1972 pistol "Not MA Complaint"

[boilermaker]

There is a 1972 Browning Hi Power 9mm pistol for sale with one hi-cap mag and the dealer says specifically the pistol is "Not MA Complaint." How can this be? I would have thought the age of the pistol would have made it MA complaint.

This dealer is also located in MA.

Can someone help me understand this.

 

[dwarven1]

Not registered in MA before 1998 would be my guess. I understand that a letter has been sent to MA FFLs stating that the correct interpretation of that rule is not that it be old enough, but that it has to have been actually REGISTERED in MA before 1998.

 

[Palladin]

Dealer is wrong. It's "manufactured prior to 1998'


http://www.goal.org/handgunsales.html


the manufacturer will release the firearms for sale in Massachusetts.
Exemptions: Even if a manufacturer has not certified that their guns are available to the Attorney General, they could be sold under certain limited conditions. That is, the Attorney General’s regulations will not prohibit the sale of:

•guns manufactured prior to October 21, 1998;

•guns sold to law enforcement or military;

•guns solely designed and sold specifically for target shooting competition;

•museums or educational collectors; and

•antique firearms.

 

[dwarven1]

Dealer is wrong. It's "manufactured prior to 1998'

That is apparently NOT how Ron Glidden is interpreting it. I was talking to an FFL last week who got one of those letters I mentioned.

 

[vellnueve]

Dealer is wrong. It's "manufactured prior to 1998'


http://www.goal.org/handgunsales.html


the manufacturer will release the firearms for sale in Massachusetts.
Exemptions: Even if a manufacturer has not certified that their guns are available to the Attorney General, they could be sold under certain limited conditions. That is, the Attorney General’s regulations will not prohibit the sale of:

•guns manufactured prior to October 21, 1998;

•guns sold to law enforcement or military;

•guns solely designed and sold specifically for target shooting competition;

•museums or educational collectors; and

•antique firearms.

The pistol, due to its date of manufacture, is exempt from the AG's regulations. However, it is not exempted from the EOPS list, and, since it cannot be shown that the firearm was in MA prior to 1998, it can't be sold here by a dealer. Date of manufacture is irrelevant in determining whether the pistol is compliant with the EOPS list/regs.

 

[terraformer]

That is apparently NOT how Ron Glidden is interpreting it. I was talking to an FFL last week who got one of those letters I mentioned.

Is that who sent that letter? And if so, did it go through official channels or just a random unsolicited statement.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The pistol, due to its date of manufacture, is exempt from the AG's regulations. However, it is not exempted from the EOPS list, and, since it cannot be shown that the firearm was in MA prior to 1998, it can't be sold here by a dealer. Date of manufacture is irrelevant in determining whether the pistol is compliant with the EOPS list/regs.

Mike is 1000% correct here.

The person who MIS-Quoted GOAL's website neglected some critical info.

Here's the ENTIRE text of that quote:

More About the Standards of the Attorney General

The second standard a gun must pass is one put forth by the Attorney General as a supposed consumer protection measure. See GOAL’s Regulatory Fraud report for more information on the history of these regulations.
The Attorney General has gone on record (see Enforcement notice #3, issued February 2002) as stating that guns that are on the Approved Weapons Roster comply with portions of the regulations.
However, in addition, the Attorney General requires that:

•Guns sold by dealers must have mechanisms that preclude an average five year old from operating the handgun, such as requiring multiple motions or a ten pound trigger pull;

•Guns must have either a load indicator or magazine safety disconnect.
Generally speaking, manufacturers provide notice to the Attorney General that they believe their guns meet his standards. If the AG does not object, the manufacturer will release the firearms for sale in Massachusetts.
Exemptions: Even if a manufacturer has not certified that their guns are available to the Attorney General, they could be sold under certain limited conditions. That is, the Attorney General’s regulations will not prohibit the sale of:

•guns manufactured prior to October 21, 1998;

•guns sold to law enforcement or military;

•guns solely designed and sold specifically for target shooting competition;

•museums or educational collectors; and

•antique firearms.
These regulations have caused a fair amount of confusion. First, because the Attorney General has refused to compile a list of firearms which meet the standards. Secondly, because that office’s standard response to questions is “you’ll have to ask your lawyer.”
Between the two standards, the number of guns available to Massachusetts’s citizens has been greatly diminished.

 

[KMaurer]

OK, since the state dumped all their old blue card registration data from before 1998, how exactly would they go about proving that a particular gun was not registered here during that period? Or is this one of those cases where it's up to the seller to prove that a gun he sold met or was exempted from the EOPS list? Well, I guess that it's at least reassuring to know that I still have an uncountable number or reasons to hate this fascist hell hole.

Ken

 

[Len-2A Training]

Guilty until proven innocent applies here.

When the AG/DA accuses a dealer of wrong-doing wrt guns, it will be the dealer who is on the hook (at least for massive legal fees), not the gov't (bottomless well of taxpayer money).

Ask Carl or any of the other handful of dealers who the AG attacked some years ago about selling non-compliant guns. Cost Carl a lot in legal fees to prove that he didn't do anything wrong . . . but the end result is that there are legal transfers that he refuses to do today for fear of having to repeat that expensive/aggravating scenario.

Most MA dealers will refuse to transfer any older gun w/o provenance that can easily prove it to be exempt from EOPS List (MGLs). I'm sure that a few dealers will take the seller's word for it, but those that have copies of invoices/FA-10/blue cards can help themselves widen the opportunity that a dealer will buy/sell a gun from/for them.

 

[vellnueve]

Guilty until proven innocent applies here.

+1.

 

[boilermaker]

Thanks guys for commenting on this. I really did think it was the manufacture date that was important, but have since learn otherwise. I will now look at all older guns for sale a little differently now. This state makes it very hard to enjoy one's hobby. Thanks again.

 

[Cabin Fever]

Another question on the approved roster:

There is a SW 629 I would like to transfer in from out of state. This 629 is not a 629-6, it is older than that. The only 629's on the EOPS are all 629-6's.

Is this something that can be easily transferred in from out of state or does the gun have to specifically be a -6 to come into the state?

 

[dixidawg]

This will help

 

[Cabin Fever]

This will help

Thanks for the link. I read it, but it doesn't answer my question. I see the 629-6 on the EOPS list, and I am wondering if the "dash" needs to match in order for a transfer to happen.

I should have added that this gun was registered in Mass well before 1998, but I am not sure that it was still in the state on 10/21/98.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I should have added that this gun was registered in Mass well before 1998, but I am not sure that it was still in the state on 10/21/98.

Ask your local dealer FIRST. They are the final arbiter of what they will or won't do!

Although the "intent" may be different, (IANAL) as I have read the law, it strongly implies that the gun MUST be in MA ON THE 21st DAY of October 1998 to be exempt and as written, if you were in CT for a match on that day and didn't return to MA until 22nd of October you'd be SOL for dealer transfers. However, how does one prove this?? So most dealers will accept proof that it was registered in MA PRIOR to 21st October 1998.

 

[dba62]

So if someone purchased a gun in MA prior to 10/22/98 that is not on the EOPS list, but no longer has the paperwork, his only option for selling or trading the guns would be via private sale, correct?

 

[TonyDedo]

Another question on the approved roster:

There is a SW 629 I would like to transfer in from out of state. This 629 is not a 629-6, it is older than that. The only 629's on the EOPS are all 629-6's.

Is this something that can be easily transferred in from out of state or does the gun have to specifically be a -6 to come into the state?

I've asked this question several time and never got an answer. I think LenS gave the best answer - ask your local dealer. If you can find a dealer who's willing to transfer the gun, you have your answer.

 

[Len-2A Training]

So if someone purchased a gun in MA prior to 10/22/98 that is not on the EOPS list, but no longer has the paperwork, his only option for selling or trading the guns would be via private sale, correct?

Basically correct, but see below.

I've asked this question several time and never got an answer. I think LenS gave the best answer - ask your local dealer. If you can find a dealer who's willing to transfer the gun, you have your answer.

 

[the_doctor]

If this is really the case than the same logic would be applied to preban hi cap magazines.

 

[Mike-Mike]

If this is really the case than the same logic would be applied to preban hi cap magazines.

NO

 

[Len-2A Training]

If this is really the case than the same logic would be applied to preban hi cap magazines.

No, because they are different laws. Handguns have to be "tested" to be approved . . . or documented to have been in the state on 10/21/1998 (grandfather clause).

Mags just have to have been mfd before 9/13/1994. Note different dates and it matters not where in the world the mags were prior to today.

I hope that helps explain it.

 

[Scrivener]

If this is really the case than the same logic would be applied to preban hi cap magazines.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that mags need to be tested in the name of "consumer protection?"

Mayby YOU should run for AG.........

 

[Scrivener]

I will now look at all older guns for sale a little differently now. This state makes it very hard to enjoy one's hobby.

By design.

 

[the_doctor]

I am going to disagree. I always thought that statute would probably be interpreted to mean within the Commonwealth.

People talk about magazines and guns differently, even though the statutes say lawfully possessed before certain dates. How does possess in the gun sense equal registration?

Come on. We are talking a double standard. MGL 140 Sec 123 says legally possessed. Doesn't this mean that a legally possessed gun in NH is still valid? It does not say registered within the Commonwealth. Statute is controlling. CMR only expound upon statute.

 

[vellnueve]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[dwarven1]

So if someone purchased a gun in MA prior to 10/22/98 that is not on the EOPS list, but no longer has the paperwork, his only option for selling or trading the guns would be via private sale, correct?

That is correct. Or sell it out of state. However, given the law of supply and demand, if you have a gun that's not on the list, odds are that you can sell it in state for a premium, just because it IS in the state.

 

[boilermaker]

No, because they are different laws. Handguns have to be "tested" to be approved . . . or documented to have been in the state on 10/21/1998 (grandfather clause).

I have been thinking about this more. If it had to be on the approved roster or in the state before 10/21/98. Then how do these Glocks exist in the state? These Detroit PD Glocks were clearly not in the state before '98. What I am missing here?

 

[terraformer]

I have been thinking about this more. If it had to be on the approved roster or in the state before 10/21/98. Then how do these Glocks exist in the state? These Detroit PD Glocks were clearly not in the state before '98. What I am missing here?

You are confusing two issues. If it is on the roster, it didn't have to be "lawfully owned on 10/21/98" (aka in state) but simply mfgd before the AG's regs to avoid those regs. If it is not on the roster than it does have to be in state on that date as both apply. Hence the Detroit PD glocks are GTG.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I have been thinking about this more. If it had to be on the approved roster or in the state before 10/21/98. Then how do these Glocks exist in the state? These Detroit PD Glocks were clearly not in the state before '98. What I am missing here?

The key is what I bolded/red above.

Most all Glock models ARE on the EOPS List, therefore LEOs can purchase them new in MA. Thus, mere subjects can also have them as long as they were mfd before 6/xx/98 (date of AG Regs grandfather clause - which does NOT require that they were in MA, merely DOB).

Does that help you understand it a little better?

 

[saltydude]

I have been thinking about this more. If it had to be on the approved roster or in the state before 10/21/98. Then how do these Glocks exist in the state? These Detroit PD Glocks were clearly not in the state before '98. What I am missing here?

You have to remember that back in & around May 2004 the AG approved Glocks for sale for a brief six week period in witch 1000's of 3Rd gens flew off the shelves.