Converters and the law

[bigdatab]

The law in massbackwards states: The provisions of sections 122 to 129D, inclusive, and sections 131, 131A, 131B and 131E shall not apply to:

(A) any firearm, rifle or shotgun manufactured in or prior to the year 1899;

(B) any replica of any firearm, rifle or shotgun described in clause (A) if such replica: (i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition; or (ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.) This is an excerpt which I thinks is almost word for word the same as the federal law. My question is does the fact that converters are available for these guns make them non-exempt by Mass. law. If it's a drop in cylinder with no alteration made to the gun itself does that make a difference. I ask because I think I read here that for instance the Kirst converter requires that you alter the blast shield (think that's what you call it.)The Laws are so muddled here I can't make heads or tails out of them. The gun, not that it matters, or maybe it does because I don't think it replicates any pre 1899 gun is an Old Army. BTW I don't plan to convert this gun. I want to know if it loses it's exampt status just by virtue of the fact that the converter is available. Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Nope. It does not alter the nature of the original piece because someone later made something available to alter it. Unless you own a converter, alter the pistol/revolver in some fashion to to accept a converter, or specifically have a pistol/revolver with the converter in place. At that point it's a modern centerfire regardless of the date on the frame.

 

[bigdatab]

Thank you Stumpkiller.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Just remember: free legal advice expires upon contact with the court house steps. Justice is blind and sometimes does not see the difference between a .50 cal 1825 Hawken and a 2005 Bennett .50 BMG semi-auto.

 

[paulvallandigham]

If you buy the converter cylinder, you have to comply with the laws regarding modern handguns, at both the state and Federal levels, because a converted revolver is considered a modern revolver, and not that antique that is exempt. I can't tell you how Mass. treats the Ruger Old Army revolver. It uses a modern, coil spring version of the 1873 Peacemaker, but uses a Black Powder, percussion ignition common during the Civil War with the Colt and Remington .44 revolvers. The Ruger is chambered, however, for the .457 ball, and not the smaller, .440, .445, or .451 balls used in various replicas of the Colt, Remington, and other replica revolvers chambered for .44 caliber RB. In Illinois, where I practice law, you have to be qualified to own modern firearms, to own these replicas, and all other ML firearms.

 

[Mike 56]

One exception might be a converted cap and ball revolver with a frame made before 1899. For instance i just bought a 1941 Finnish M39 built on a 1897 Russian receiver i only had to fax a copy of my drivers licence and they shipped the rifle to my front door.

Mike

 

[gmww]

Just my humble opinion. If the average LEO is looking at the gun, he/she would probably base their decision upon what it currently shoots. Bottom line though the final decision will be whatever the Judge/Jury decides.

 

[Dphar]

Just remember: free legal advice expires upon contact with the court house steps. Justice is blind and sometimes does not see the difference between a .50 cal 1825 Hawken and a 2005 Bennett .50 BMG semi-auto.

From the standpoint of the Constitution there is no difference.

A firearm is a firearm.

If they can ban any firearm they can ban them all. Something many gun owners don't seem to understand.
Thus when you see some "assault weapon" ban you need to fight it tooth and nail cause its just a foot in the door.
Besides "assualt weapons" are todays militia weapons.

Dan

 

[bigdatab]

:hatsoff: Thanks again guys for the answers and Stumpkiller, point well taken on FREE advise. These Mass. laws make no sense. If you were to read the law muzzle loaders it would seem are exempt from all the laws regarding ownership, carry, etc. etc. They do fall within the same laws as any gun as far as transport in a car and such but for the most part if you to were read (which I would not expect any one to do)each of the numbered sections of the laws listed in my post it just seems clear as a bell to me that these sections don't apply to muzzle loading guns ( at least for now.) But I hear that law enforcement (cops) here do not follow the law as it is stated. Makes no sense to me. I have no disabilities legal or otherwise that would preclude me from gun ownership. I just did not want to again jump through the hoops to get a new ccw (which I've had in the past) so I got started with BP. I took a State certification course and the instructors were not at all up on the laws. They claimed they were exempt from the laws stated above but they did not seem too sure of themselves. On another note now I wonder if carring this unloaded and in a locked box to my range is breaking the law and if you ask five people around here you get five different answers. I'm no lawyer for sure but the law as I read it seems cut and dry, so I am at a loss. I know you guys can't answer all this as most of you don't even live in this state so I take it as opinion only and thanks for your time. I guess a lawyer here would be the only way to know for sure and it will be better to pay to find out before the fact, but just thought someone from my state on the board may have first hand knowledge on this subject. Thanks again guys for you efforts.

 

[jackwill]

The laws here are so confusing that most lawyers are not able to answer this question properly.
I suggest that you contact GOAL (Gun Owners Action League) 508-393-5333. They can give you some advice. They will specify that their information is not intended as legal advice. They can direct you to several lawyers who are expert in Mass gun laws if you want to pursue it that far.
My guess is that having a converter cylinder places the gun in the modern category requiring a License To Carry.
Without a converter I do not think it would be.
I have a ROA (but I also have a LTC).
Converters are also available for almost every other type of cap and ball revolver so I do not see how the ROA could be singled out as different in this respect.
I have something that will make your head spin.
Among other muzzleloaders I have a flintlock kentucky pistol. I do not need a license to own it but I do need a license to carry it. Go figure!!!!
Living in Boston I have to stay on my toes not to get in deep doo-doo.
We have local ordinances in the city that are not published. you have to go digging for them.
An example: recently went to renew my license to carry. Entering police headquarters I had to empty my pockets before going through the metal detector. One of the items I put in the bucket was a small pocket knife. The officer picked it out of the box and measured the blade. It is 2/14 inches long. It is illegal to carry a knife with a blade longer than 2 1/2 inches in this city.

My bottom line advice to you would be to apply for a license to carry. You should also join GOAL. They are a great resource and really go to great lengths to defend what rights we have in this mess of a state.

 

[bigdatab]

Jackwill, Thank you for you thoughts on this. I agree with your take on this. I also was licensed through Boston 25-30 years ago, not easy to do btw. I know what you mean about Boston's "special rules". I really just travel about two miles to a private club to shoot and thought why go to the expense and hassle of a new ccw. I only shoot BP and own no modern type firearms any more. I would never carry in the true sense (only locked up in box to the range.) I have also been told by others that even the lawyers have different takes on the law, so I thought why waste money on them. If your getting lawyers with differing views then the law is really screwed up. I don't think it's been tested here so that could be the reason for the confusion. I don't know, but when I read it it just seems so cut and dry. I think the knife story is par for the course in this state. I think over 2 1/2 " is a deadly weapon :youcrazy: My dear departed mother used to have an 8" pair of sissors in her pocketbook so I guess she was dangerous :rotf: Any one who want's to own a legal firearm in this state is frowned upon. No one in law enforcement it seems is on the same page here. Thanks