MA FFL's Heads UP, EOPS is sending out a letter with bad info.

[GOAL C.M.]

EOPS/FRB Advisory Letter Update

July 8 Update
GOAL continues to work with MA legislators to get this mess corrected. At our request, Representative Anne Gobi sent this letter to the secretary of EOPS. We look forward to resolution on this issue soon and will update as info develops.

We would like to thank Rep Gobi and all of the other legislators who are working with us to resolve these problems.

July 1, 2011
Mary Elizabeth Heffernan, Secretary
Executive Office of Public Safety and Security
One Ashburton Place, Room 1301
Boston, MA 02108

Dear Secretary Heffernan,

It has been brought to my attention, by a large number of constituents and law enforcement officials, that the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security has released a letter regarding the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban. While this letter is undated and unsigned, it has raised the concern of individuals, officials and businesses throughout my district.
The letter in question presents itself as an “Advisory to Massachusetts Licensed Firearms Dealers”. However, this letter erroneously leads individuals to believe that they are in violation of law if they are in possession of certain firearms. Among the incorrect statements made in the letter, it has led many law enforcement officials to believe that they are in violation of law, and that they are exposing themselves to prosecution. As the State Representative for many rural communities, where law enforcement officials must purchase their own firearms, I am especially concerned that such incorrect information is being propagated as a result of this letter. I am sure this was not your intent.

Regardless, citizens and businesses alike are altering their habits based on incorrect information obtained from this letter. For the sake of our law enforcement officials, businesses and citizens, I ask that you please release a statement clarifying Massachusetts laws on firearm possession, especially on those firearms designated as “assault weapons”.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 617-722-2210.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Anne M. Gobi
State Representative

June 22, 2011 Update[/B]
GOAL has been in communication with Representative Harold Naughton, House Chair of the Committee on Public Safety. He has called for a meeting with the Secretary of EOPS to explain the discrepancies in the letter. As soon as we are alerted to any legislative or agency response we will immediately notify our members.

Thanks

May 26, 2011

Earlier this week Gun Owners’ Action League was alerted by our members who had received a so-called advisory letter from the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. This letter was unsigned and undated and was in regards to the current assault weapons and large capacity feeding device laws.

As GOAL stated in our initial alert on this matter, the letter was full of factual errors and provided very bad information regarding the laws in question. Upon receiving a copy of the letter and confirming the erroneous information contained it we immediately contacted our friends in the legislature. Both chairs of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security and others were contacted by GOAL. The House Chair of the Committee, Harold Naughton told GOAL that he would be sending a letter to the agency asking that they appear before the Committee and explain the discrepancies in the letter.

GOAL also contacted the agency ourselves and on Wednesday afternoon we received a phone call stating the agency was conducting an “internal review” of the advisory letter. The Executive Director of GOAL spent some time going over the many concerns we had with the nature of the advisory and the misinformation contained in it. He also reminded the agency that they have no legal grounds to “interpret law” as they had done in the letter.

“Once again we have a government entity in Massachusetts that is seeking to establish laws that simply don’t exist,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL. “Whether this is an intentional bully tactic to end run the legislative process or simple incompetence, neither is acceptable. In either case it is yet another clear example of the government not understanding the law or its own constitutional limits.”

GOAL will continue to investigate the matter and press the administration for an answer and hold them accountable. To see a copy of the advisory letter go to: http://www.goal.org/Documents/eopspg1.pdf

________________________________________________________________________________________

GOAL has been made aware that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, Dept. of Criminal Justice Information Services has sent out a letter to MA FFL's that has bad information.

This letter states the following incorrectly.

A weapon or large capacity feeding device defined in G.L. c. 140 s121, or a weapon having the characteristics outlined in 18 U.S.C. s921 (a) (3), may not be possessed, sold or transferred in the Commonwealth if the weapon was not lawfully possessed under a Massachusetts firearms license on September 13, 1994

This is the law as it appears on the MA website

“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

If you have received this letter, please let us know, we will be contacting EOPS shortly to resolve this error.

Thanks

 

[BE4TNUT]

Is this stating that where it says "G.L. c. 150 s121" that is should read "G.L. c. 140 s121"?

What I don't understand is this part "may not be possessed, sold or transferred in the Commonwealth if the weapon was not lawfully possessed under a Massachusetts firearms license on September 13, 1994". Are they now trying to say you cannot legally own any "assault weapon" that was not in state prior to the AWB date?

 

[SSShooter]

I'm sure it's all just an honest mistake

 

[dwarven1]

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, Dept. of Criminal Justice Information Services has sent out a letter to MA FFL's that has bad information.

My shocked face.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Just got the letter in the mail. Also got the E-FA-10 notice announcing the "impending release". Jack.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

Is this stating that where it says "G.L. c. 150 s121" that is should read "G.L. c. 140 s121"?

What I don't understand is this part "may not be possessed, sold or transferred in the Commonwealth if the weapon was not lawfully possessed under a Massachusetts firearms license on September 13, 1994". Are they now trying to say you cannot legally own any "assault weapon" that was not in state prior to the AWB date?

This is the part that is incorrect.

if the weapon was not lawfully possessed under a Massachusetts firearms license on September 13, 1994

There is no provision for this in the MA GL's

 

[BE4TNUT]

Ok sounds good. That is the part that was sticking out the most to me. Thanks for the quick clarification.

I agree with SSShooter's comment, I am sure it was an "honest" mistake... Our Government sure does make a lot of those...

 

[GunGrey]

Ohhh better keep your dogs inside guys

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I'm quite sure that EOPPS is very well aware that a prosecution cannot be sustained under this interpretation of the law. They are attempting to intimidate dealers and individuals so as to create doubt and uncertainty around the possession and transfer of firearms deemed undesirable by the state.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

They're trying to enforce and gain compliance with a ficticiuos law.

Kind of like, you know that bullshit law that all machineguns are illegal in Mass that so many believe so hardly anyone applies for the license?

I don't believe for one minute that it was an honest mistake, I believe they are trying to gain compliance with a law that has never seen due process for ammendment through deliberate misinformation.

I can't wait to leave this forsaken state.

 

[Smash05]

Is this type of "guidence" usual for EOPS, or are they trying to endrun the MGL?

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

I'm quite sure that EOPPS is very well aware that a prosecution cannot be sustained under this interpretation of the law. They are attempting to intimidate dealers and individuals so as to create doubt and uncertainty around the possession and transfer of firearms deemed undesirable by the state.

They did it with out of state ammunition dealers.....why would they stop there?

 

[BE4TNUT]

They're trying to enforce and gain compliance with a ficticiuos law.

Kind of like, you know that bullshit law that all machineguns are illegal in Mass that so many believe so hardly anyone applies for the license?

I don't believe for one minute that it was an honest mistake, I believe they are trying to gain compliance with a law that has never seen due process for ammendment through deliberate misinformation.

I can't wait to leave this forsaken state.

Yeah when I said I believe they probably made an honest mistake, it was full of sarcasm... couldn't find the sarcasm smiley though unfortunately.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Yeah when I said I believe they probably made an honest mistake, it was full of sarcasm... couldn't find the sarcasm smiley though unfortunately.

Yes, I thought you were being sarcastic, I just wanted to vent a little and disclose their real intent.

 

[drumenigma]

This is a prime example of why the laws need to be changed. Even the folks enforcing them can't get them right.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

This is a prime example of why the laws need to be changed. Even the folks enforcing them can't get them right.

Bingo. You win the internet for today.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well, when you have an agenda to achieve . . .

 

[OnTheRoad]

Sending an email to my state rep about this, the EFA10 debacle and a few other things that have been bothering me. No point bottling up the outcry in this little container called NES, as we so often do.

 

[SSShooter]

This is a prime example of why the laws need to be changed. Even the folks enforcing them can't get them right.

Hmm, maybe you're right. Frankly I don't think they even tried. The AG twists stuff to suit her fancy and in light of the EFA10, I'm not giving EOPS the benefit of the doubt.

 

[dwarven1]

Yeah when I said I believe they probably made an honest mistake, it was full of sarcasm... couldn't find the sarcasm smiley though unfortunately.

Somehow, I have a difficult time using the word "honest" in the same sentence as almost any agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Oh, and here's your sarcasm, BE4TNUT.

 

[sig2009]

When in the world are you people going to take things like this to court????????????????? I don't care what they send out. Period! If it's not written in black and white as a law it is uninforceable!

 

[Acme.Armament]

Just got the letter in the mail. Also got the E-FA-10 notice announcing the "impending release". Jack.

Same here.

 

[cekim]

I'm quite sure that EOPPS is very well aware that a prosecution cannot be sustained under this interpretation of the law. They are attempting to intimidate dealers and individuals so as to create doubt and uncertainty around the possession and transfer of firearms deemed undesirable by the state.

This, they have repeatedly issued "letters" that they will tell you to your face "It may not hold up in court, but this is our interpretation" (which means, "this is how we will charge you").

We need to shut this beast down...

 

[Len-2A Training]

If it's not written in black and white as a law it is uninforceable!

They certainly can! Intimidation works wonders . . . ask all those dealers (in-state as well as out-of-state) their reaction to threatening letters from the AG. Local chief can pull their MA Dealer's licenses with no reason whatsoever and the MA Dealers know this.

So, if the local PD is "on board" with whatever extortion someone wants to come up with, it'll be a "go" and they will stop selling whatever.

I've had a few Wal-Marts tell me that their local chief forbade them from selling Airsoft/pellet/BB guns and supplies as a condition to issuing the MA Dealers license to sell ammo. That's just one small example and it works.

 

[DickWanner]

When in the world are you people going to take things like this to court?????????????????

Take what to court?? Methinks you have a very poor understanding of the judicial process...

 

[track65]

So what happen's now? Who want's to be the first sucker that this "interpretation" is used on in court.
The AG will be sending out her goon squad very soon.

 

[BE4TNUT]

So what happen's now? Who want's to be the first sucker that this "interpretation" is used on in court.
The AG will be sending out her goon squad very soon.

They can't enforce it. It states nowhere in the MGL that it has to be owned under a Ma license on the date the AWB took effect. They are forcing their agenda through misinformation.

 

[drgrant]

So what happen's now? Who want's to be the first sucker that this "interpretation" is used on in court.
The AG will be sending out her goon squad very soon.

Nothing happens. It all depends on which dealers fall for the smoke blowing and which don't. The worst possible effect is more MA dealers will be doing more smoke blowing, and we'll have more dumb threads around here about it, because people will be mislead into believing that it's actually the law.

-Mike

 

[DickWanner]

So what happen's now? Who want's to be the first sucker that this "interpretation" is used on in court.
The AG will be sending out her goon squad very soon.

They're not that dumb as to actually charge someone with this. Hell, they seem to be hesitant to charge people under the AWB laws as they actually exist.

 

[DoubleDoeHoe]

So what I still don't understand is, bare with me I seem to be slow with understanding the wording.

What does the letter say? What was there point? As I read it there trying to ban the sale and possession of "assault" or "patrol" (if your a cop) rifle? Unless it was a pre-ban weapon? So what about all the assembled and off the shelf rifles owned after the said pre-ban date?
If it is unlawful (to them) to own it, are they coming over to claim there prize ?