufactured before September of 94. I attempted to point out that it is not talking about manufacture date but physical possession. That was when he suggested that I send it to his FFL guy instead of directly to him.

Not entirely sure how it will play out, but I'm all but certain I'll be returning his check that he said was already mailed yesterday and relisting the magazines with a more specific disclaimer regarding 'where legal'.
 
Turkeystalker showed great insight when he noted
Not entirely sure how it will play out, but I'm all but certain I'll be returning his check that he said was already mailed yesterday and relisting the magazines with a more specific disclaimer regarding 'where legal'.
Click to expand...

Discretion is clearly the better part of valor in this case.
 
turkeestalker said:
I had actually found that this morning prior to leaving for work, copied it and took it with me in order to phone the winner when I had time through the day. He attempted to spin it as meaning that it was manufactured before September of 94. I attempted to point out that it is not talking about manufacture date but physical possession.
Click to expand...
I'm on your side. The law very plainly addresses possession, not manufacture. I guess it's a grandfather provision -- if someone in Massachusetts possessed a "high capacity" magazine prior to the date in the law, that magazine can thereafter be lawfully transferred within Massachusetts. I don't see any way it can be spun to allow for importation after the drop-dead date.
 
The law refers to Section 122. I just looked that up, and it appears that Section 122 does allow Massachusetts-licensed gun dealers to possess high capacity magazines. However, I don't think that means gun dealers are allowed to import and sell within the state non-grandfathered high capacity magazines.
 
It seems pretty clear to me that, since you aren't in Massachusetts, nobody in Massachusetts could have lawfully possessed your magazines prior to September 13, 1994, which means the prospective buyer's "no big deal" very much does not equate to "legal."
Click to expand...
I'm not an expert on MA law, but here's my take.

The law does not say that the magazines must be "lawfully possessed in Massachusetts" prior to the cutoff date. It just says that they must be lawfully possessed" prior to the cutoff date. Unless there's a clarification somewhere in the law, it seems reasonable to assume that if they were lawfully possessed, period, at the time of the stated date, that they would qualify. Even if they were lawfully possessed outside of the state of MA.

In other words, if I'm reading it correctly, that clause in the law is only intended to distinguish between post-ban and pre-ban mags.

Some quick & dirty internet searches seem to lend credence to the idea that the MA law is typically interpreted to place limitations on ownership of mags manufactured after the cutoff date.
 
That is a better explanation of what the auction winner was trying to get across John.
I suppose that the call I made should have been not to the ATF Industry Operations Office in Massachusetts but the Attorney General's office there based on what Frank said?

Another point that the auction winner made was that the law now prohibits ARs and AKs as they are defined as 'assault weapons'. These magazines are for a Mini 14, and he said that he has been buying a bunch of them as well as having purchased four of the rifles recently because of the latest ban imposed.
Apparently he is capitalizing on the profit potential as the Ruger Minis have not been specifically deemed illegal.

The auction is in my opinion a binding agreement provided it is conducted within the law.
I don't want to cheat the guy out of something that he is legally purchasing because I'm afraid of breaking the law as I wouldn't want that to happen to me as a buyer.
Though I guess that I should have, I never anticipated being in this sort of situation because of the auction.
 
Last edited:
Really a dumb question, but can you be prosecuted in Missouri for breaking a Massachusetts law while in Missouri?
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Ruger sells their 20 round mags to Massachusetts residents. That should be easy to determine and if they don't, I wouldn't.

Better one PO'd customer than the hassle of lawyers and who knows what sort of difficulties with the Massachusetts legal/enforcements types.
 
So are your magazines pre-ban (manufactured before September xx, 1994), or are the post-ban (manufactured after September xx, 1994)? I thought Ruger didn't make any magazines larger than ten rounds while Bill Ruger was alive, and that that was one of the reasons he advocated for a ten-round magazine capacity limit when the feds adopted the AWB in 1994.
 
These are not Ruger brand magazines.
They have no markings on them so I can not say for certain who the manufacturer was or when they were made.
The winning bidder said that he could tell by the auction photo that they were manufactured prior to, but I couldn't honestly tell you myself.
 
I suppose that the call I made should have been not to the ATF Industry Operations Office in Massachusetts but the Attorney General's office there based on what Frank said?
Click to expand...
I would definitely try to get a read from someone who is in the know about MA laws.
I thought Ruger didn't make any magazines larger than ten rounds while Bill Ruger was alive, and that that was one of the reasons he advocated for a ten-round magazine capacity limit when the feds adopted the AWB in 1994.
Click to expand...
That was the nutty thing about Ruger's advocating the AWB. Ruger made magazines holding more than 10 rounds for a number of their firearms and even sold mags with over 10 round capacity for all their semi-auto pistols to the general public. As far as I know, it was only the Mini-14/Mini-30 mags above 10 rounds capacity that Ruger wouldn't sell to the public.
 
Bozz10mm said:
Really a dumb question, but can you be prosecuted in Missouri for breaking a Massachusetts law while in Missouri?
Click to expand...
Sort of.

If you are physically present in State A and conspire to violate, or aid and abet the violation of, laws of State B, under some circumstances you could be extradited to State B and prosecuted in State B.
 
I am unsure just how the MA law will be interpreted by a court. Until/unless that happens, it can be argued different ways. The NY law (the "SAFE" act) apparently ALLOWS FFLs to posess (and purchase) "high capacity" magazines. They can sell them to the police. I understand that one of the "approved" ways a private citizen in NY can get rid of the now illegal mags is to sell them to an FFL. (NY folks, if this is incorrect, please clarify it for us).

MA law might be approximately the same, or it might be different, I just don't know, and I doubt many do.


That was the nutty thing about Ruger's advocating the AWB.
Click to expand...

To me, the "nutty" thing is the current belief that Ruger advocated for the AWB. He didn't. His statement about a 10 rnd mag might seem to be such, but only when taken out of context, which, it almost always is, these days.

The LAW was coming. A magazine restriction WAS coming, they had the votes, and no power on earth was going to stop it. What the limit should be was under discussion, and 5, 6, and 7 rounds were being proposed as the new legal limit. Ruger suggested 10rnds, "If you are going to have a limit" And it was accepted by the antis.

But instead of getting credit for saving us from WORSE with the 10rnd suggestion, Ruger gets vilified for "limiting us TO ten rounds".

Our memories are very selective, indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top