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

[GOAL C.M.]

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 ?

To meet the state definition of "Assault Rifle" a rifle has to meet certain requirements. We have information about this on our website here

 

[sig2009]

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.

What a bunch of whimps! Just stand there and let them roll all over you. Intimidation is against the law as well as extortion! So I guess if the AG sent out a letter banning all guns in MA. the dealers would sell out without putting up a fight? Ya. I guess in MA. they would!

 

[DoubleDoeHoe]

To meet the state definition of "Assault Rifle" a rifle has to meet certain requirements. We have information about this on our website here

Oh ok, this clears things up for me Mike. I keep forgetting my neutered AR is a "sporting" rifle not a "assault" rifle by definition.

 

[DoubleDoeHoe]

What a bunch of whimps! Just stand there and let them roll all over you. Intimidation is against the law as well as extortion! So I guess if the AG sent out a letter banning all guns in MA. the dealers would sell out without putting up a fight? Ya. I guess in MA. they would!

What are you getting at? Yup MA sucks. If the DB-AG banned everything short of flint locks and muzzle loaders. Well I bet some dealers would close or move or do all there business out-of-state on the internet with a more reduced over-head than they have now.

Some of the regulations the DB-AG put into place actually work towards the dealers favor (i.e. hard to find online ammo stores to ship here), forcing you to do business with them. As it is now, the average person is only going to buy there stuff at local gun stores. Especially AMMO, Carl at 4seas does a awesome job with prices, but your stuck with the stuff he stocks.

All I am saying is some of the gun control works in the dealers favor. So why wouldn't they play nice until it got way out of hand (all out ban), but by then I am sure it would be to late to do anything.

If there was no NES it would be close to impossible to find a reasonably priced GLOCK private sale (thank you Derek). That would in turn force you to buy a pre-ban one on gunbroker or at the local FFL for a premium. If you bought it out-of-state private sale with the FFL transfer it still ends up being close to the same price as if you bought it from the local guy.

 

[Len-2A Training]

What a bunch of whimps! Just stand there and let them roll all over you. Intimidation is against the law as well as extortion! So I guess if the AG sent out a letter banning all guns in MA. the dealers would sell out without putting up a fight? Ya. I guess in MA. they would!

Yes, sadly I believe your assessment is correct. Most MA Dealers would sell out/fold in a heartbeat. Past experience with the defunct MA Dealers Assn proves you (and I) to be correct.

 

[track65]

Yes, sadly I believe your assessment is correct. Most MA Dealers would sell out/fold in a heartbeat. Past experience with the defunct MA Dealers Assn proves you (and I) to be correct.

You are so right. If this state ever get's around to passing a law that all private sales would have to go through a FFL dealer, I can only imagine what some of the dealer's would charge for the transfer. Some are already charging $40 or more, which is a ripoff.

 

[Mark from MA]

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.

Same here...goal email forwarded to my rep and senator...with a complaint that the gun laws are already like wading thru minefield...the people at the top spreading misinformation about laws is pure bullshit.

We should have the dealers backs on this, and make our voices heard.

 

[glide]

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 ?

All the cops who thought/assumed they were above the law with regards to owning post-ban assault weapons and post-ban high cap mags outside of their official duties were always incorrect. This letter says nothing new about that.

 

[drgrant]

All the cops who thought/assumed they were above the law with regards to owning post-ban assault weapons and post-ban high cap mags outside of their official duties were always incorrect. This letter says nothing new about that.

No, not really. That's still just a "gliddenism" at this point. The LE exemption has never really been "tested" in court, to my knowledge... for obvious reasons.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

No, not really. That's still just a "gliddenism" at this point. The LE exemption has never really been "tested" in court, to my knowledge... for obvious reasons.

-Mike

Not true, according to what Ron Glidden told all of yesterday. It was allegedly an RO confiscation (from an officer in W. MA). RO was vacated and when they went to return his guns, they "found" the illegal gun. IIRC, they prosecuted him on it.

 

[atmay]

If they want it, they're going to have to come get it.....

 

[50 BMG]

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

It actually falls under the ethics standards that each and every state employee has to sign off each and every year. I know, I have to.Using public office to enforce and or disseminate information which is not based on law and or meets the standards of the agencies directive /agenda and is misleading is considered a violation of the states ethics law. If you dont think it has any judicial process ask Sal Demassi.

Me thinks you may not have an understanding of the judicial process

I also heard this may have been sent out to address the issue of LEO's purchasing non ma. compliant firearms for personal use

 

[drgrant]

Not true, according to what Ron Glidden told all of yesterday. It was allegedly an RO confiscation (from an officer in W. MA). RO was vacated and when they went to return his guns, they "found" the illegal gun. IIRC, they prosecuted him on it.

Was that the only charge, though? GSG also brought up a case involving a corrections officer, but that was a little bit different.

There's also the issue of sucking for pleas vs fighting the charges.

ETA: This is an important distinction.... just because someone was charged doesn't mean it will stick. Look what they did to "MTBS guy". Charged with bogus crimes, nothing stuck, still punished.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Mike, it was my understanding that it was the only charge. Don't have any further details.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

No, not really. That's still just a "gliddenism" at this point. The LE exemption has never really been "tested" in court, to my knowledge... for obvious reasons.

-Mike

It gets better. I've seen swore testimony from a former LEO that it was perfectly legal and acceptable to transfer firearms "on the badge" i.e without LTCs or FA-10s.

I'm beginning to think that the state's lack of enforcement of the AWB and other issues has less to do with apathy and is more closely related to concern about where those investigations would logically lead and what might be lurking beneath stones that are perhaps better left unturned.

 

[cekim]

It gets better. I've seen swore testimony from a former LEO that it was perfectly legal and acceptable to transfer firearms "on the badge" i.e without LTCs or FA-10s.

I'm beginning to think that the state's lack of enforcement of the AWB and other issues has less to do with apathy and is more closely related to concern about where those investigations would logically lead and what might be lurking beneath stones that are perhaps better left unturned.

I think they'd be fine with relying on the bloated blue line in this state to paper over their own bad behavior - the courts have not shown any issue with separate, but unequal in their treatment on these issues...

My guess is the real issue with AWB the real "bad guys" usually have lots of other low hanging fruit to charge them with - i.e. possession without a license, felon in possession and everyone's favorite "DRUGS!" They prove themselves! No crime needed when there's all that pre-crime that's easy to prove.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

bump, please see OP for update. Thanks!

 

[Business End Customs]

I also received the letter the other day.

 

[Rate_of_Twist]

Perhaps this is has you get "gun control" "under the radar"?????

 

[DickWanner]

It actually falls under the ethics standards that each and every state employee has to sign off each and every year. I know, I have to.Using public office to enforce and or disseminate information which is not based on law and or meets the standards of the agencies directive /agenda and is misleading is considered a violation of the states ethics law. If you dont think it has any judicial process ask Sal Demassi.

Me thinks you may not have an understanding of the judicial process

I also heard this may have been sent out to address the issue of LEO's purchasing non ma. compliant firearms for personal use

Well good luck with taking this to court, let me know how it turns out for you

 

[GOAL C.M.]

bump, please see op for update.

 

[SSShooter]

Thanks for the ongoing work. It's about time someone gets called on the carpet for this kind of BS.

 

[GOAL C.M.]

bump. please see OP for update

 

[cekim]

It's pretty clear the CHSB/Guida are (and have been for the last few years) trying to make up law wherever Deval has failed to push his gun grabbing agenda through the legislature.

I think we are past time for pleasantries and professional courtesy. It's time to move on to sanctions.

 

[Mike S]

Yup, they are seemingly prodding to see what they can get away with. Gotta wonder where the direction to execute this crap is coming from, don't think little Jason has the stones to try and pull something off like that at his own accord.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Yup, they are seemingly prodding to see what they can get away with. Gotta wonder where the direction to execute this crap is coming from, don't think little Jason has the stones to try and pull something off like that at his own accord.

I agree that I believe this is coming from VERY HIGH UP the political food-chain. However, I see Jason as a "willing participant" in these "edicts from the top"!

 

[M1911]

Yup, they are seemingly prodding to see what they can get away with. Gotta wonder where the direction to execute this crap is coming from

There's no need to wonder - Guida is doing Patrick's bidding.

It has to be coming from the top. Bureaucrats don't go off and create turmoil unless the big boss tells them too. The first rule of being a state employee is "thou shalt not jeopardize thine pension."

 

[Acme.Armament]

Thank you GOAL for working hard for MA residents and Dealers. Thank you Mike for using NES as a way to communicate with all of us.

 

[drgrant]

There's no need to wonder - Guida is doing Patrick's bidding.

Maybe but I think he is 110% complicit in it, and if he's getting an "edict" it's not very specific, because he's been caught causing trouble for MA gun owners since he got into that position. They might as well have given John Rosenthal the job, it would be pretty much the same thing.

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

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.

I am not thrilled with this. I don't care if a LEO has to buy their own gun. The law is clear, the gun can only be in a AW configuration if they are on duty using it for duty purposes. Fixing this problem doesn't mean that we extend greater privileges to LEOs. Fixing this problem means not infringing the rights of everyone.

About the only thing honest about the AWB here in MA is that it applies to LE when not working which clearly articulates the state's true position that LE lives are worth no more than civilians when they aren't in service of das guberment. And what happens to LEOs who work in large PDs where the guns are provided? Do they get the special privileges?

ETA: This isn't an indictment of GOAL. GOAL rocks and I know they are doing everything they can. The problem is I can see where the politicians are going with this and I am not happy with the direction.