Traveling from Nevada to Massachusetts

[442js]

I will be driving from Nevada to Massachusetts through Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. I have a permit from NV and non-resident UT. I know which states will honor my permit, and which ones don't. I won't be stopping in NJ or NY, but will be spending several days in MD and MA before heading back.

My question is the legality of my gun. I know in MD and MA I can't have a magazine with a capacity of more than ten (which is a small problem right now since my magazines hold twenty). Assuming I fix that problem, is it legal for me to possess my Five-Seven in MD and MA? I know traveling through the other states I can lock the unloaded gun in the trunk, but since I will be stopping in MD and MA, will I have a problem with the gun? The people where I am staying with do not know I am armed, and plan to keep it that way.

Anyone have any suggestions? I am seriously considering driving across the country unarmed because I am concerned about those three states.

Thank you.

[OldOwl]

I'm not a lawyer. My understanding is that if you are traveling from ONE state where you can legally own a gun, TO another state where you can legally own that gun, you can legally transport it in any state you pass through to get there. LOCKED UP. However. I'd be concerned about the high capacity magazines.

I travel a lot. I lock my pistol up in a steel box unloaded, and my mags and ammo locked in a different steel box, and lock them in the back of my truck WAY out of sight. When I get to the state I'm staying in, I keep it loaded under my pillow in the hotel at night and secure it locked up again during the day. But that's just me.

Two words of advise.

"assachusetts sucks."

[G50AE]

Two words of advise.

"assachusetts sucks."

So is this a case of the Phoenix rising out of it's own ashes in Nevada to fly with the Owls in MA?

[Islander]

FOPA protects you from prosecution, period. If your mags are legal in the states to which and from which you are travelling, they are legal to transport as long as you comply with FOPA. Technically you are only covered while travelling. Any state "could" arrest you if you stop, even to pee. I know it is not likely, but based on the Revell decision, that is currently the case.

If you MUST stop in a state in which you cannot possess the firearm, carry through all the legal states, then mail it to yourself at your destination before crossing into the restricted states.

Otherwise, F those restrictive states! Buy your gas and eat your lunch before you cross the border, then cruise through at the speed limit and leave nothing behind but perhaps a spittle of disgust out your window.

[paulk]

I will be driving from Nevada to Massachusetts through Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. I have a permit from NV and non-resident UT. I know which states will honor my permit, and which ones don't. I won't be stopping in NJ or NY, but will be spending several days in MD and MA before heading back.

My question is the legality of my gun. I know in MD and MA I can't have a magazine with a capacity of more than ten (which is a small problem right now since my magazines hold twenty). Assuming I fix that problem, is it legal for me to possess my Five-Seven in MD and MA? I know traveling through the other states I can lock the unloaded gun in the trunk, but since I will be stopping in MD and MA, will I have a problem with the gun? The people where I am staying with do not know I am armed, and plan to keep it that way.

Anyone have any suggestions? I am seriously considering driving across the country unarmed because I am concerned about those three states.

Thank you.

Check out this URL for non-residents traveling into or through MA without a LTC permit.

Info For Traveling With A Firearm into and out of Massachusetts

Here's some info on large capacity feeding device.

Under Massachusetts law, a “large capacity feeding device” is defined as: “(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.” Ch. 140, § 121. This does not include “an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber ammunition.” Id.

Large capacity feeding devices designed for large capacity rifles and shotguns may be lawfully possessed by a holder of a Class A or B license to carry. Ch. 140, § 131(a), (b)(ii). Large capacity feeding devices designed for handguns may be possessed only by persons holding a Class A license to carry. Ch. 140, §
131(a)

[442js]

FOPA protects you from prosecution, period. If your mags are legal in the states to which and from which you are travelling, they are legal to transport as long as you comply with FOPA. Technically you are only covered while travelling. Any state "could" arrest you if you stop, even to pee. I know it is not likely, but based on the Revell decision, that is currently the case.

If you MUST stop in a state in which you cannot possess the firearm, carry through all the legal states, then mail it to yourself at your destination before crossing into the restricted states.

Otherwise, F those restrictive states! Buy your gas and eat your lunch before you cross the border, then cruise through at the speed limit and leave nothing behind but perhaps a spittle of disgust out your window.

I am not going on a direct route to MA as I will be stopping off in MD for a few days so that is why I have to look at laws there as well as the first leg of the trip MD is going to be my destination, and then MA will be my destination. Two really unfriendly gun states. On the way back, NV is the destination state so that isn't as big a worry.

I am beginning to think that it will be safer for me to not take the gun with me. Sad that I feel safer not having it because of concerns of getting arrested.

[442js]

Check out this URL for non-residents traveling into or through MA without a LTC permit.

Info For Traveling With A Firearm into and out of Massachusetts

Here's some info on large capacity feeding device.

Under Massachusetts law, a “large capacity feeding device” is defined as: “(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.” Ch. 140, § 121. This does not include “an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber ammunition.” Id.

Large capacity feeding devices designed for large capacity rifles and shotguns may be lawfully possessed by a holder of a Class A or B license to carry. Ch. 140, § 131(a), (b)(ii). Large capacity feeding devices designed for handguns may be possessed only by persons holding a Class A license to carry. Ch. 140, §
131(a)

Thanks for the information. Now I know I can't bring my gun if I go to MA. I don't fall under any of the exemptions so it would be illegal for me to bring the gun. Unlikely for the police to find it if locked up in the house, but won't risk it as it is illegal. Oh well, at least I know now instead of when I am in MA where I would probably be unlucky enough to get stopped.

[spc]

If you have hollow point ammunition you would be advised to investigate the rules in NJ. I do not recall the rules for those passing through but hollow point ammo was illegal for residents and I am sure the authorities would love to put a tourist on the spot even if is legal to pass through with hollow point ammo.

[Producer]

I am not going on a direct route to MA as I will be stopping off in MD for a few days so that is why I have to look at laws there as well as the first leg of the trip MD is going to be my destination, and then MA will be my destination. Two really unfriendly gun states. On the way back, NV is the destination state so that isn't as big a worry.

I am beginning to think that it will be safer for me to not take the gun with me. Sad that I feel safer not having it because of concerns of getting arrested.

You are wise to do so (leave it at home).

Even the police will admit that Mass is a strange state - you absolutely do not want to get caught here without a MA permit - or as one of the exempted groups (e.g. Federal LEO, FFDO, etc.) or attending a competition.

Don't bother trying to get an MA non-resident permit as a private citizen for self-protection purposes - if they even decide to issue it to you, it's good for only a year and costs $100. (Resident permits are good for 6 years for $100)

By the way - you also need a MA permit for chemical spray (e.g. pepper or mace).

Interestingly, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled last year that collapsible batons are legal. One of those and Kelly McCann's tactics from his DVD will do you almost as good.

COMMONWEALTH vs. AMI H. PERRY.
DOCKET SJC-10451
Dates: November 18, 2009.
KEYWORDS Dangerous Weapon. Practice, Criminal, Required finding. Words, "Blackjack."

After investigating a report of an assault, police detectives effectuated a warrantless arrest of the defendant, Ami H. Perry. He subsequently was charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon (a pencil), in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 15A (a), and violation of a licensing statute, G. L. c. 90, § 24B. The police had seized an "expandable baton" from him after arrest and, on that basis, he also was charged with carrying a dangerous weapon in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b), "to wit: a BLACKJACK."(1) Following a jury-waived trial, a judge of the District Court entered a required finding of not guilty as to the first two charges. The defendant was convicted of the third charge. The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, Commonwealth v. Perry, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1122 (2009), and this court allowed the defendant's application for further review. We reverse.

Discussion. The defendant was carrying an "expandable baton"(2) when he was taken into custody and booked. Although an expandable baton is not among the weapons specifically listed in the first portion of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b),(3) see note 1, supra, the Commonwealth charged the defendant with carrying "a dangerous weapon, to wit: a BLACKJACK, not being authorized by law to do so, in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b)." Over the defendant's objection at trial, a police detective compared the expandable baton to a blackjack, but conceded on both direct and cross-examination that the expandable baton at issue was not truly a blackjack. The detective stated: "[I]t's not my testimony that this is a blackjack, it's my testimony that it is similar in the way that it's constructed" (emphasis added).

The question is whether the evidence warranted a finding that the expandable baton was a blackjack within the meaning of the first portion of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b). In construing the statute, we begin with the observation that "[a] general tenet of statutory construction is that the 'statutory expression of one thing is an implied exclusion of other things omitted from the statute.'" Commonwealth v. Ronald R., 450 Mass. 262, 266 (2007), quoting Harborview Residents' Comm., Inc. v. Quincy Hous. Auth., 368 Mass. 425, 432 (1975).

The statute identifies a number of specific weapons that are prohibited. In some instances, the name of the weapon is followed by language describing weapons similar to the identified weapon. Thus, for example, the statute identifies several specific types of knives, but then also refers to "any [other] knife" having certain characteristics. Similarly, the statute refers to "knuckles of any substance" that can be "put to the same use with the same or similar effect" as metallic knuckles; nunchaku, zoobow "or any similar weapon" configured with two sticks connected by rope, chain, or wire; and shuriken or "any similar pointed starlike object intended to injure a person when thrown." G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b).

Other weapons, however, such as a "blackjack," are particularly named in the statute, without any accompanying reference to "similar weapons," or those that can be put to the "same or similar" use or effect. While the second portion of § 10 (b) contains very broad, catch-all language ("or other dangerous weapon[s]"), the first portion of the subsection -- the only part applicable to this defendant, see note 3, infra -- does not. The first portion purports to proscribe only carrying certain dangerous weapons, but not others.(4) See Commonwealth v. Smith, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 770, 770-771, 777 (1996) (homemade weapon satisfied definition of a "knife," particularly in that Legislature used the general term "any knife"); Commonwealth v. Miller, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 694, 694-695 n.1 (1986) ("clear that the Legislature did not intend to encompass all knives in its enumeration of 'per se' dangerous weapons"); Commonwealth v. Blavackas, 11 Mass. App. Ct. 746, 752-753 (1981) (small kitchen bread knife with approximately eight-inch blade not type of knife specified in first portion of G. L. c. 269, § 10 [b]). In this case, the omission of language broadly including weapons similar to blackjacks in purpose or effect, when read in light of the inclusion of such language in both the first and second part of the statute with regard to other types of weapons, indicates the Legislature intended specifically to proscribe "blackjack[s]" but not all weapons similar to blackjacks. The Commonwealth's contention that the defendant's expandable baton is the "functional equivalent of a blackjack," is therefore unavailing.

The evidence in this case is not sufficient to establish that the "expandable baton" carried by the defendant was a "blackjack" carried in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b). While the term "blackjack" is not defined in G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b), the Commonwealth's witness testified that the weapon seized from the defendant was not a blackjack.

Judgment reversed.

Thomas J. Chirokas for the defendant.

Michael J. Markoff, Special Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.


footnotes

(1) 1 General Laws c. 269, § 10 (b), provides:

"(b) [1] Whoever . . . carries on his person . . . any stiletto, dagger or a device or case which enables a knife with a locking blade to be drawn at a locked position, any ballistic knife, or any knife with a detachable blade capable of being propelled by any mechanism, dirk knife, any knife having a double-edged blade, or a switch knife, or any knife having an automatic spring release device by which the blade is released from the handle, having a blade of over one and one-half inches, or a slung shot, blowgun, blackjack, metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles, nunchaku, zoobow, also known as klackers or kung fu sticks, or any similar weapon consisting of two sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather, a shuriken or any similar pointed starlike object intended to injure a person when thrown, or any armband, made with leather which has metallic spikes, points or studs or any similar device

made from any other substance or a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand, or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends; or [2] whoever, when arrested upon a warrant for an alleged crime, or when arrested while committing a breach or disturbance of the public peace, is armed with or has on his person, or has on his person or under his control in a vehicle, a billy or other dangerous weapon other than those herein mentioned and those mentioned in paragraph (a), shall be punished by imprisonment . . . ."

For clarity in this opinion, we refer to § 10 (b) [1] as the first portion of the statute, and § 10 (b) [2] as the second portion, although the statute does not contain those designations.

(2) According to the detective's testimony, the expandable baton was "metal, approximately eight to ten inches long, and if you -- you can expand it by -- . . . flicking your wrist and having the tipped end of it come out of the handle."

(3) There is no dispute that the second provision of the statute does not apply. That provision applies only when a defendant is arrested on a warrant, or is arrested "while committing a breach or disturbance of the public peace." G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b).

(4) The Legislature has amended G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b), to include additional weapons a number of times. For example, the statute was amended in 1982 to include armbands, in 1985 to include blowguns, and in 1986 to include ballistics knives. See St. 1982, c. 254; St. 1985, c. 349; St. 1986, c. 581, § 1. The term "blackjack" has never been amended or modified since it was inserted. See St. 1957, c. 688, § 23.

[442js]

You are wise to do so (leave it at home).

Even the police will admit that Mass is a strange state - you absolutely do not want to get caught here without a MA permit - or as one of the exempted groups (e.g. Federal LEO, FFDO, etc.) or attending a competition.

Don't bother trying to get an MA non-resident permit as a private citizen for self-protection purposes - if they even decide to issue it to you, it's good for only a year and costs $100. (Resident permits are good for 6 years for $100)

By the way - you also need a MA permit for chemical spray (e.g. pepper or mace).

[.

Since I don't plan to be in Massachusetts that often, I am not going to bother applying for a permit. In fact, my trip to Massachusetts has been canceled. Still doesn't help me as I will likely be in NYC so I have the same problem as NYC is probably even worse than MA. I don't have a NYC license, and don't plan on getting one.