Bass Pro-On the wrong side of the AG already?

[kevin9]

They F'ed up. They also sold stuff that was NOT on the EOPS list. That overshadows the AG crap.

Does anyone know which specific guns were they selling that are not on the EOPS Approved Firearms Roster?

FYI the EOPS list is here: http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/approved_firearms_roster_10_2007.pdf

Here is the post of someone who is in position to have a pretty good idea of what was in stock or not, and was or was not sold:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=341699&postcount=41

IMNSHO "I heard this or that" is just hearsay, to be judged based on the source. Unless the source and the basis for that source's knowledge is made know I personally put little weight on it. "My friend had an X and showed me the receipt from Bass Pro", well that is different.

According to C-pher and others the one brand that was sold, Glock, DOES have models on the EOPS list. It appears very likely to me that no guns not on the EOPS list were actually sold. MAYBE one make/model, SA XD, was offered offered for sale.

What BP ran afoul of was the AG's determination of which handguns on the EOPS met the AG's extra "consumer protection" rules. Not surprising given that list does not appear to be publicly, or easily, available. Welcome to MA Bass Pro

 

[szaino]

+1

It's just like double super secret probation.

 

[Scrivener]

What BP ran afoul of was the AG's determination of which handguns on the EOPS met the AG's extra "consumer protection" rules. Not surprising given that list does not appear to be publicly, or easily, available. Welcome to MA Bass Pro

That's because, as has been discussed here MANY times before, THERE IS NO AG'S LIST!

As it has also been discussed here before, the Great Glock Debacle is hardly news to anyone on this board. It seems odd that BPS made little, or NO, effort to examine the applicable regulations when opening in a state well known for its Draconian gun laws. Good luck if it ever hopes to open in NJ, NY, MD or CA.

 

[snowjoker]

There is already one in NY and CA.

 

[MassMark]

Also funny to me how someone claims to have gotten it from the horses mouth TODAY, when most of the shops I know about are closed on Mondays.

This shop is open on Mondays.....Powers of deduction.....

 

[kevin9]

Clearly there was some kind of determination that Glocks do not met the AG's extra requirements. Does that determination identify the guns by make and/or by specific model from the EOPS roster that do not meet the AG's "rules"? Where is that determination officially published?

That's because, as has been discussed here MANY times before, THERE IS NO AG'S LIST!

Yep, I've seen it stated here before by a few people that there is no such list. I did not have the inclination at the time to challenge the absurdity of that statement; now I do.

Logically there must be a list, even if it only has one manufacturer's guns on it, even if it isn't published as a list, even if it is not labeled "a list" by the source. Given one list, the EOPS roster, and a determination that some guns on that list do not meet some additional requirements, that determination is by definition a subset of a list and therefore is a list in and of itself. Just because the AG may not label it a list, or publish it (as a list) does not change what it is. If it is not a list then what is it?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Couldn't this "so-called Ma. gun dealers assc." all get together and file a law suit against the AG? There's power in numbers. Maybe a statewide boycott of all gunshops is in order until this gets resolved.

Yeah right...dream on!

There was a lawsuit once by a gun dealer's assn (not sure if this is the same assn or an earlier one). They lost and failed to file a timely appeal . . . case closed forever!

Mike, how large is this MA gun dealers assc? I imagine it's not a large group and probably doesn't include a lot of MA dealers.

ETA: There are dealers in this state who won't support it's own States Gun org. Why you wouldn't want to protect your customer base is beyond me.

I doubt that it is very big. Somehow I get the opinion that they probably never included places like Dick's, Wal-Mart, Sports Authority or Galyans in their membership. In fact I'd guess that they would not even welcome "big box stores" as members. Something about "thinking small" (and ineffective) comes to mind here.

Only reason I even heard of them was that a few years ago there was an article in The Outdoor Message about them. Don't hear anything about them at all over the past few years. NEVER saw them at any gun bill hearing either.

 

[jrbtzx12r]

OK, I was wrong earlier. There's no "AGs List". It's actually called "Attorney General’s Handgun Sales Regulations".

Scrivener, how does one know what firearms follow the AGs regulations? How would this be enforceable if it's not listed by the AG, and publicly available?

Thanks
Jr

 

[TomH]

OK, I was wrong earlier. There's no "AGs List". It's actually called "Attorney General’s Handgun Sales Regulations".

Scrivener, how does one know what firearms follow the AGs regulations? How would this be enforceable if it's not listed by the AG, and publicly available?

Wouldn't you just... read the regulations? If the gun fits them then it's good, if it doesn't fit them then you can't sell it new. I don't see the confusion (unless some of the regs weren't specific enough, its been a while since I've read them). I don't agree with any of the regs/laws/list or whatever you want to call them but after about 3 weeks or so of reading up I was able to figure out what I could/couldn't get in MA for sale new (before I moved to NH). It seems amazing that a shop selling firearms wouldn't have figured this out prior to selling that stuff.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The thing is that they would never have gotten that far. The second BP started sending FA10s in with new Glocks on them, CHSB would have contacted the AG's office about it.

No chance for a number of reasons.

- LEOs can buy Glocks, as many as they want. They are exempt from AG BS.

- Ditto on other guns on the EOPS List that aren't AG compliant.

- Thus, many FA-10s get scanned for these guns on a regular basis. Nothing unusual here.

- The people scanning them in are feeding them into a scanner feeding to a computer database. Logic says that nobody is reading these by hand every day, as the system would slow to a crawl.

- AG Office doesn't get any love from many other agencies. When they stung the dealers, they got redacted copies of FA-10s (no buyer info) and I'm sure that it took considerable laborious time from CHSB's normal duties to comply with the request. Doubt that they would "just do it" for the AG.

- Even finding things like XDs (that aren't on EOPS) would be cumbersome as MA residents do own them and can sell them privately. CHSB would have to manually study each such form to see if it was a private transfer or a Dealer transfer to see if there was a violation. Too time consuming!!

 

[kevin9]

Wouldn't you just... read the regulations? If the gun fits them then it's good, if it doesn't fit them then you can't sell it new. I don't see the confusion (unless some of the regs weren't specific enough, its been a while since I've read them). I don't agree with any of the regs/laws/list or whatever you want to call them but after about 3 weeks or so of reading up I was able to figure out what I could/couldn't get in MA for sale new (before I moved to NH). It seems amazing that a shop selling firearms wouldn't have figured this out prior to selling that stuff.

As I recall reading about it there was debate as to whether Glocks met all the AG's additional regulations. Glock claimed they did, the AG said no they didn't.

 

[ronbok]

Approved Firearms Rosters

That's because, as has been discussed here MANY times before, THERE IS NO AG'S LIST!

As it has also been discussed here before, the Great Glock Debacle is hardly news to anyone on this board. It seems odd that BPS made little, or NO, effort to examine the applicable regulations when opening in a state well known for its Draconian gun laws. Good luck if it ever hopes to open in NJ, NY, MD or CA.

OK. So PLEASE explain to me what these are?

Approved Firearms Roster

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/approved_firearms_roster_10_2007.pdf

Formal Target Shooting Roster

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/formal_target_shooting_roster_10_2007.pdf

Large Capacity Firearms Roster

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/largecap_10_2007.pdf

 

[TomH]

OK. So PLEASE explain to me what these are?

Approved Firearms Roster

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/approved_firearms_roster_10_2007.pdf

Formal Target Shooting Roster

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/formal_target_shooting_roster_10_2007.pdf

Large Capacity Firearms Roster

http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/largecap_10_2007.pdf

None of those are the "AG list", there IS no list, its a set of regulations as has been stated. It's up to shops to know what can/can't be sold by the criteria of the AG regulations as well as the EOPS lists. The links you posted are all EOPS lists, which are seperate from the AG regulations. I'm sure someone here can post a link to that, I don't have it offhand (or correct me if I'm wrong of course!)

 

[Cato]

Clearly there was some kind of determination that Glocks do not met the AG's extra requirements. Does that determination identify the guns by make and/or by specific model from the EOPS roster that do not meet the AG's "rules"? Where is that determination officially published?

Yep, I've seen it stated here before by a few people that there is no such list. I did not have the inclination at the time to challenge the absurdity of that statement; now I do.

Logically there must be a list, even if it only has one manufacturer's guns on it, even if it isn't published as a list, even if it is not labeled "a list" by the source. Given one list, the EOPS roster, and a determination that some guns on that list do not meet some additional requirements, that determination is by definition a subset of a list and therefore is a list in and of itself. Just because the AG may not label it a list, or publish it (as a list) does not change what it is. If it is not a list then what is it?

There will never be a "list" for any of 940 CMR. The Attorney General does not list those who comply with the law. See 940CMR here: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/900-999cmr.html

Take for example 940 CMR 22 which you will find at the above link. 940 CMR 22 regulates the sale of cigars the same as 940 CMR 16 regulates the sale of handguns. If you open up 940 CMR 22 you will see that it requires among many other things that cigar manufacturers place the following label on all cigars. "WARNING: Cigar Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide And Nicotine, An Addictive Drug."

The AG does not publish or even have a secret list containing the names of the manufacturers and cigar brands that meet the CMRs including placing this warning on cigars sold in MA. It's up to the manufacturers and retailers to follow the law. If they get caught violating the CMRs then they will have to answer to that.

Corporations and people are just expected to follow the law. The AG will never make a list of those who follow the law or the products that they manufacture or sell.

 

[TomH]

Thanks for the link and clarification Cato. It doesn't take long to forget all the MA regs if you don't read them all the time...

 

[ronbok]

None of those are the "AG list", there IS no list, its a set of regulations as has been stated. It's up to shops to know what can/can't be sold by the criteria of the AG regulations as well as the EOPS lists. The links you posted are all EOPS lists, which are seperate from the AG regulations. I'm sure someone here can post a link to that, I don't have it offhand (or correct me if I'm wrong of course!)

Ok. I understand better since it explicity states:

Massachusetts licensed firearms dealers should note that the transfers of handguns are also subject to the Attorney General’s Handgun Sales Regulations, 940 CMR 16.00, et seq. Firearms
on this Approved Firearms Roster do not necessarily comply with the requirements of the Attorney General’s Handgun Sales Regulations. Information about those regulations, as well as the Enforcement Notice may be obtained from the Office of the Attorney General and may be accessed on the website of the Attorney General (www.ago.state.ma.us).”

 

[C-pher]

removed comment as I'm starting to get misquoted and I really enjoy working there.

 

[drgrant]

Wouldn't you just... read the regulations? If the gun fits them then it's good, if it doesn't fit them then you can't sell it new. I don't see the confusion (unless some of the regs weren't specific enough, its been a while since I've read them).

It doesn't work that way. The problem is vendors can't get any
confirmation in advance from the AG whether or not something
meets the AG's regs; the only way they can comply is to make
"educated" guesses as what they mean and then take a risk selling
the guns and see if the AG whines about them or not. On top
of it the AG's regs are pretty specious and vague- lots of bullshit
terminology but no metrics assigned, eg, phraseology like "unable
to be activated by a child of X years" (what the f does that
mean?) or "series of multiple motions" (What exactly defines a
difference between one and "multiple" motions?!??!??) it's shit like
that that gets the gun manufacturers (and their lawyers) pulling
their hair out. All they do do is -guess- at what the AG
wants for some of the regs.

-Mike

 

[vellnueve]

AKA specific and enforceable, not vague and subject to the AG's whim. Such as Glocks meeting the specified standards but not being AG certified due to a subjective opinion about the loaded chamber indicator, whereas the EOPS list has specific, objective tests performed by a third party laboratory.

 

[drgrant]

Logically there must be a list, even if it only has one manufacturer's guns on it, even if it isn't published as a list, even if it is not labeled "a list" by the source. Given one list, the EOPS roster, and a determination that some guns on that list do not meet some additional requirements, that determination is by definition a subset of a list and therefore is a list in and of itself.

The argument that there is no "AG's list" is derived from the
fact that the AG's regs are essentially whatever the given AG
wants them to be at any given moment. They're intentionally
specious and vague as to allow the AG considerable latitude in
terms of how things are defined.

Additionally, you can send informational requests to the AGs office
till you're blue in the face and you will not get a specific response
from them, just some dumb form letter stating that the regs are
being enforced, blah blah blah. At least thats the way it was
under Reilly. I am pretty sure the reason that there is no
official list is because the AG doesn't want to dig himself/herself
into a hole- eg, it wouldn't look very good in court, for example,
if they conceded "officially" on paper that a given gun was
compliant and then reneged on that later on. The way its set
up now they can just play ignorant and say "we weren't completely
aware of this model being sold until recently" or "the AG's office
was aware of this but did not have time to investigate" or any
number of other bullshit excuses. They're gaming the shit
out of the system to their advantage- that's why there's no
formal "list".

Another problem is theres no real way to tell what the AG is
thinking until you get nasty letters in the mail from them (as a
dealer) or similar correspondence. What is legal one day, that
was legal for months, can all of a sudden be "illegal" because
of some stupid peculiarity, etc. When FS (and others?) were
selling glocks again back in (04?) IIRC it went on for well over a
month before the AG stopped everything. I almost think that
was intentional just to make it that much harder for dealers to
comply. EG, let them sell a bunch of guns and then say "UHT!
ZOO are now liable for all of ze guns you sold! 5K apiece
violation! death! off to the pogroms with you! etc. " I
personally think the AG knew about the new glocks being sold
on day 1 but wishy washed over it intentionally to create
extra drama in terms of a violation count.

The reason there's no real "AG's list" is because the AG's office
is a bunch of scum, that's why.... it's really that simple.


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

AKA specific and enforceable, not vague and subject to the AG's whim. Such as Glocks meeting the specified standards but not being AG certified due to a subjective opinion about the loaded chamber indicator, whereas the EOPS list has specific, objective tests performed by a third party laboratory.

+1.... with the biggest kick in the groin being from the fact that
even if a company pays for the testing and has their guns destroyed,
that even if it -MAKES- the list, that afterwards there
is still no certainty on the dealers behalf that their guns will be able
to get past the 2nd tier "AG's consumer safety" regs BS. So
the worst case is that a gun manuf can spend a bunch of capital
on certification and be denied a return on investment at the whim
of the attorney general. [sad2]

If the EOPS roster was all there was for manufacturers to worry about, it would easily
have twice as many guns on it, because manufacturers would be more willing to
put cash on the line if they knew they could sell product here after obtaining
certification.

-Mike

 

[Knob Creek]

No chance for a number of reasons.

- LEOs can buy Glocks, as many as they want. They are exempt from AG BS.

- Ditto on other guns on the EOPS List that aren't AG compliant.

- Thus, many FA-10s get scanned for these guns on a regular basis. Nothing unusual here.

- The people scanning them in are feeding them into a scanner feeding to a computer database. Logic says that nobody is reading these by hand every day, as the system would slow to a crawl.

- AG Office doesn't get any love from many other agencies. When they stung the dealers, they got redacted copies of FA-10s (no buyer info) and I'm sure that it took considerable laborious time from CHSB's normal duties to comply with the request. Doubt that they would "just do it" for the AG.

- Even finding things like XDs (that aren't on EOPS) would be cumbersome as MA residents do own them and can sell them privately. CHSB would have to manually study each such form to see if it was a private transfer or a Dealer transfer to see if there was a violation. Too time consuming!!

Does anyone know if Corrections officers are considered "LEO" for the purposes of being exempt from the 98 gun law and AG rules?

 

[MFP4073]

It doesn't work that way. The problem is vendors can't get any
confirmation in advance from the AG whether or not something
meets the AG's regs; the only way they can comply is to make
"educated" guesses as what they mean and then take a risk selling
the guns and see if the AG whines about them or not.
-Mike

Anyone every wonder why S&W has it figured out so well? They have an awful lot of their firearms on the EOPS list and seem to sell without any hassle from the AG. I cant seem to figure out why they get past all the BS but others like Glock, Kimber, STI ect... have such difficulty or choose not to.

 

[dixidawg]

My guess would be that as a Mass based company, they employ a lot of people and have a fair amount of political clout in Mass.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

My guess would be that as a Mass based company, they employ a lot of people and have a fair amount of political clout in Mass.

Not only that, but their local presence and legal counsel on staff who are very familiar with MGL and the MA court system means that there would be a very real risk of a well funded defense if the AG went after S&W.

It's like lions hunting prey in Africa - go after the prey that's easiest to catch and can offer the least defense.

 

[Junglerott]

My guess would be that as a Mass based company, they employ a lot of people and have a fair amount of political clout in Mass.

Springfield was a Mass based company and we will probably never see one on the list EVER.

 

[drgrant]

Springfield was a Mass based company and we will probably never see one on the list EVER.

The modern day company known as "Springfield Armory" is based out
of IL, not MA.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Springfield Armory is "name only". They are in IL IIRC. MA only has the Armory as a National Historical Museum.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Most out of state companies just don't want to deal with the AG's BS. That uncertainty, not the EOPS List is what makes them shake their heads and run away. I have been told that directly by a couple of large companies executives.

And since this fits the "AG's mission" to attrit firearms, dealers and gun owners in this state, each of our AG's has sat back with a very satisfied look on their faces!

 

[drgrant]

Not only that, but their local presence and legal counsel on staff who are very familiar with MGL and the MA court system means that there would be a very real risk of a well funded defense if the AG went after S&W.

It's like lions hunting prey in Africa - go after the prey that's easiest to catch and can offer the least defense.

+1...

I think the AG would rather chase people who are more likely to
fold up their tent and run away. I think S+W probably has
very competent counsel on its side for starters, and they're
probably not afraid to use it if needed.

-Mike