Just received this GOAL alert:EOPS is sending out a letter with bad info.

[PaulD]

More coup attempts it seems

Gun Owners' Action League has received copies of a notice sent to Massachusetts licensed firearm retailers from the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security - Firearms Record Bureau.



The notice from the agency is unsigned and not dated and contains supposed information regarding the sale of "Assault Weapons" and "Large Capacity Feeding Devices."



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



(bold added by GOAL to note error)
(Also note that they refer to s121 which is incorrect, 123 Sixteenth is the applicable law.)



This is the law as it appears on the MA website;



Chapter 140, 123 Sixteenth, That no licensee shall sell, lease, rent, transfer or deliver or offer for sale, lease, rent, transfer or delivery to any person any assault weapon or large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.



Chapter 140, Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.



The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.



GOAL does not believe this statement to be factually correct. Nowhere in either law does it state "under a Massachusetts firearms license." Further, Clause Sixteenth does not represent a complete ban as mentioned in the notice.



GOAL is currently trying to get an answer from the Executive Office of Public Safety as to why they are putting out false information to licensed retailers. If you have received such a notice, please forward a copy of it to GOAL at 37 Pierce Street, Northborough MA 01532.

 

[szaino]

This is the type of stuff that creates so much confusion in our state- as if the laws aren't confusing enough.

 

[joeendris]

Little white lie to garner a little confusion. This little gem puts a seed of doubt in LEO's understanding, we get pinched because there's two different versions and nobody can remember initially which one is correct. Away goes the LTC, for now. Head to court, your lawyer "finds" the actual regurgitation. All this at no small cost to you, yet the liberals found another way to stick you in the eye.

 

[szaino]

I wonder how many "felons" this gem of a memo created?

 

[glide]

I wonder how many "felons" this gem of a memo created?

None. It's not legally binding in any way.

 

[jdubois]

I'm surprised this is the part of the letter that GOAL took to task. Not because it isn't wrong, but because the next part of the EOPS letter is many times worse. The EOPS letter goes on to say that a licensed firearms dealer in MA cannot sell ANY "assault weapon" or "Large Capacity magazine" to ANYBODY. NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER.

According to the made up law of this EOPS letter, it doesn't matter whether it is simply "lawfully possessed", or if it's "lawfully possessed under a MA license" before the ban date, because, they say, a dealer (who this letter was directed at) cannot sell it either way!

 

[KMaurer]

They actually pointed out both of the misstatements. I suspect that most people simply focus on the first part, since the3 exceptions to the AWB or "big scary clips" law is fairly limited.

Ken

 

[WPDC13]

I wouldnt worry about LE cracking down and anyone losing their LTC over this BS! Simply for the fact that it all of a sudden makes us felons too. Ironic how the letters/emails come out the same week of Gliddens legal update

 

[Len-2A Training]

I wouldnt worry about LE cracking down and anyone losing their LTC over this BS! Simply for the fact that it all of a sudden makes us felons too. Ironic how the letters/emails come out the same week of Gliddens legal update

Yup and Ron was none too happy about the contents of those two letters . . . confusion abounded!

Jason was nailed by ~12 people at lunch break with various questions and concerns. I got my shot at getting answers after everyone but Ron left for the day at 3PM.

 

[glide]

Yup and Ron was none too happy about the contents of those two letters . . . confusion abounded!

Jason was nailed by ~12 people at lunch break with various questions and concerns. I got my shot at getting answers after everyone but Ron left for the day at 3PM.

Wasn't Ron also the one who opined that 'once an assault weapon, always an assault weapon'?

Talk about confusion abounding. But I guess this one impacts the boys in blue as well as mere mortals.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Wasn't Ron also the one who opined that 'once an assault weapon, always an assault weapon'?

Talk about confusion abounding. But I guess this one impacts the boys in blue as well as mere mortals.

Yes.

But he's been telling everyone who'll listen (for years now) that LEOs are NOT exempt from the AWB issues wrt possession of post-ban guns!

 

[andyc4728]

But he's been telling everyone who'll listen (for years now) that LEOs are NOT exempt from the AWB issues wrt possession of post-ban guns!

Len, thank you for all the info on this and the E-FA-10 subject. It's very helpful (and sadly the only real info available).

In my opinion, the EOPS letter is full of fail regarding making up the "in Massachusetts" section, however I believe the clear statement around LEOs not being exempt is actually good news. Everyone should be playing by the same rules. Welcome to the Commonwealth!!

Len I'd be curious if you had any more context or info on the EOPS letter from the session yesterday.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len, thank you for all the info on this and the E-FA-10 subject. It's very helpful (and sadly the only real info available).

In my opinion, the EOPS letter is full of fail regarding making up the "in Massachusetts" section, however I believe the clear statement around LEOs not being exempt is actually good news. Everyone should be playing by the same rules. Welcome to the Commonwealth!!

Len I'd be curious if you had any more context or info on the EOPS letter from the session yesterday.

No further context as Ron only received that info the day before. He doesn't buy it either and stressed that it was only an "advisory" to dealers and NOT LAW. He believes that the intent is to stop dealers from selling post-ban AWs to LEOs . . . but he believes that the AG further "invented law" in doing so. The FUD is likely to stop some dealers from selling even pre-ban AWs however and "it's all good in the eyes of the AG" (my editorial comment).

 

[WillyJP]

I think this memo underscores that there is a bit of a cold war scenario going on here. For whatever reason the gungrabbers do not think they have the muscle to achieve their ends through legislation. The result is a memo in which a new "interpretation" of the AWB is advanced (e.g. "preban" now means that it had to have been in state at the time the federal AWB was passed).

As a side note, this fellow Jason Guida seems to be at the center of a lot of the sneaky under the radar stuff. I don't think many people even know who the hell he is given the amount of influence he has. He appears to be maneuvering himself into the position of providing interpretation of the law (similar to California's DOJ) as opposed to simply maintaining the records associated with firearms transfers. Was there any enabling legislation that allowed this? I have grave concern over how much damage such an anti-gun political appointee can cause.

 

[GSG]

But he's been telling everyone who'll listen (for years now) that LEOs are NOT exempt from the AWB issues wrt possession of post-ban guns!

If you're talking about personal use guns/mags I agree with him, for whatever that's worth.

 

[Len-2A Training]

If you're talking about personal use guns/mags I agree with him, for whatever that's worth.

Yes, sorry my reply wasn't clearer, I did mean personal ownership of post-ban "AWs". Although Ron's position is the same on mags, I have a "personal problem" with that as PDs aren't real generous with mags (3 with handguns, ? with M4s) and many officers I know that take personal safety seriously purchase additional mags and carry them in a "duty bag" (looks much like the range bags we use) for that "just in case moment".

Once an officer retires, it's easy to get rid of the additional mags to other officers and everything is nice and legal . . . at least in my eyes (but not in Ron's).

 

[KMM696]

I'm assuming the basis for the theory that LEOs can't buy personal post-ban AWs is that departments issue rifles, and that personal weapons are not allowed. What if they are allowed?

Let's say you have a (very) small town, who's annual PD total budget is, say, less than half of Glidden's salary. The PD hasn't bought patrol rifles due to budget constraints, but the chief's policy is that if you qualify with your own rifle and ammo he approves, you can carry it.

Is that rifle in "...possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement;"?

 

[GSG]

KMM696, yes. A few municipalities in Mass. that let the cops buy their own duty pistol or rifle, as long as they can qualify with it. Off the top of my head I can think of Lancaster & Wellfleet PD's, I think Wareham does too? Obviously the cop would want no-no mags for it, or configured with all the fun stuff. The difference is that you're describing a personally owned weapon that's authorized for duty use, and should fall under that exemption with any sane reading of 140-131M. What 131M does not cover is that cool range toy you bought that's not connected to LE use.

For some interesting reading, check out the AWB link in my sigline. The 2nd case listed there has a ton of info on a guy who wasn't in compliance with the LE exemption, and the prosecution's view on his possession of it.

ETA:

This is the excerpt from that case:

http://www.mass.gov/Eoaf/docs/csc/decisions/discipline/weinrebe_joel_112907.pdf

59. Sgt. Mills testified that he and Officer William Schlieman went into the Appellant’s
home, collected the Appellant’s firearms, brought them back to the station, and
logged them in for safekeeping. (Testimony of Mills, V. 1, pp. 103, 105)
60. Sgt. Mills testified that the items listed on page 3 of the Brockton Police Arrest
Report, dated December 10, 2004, which is Exhibit 32, are the items removed from
Appellant’s home and placed in safekeeping. (Testimony of Mills, V. 1, p. 105 and
Exhibit 32)
61. The Appellant holds a Class “A” License to Carry a Large Capacity firearm. [Ex. 37a
and 49].
19
62. One of the items removed from Appellant’s home was a “Colt AR 15A3 .223 CAL
serial #LBD001907 labeled “Restricted Military/Government Law
Enforcement/Export Use only.” (Exhibit 32; see also Testimony of Stanton, V. 2, p.
180)
63. Both parties offered witnesses and documentary evidence regarding whether or not
the Appellant was authorized to carry the firearm in question.
64. The Appellant indicated to the Brockton Police that he was authorized to possess this
firearm because of his position on the Department’s Tactical Response Team
(“TRT”). (Exhibit 260
65. Detective Stanton testified that Detective Donahue asked him to check the AR15A3
taken from Appellant’s home to make sure there was no ammunition inside the
weapon. (Testimony of Stanton, V. 2, pp.135-136)
66. Detective Stanton testified that when clearing the gun, he noticed that it was labeled
for military or law enforcement use only. This label was stamped into the well where
the detached feeding device affixes to the weapon. (Testimony of Stanton, V. 2,
p.138)
67. Detective Stanton testified that after making these observations on the AR15, he
made phone calls and inquires to Colt Manufacturing Co., to the DOC, and
subsequently forwarded a criminal complaint regarding the weapon to the district
attorney’s office. (Testimony of Stanton, V. 2, pp. 140-141)
68. Detective Stanton testified that Colt Manufacturing Co. informed him that the AR15
that was confiscated from Appellant’s home left the factory in 1996. (Testimony of
20
Stanton, V. 2, p. 141) The Appellant also testified that the gun was manufactured in
1996. (Testimony of Appellant, V. 3, p. 47).
69. Detective Stanton testified that he was informed by DOC that the AR 15 was not the
property of DOC. (Testimony of Stanton, V. 2, p. 142)
70. The Appellant does not dispute that the AR 15 taken from his home was his gun.
(Testimony of Appellant; V. 3, p.150)
71. On his Class A license, the Appellant listed his “occupation” as “Special State Police
Officer.” (Exhibit 37b)
72. DOC’s Director of Special Operations explained that a Special State Police
Commission is really a certification rather than a job title. (Testimony of Ayala, V. 2
p. 119)
73. When the Appellant registered the weapon, he listed its model as an “AR15.”
(Exhibit 58)
74. The Appellant’s DOC issued weapons license states that Appellant is “hereby
authorized to carry firearms and such other weapons as are necessary in the
performance of [his] duties…” (Exhibit 49)
75. Director of Operations Steven Ayala testified that the Appellant’s DOC issued
firearms permit (Exhibit 49) did not authorize him to have non-DOC issued firearms
at home. Further, he stated the DOC issued firearms permit is a limited permit for
DOC business only. (Testimony of Ayala, V. 2, p. 120)
76. Director Ayala testified that the Appellant’s DOC issued firearm permit would not
authorize Appellant to privately possess the AR 15 at issue in this case. (Testimony
of Ayala, V. 2, p. 121)
21
77. On September 27, 2005, at a DOC disciplinary hearing regarding the charges against
the Appellant, the Appellant testified that the he was authorized to possess the AR 15
through “the licensing authority from the Chief of Police, and also from the
Department of Corrections.” He further stated, “my firearms permit for the
Department of Corrections allows me to carry those things.” (Exhibit 46, p. 45)

...

85. On cross-examination, Appellant initially indicated that he was authorized to
purchase the AR 15 in question because of his position with the DOC. But then when
asked if this was because the gun was marked for law enforcement/government use
only, he provided the following non-responsive answer: “No, because it was a
collectible firearm worth a lot of money. I paid a thousand dollars for it the day I
bought it; it was worth $2,500.” (Testimony of Appellant, V. 3, pp.195 & 196)
86. The Department’s Director of Special Operations testified that members of the
Special Response Team (“SRT”) are issued 24 hour handguns. However, assault
23
weapons are kept at the armory, and could only be taken home with special
permission in the event that the team needed to be somewhere late at night or early in
the morning. Director Ayala noted that this is the exception, not the rule. Director
Ayala testified that Appellant was one of the logistical people for the Tactical
Response Team. Director Ayala testified that Appellant would not have been issued
an assault weapon to take home. (Testimony of Ayala, V. 2, 80, 92 & 94)
87. Director Ayala testified that Appellant was not authorized to have the AR 15 that is
the subject of this case because of his duties with SRT or TRT. (Testimony of Ayala,
V. 2, p. 110; see also Exhibit 26, p. 7)
88. The Appellant was indicted for unlawfully possessing the AR 15 and failed to notify
the DOC of this fact in writing. (Testimony of Appellant)

That's what we're talking about, having a badge doesn't give you blanket exemption from the AWB, but the use you're describing is covered.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Let's say you have a (very) small town, who's annual PD total budget is, say, less than half of Glidden's salary. The PD hasn't bought patrol rifles due to budget constraints, but the chief's policy is that if you qualify with your own rifle and ammo he approves, you can carry it.

Is that rifle in "...possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement;"?

KMM696, yes. A few municipalities in Mass. that let the cops buy their own duty pistol or rifle, as long as they can qualify with it. Off the top of my head I can think of Lancaster & Wellfleet PD's, I think Wareham does too? Obviously the cop would want no-no mags for it, or configured with all the fun stuff. The difference is that you're describing a personally owned weapon that's authorized for duty use, and should fall under that exemption with any sane reading of 140-131M. What 131M does not cover is that cool range toy you bought that's not connected to LE use.

Even under Glidden's interpretation, this conduct would be illegal--his opinion seemed consistent with the remainder of EOPSS letter as summarized by jdubois. Glidden's reasoning was that while 131M exempted possession by LEO's from the law LE puposes, he argued nowhere does the exemption allow for sale or purchase. That part I disagree with for the reasons you both state, and because officers who become members of Council special tactics teams have often purcahsed their own rifles for use on those teams when either a police department does not have the funding or lacks the political will to puchase AR's for those officers.

In my opinion, the EOPS letter is full of fail regarding making up the "in Massachusetts" section, however I believe the clear statement around LEOs not being exempt is actually good news. Everyone should be playing by the same rules. Welcome to the Commonwealth!!

This might get me flamed but since when is equal oppression is "good news"? What about when the rule excepted is unjust or arguably unconstitutional, and limits rights in general?

Overall, I absoluetly agree with with the point that an LEO's gun rights should be equal to everyone else's. But there should be no exception because there should be no AWB. I disagree that making such "equality" happen by limiting anyone's rights futher whether they be an LEO or a carpenter is the way to go. Seems to me if you agree with that, you're no less a threat to the 2nd AMD than any other gungrabber. And the biggest irony is that LEO's who purchase a AR for private use in what Glidden would interpret as a violation of the AWB are by and large hugely pro-RKBA for everyone else as much as themselves.

Listen, I completely understand your point and agree it's logical and well-principled. I simply feel we should be using our energy to push the debate towards something that appeals the law, a not take pleasure in something that broadens it's enforcement.

 

[KMM696]

Even under Glidden's interpretation, this conduct would be illegal--his opinion seemed consistent with the remainder of EOPSS letter as summarized by jdubois. Glidden's reasoning was that while 131M exempted possession by LEO's from the law LE puposes, he argued nowhere does the exemption allow for sale or purchase. That part I disagree with for the reasons you both state, and because officers who become members of Council special tactics teams have often purcahsed their own rifles for use on those teams when either a police department does not have the funding or lacks the political will to puchase AR's for those officers.

So, Glidden's reasoning is that whatever isn't specifically allowed by the law must be illegal. I'd like to say I'm surprised by that, but this is Massachusetts. What he's saying to me is that if my department can't afford (financially or politically) this equipment, tough shit.

This might get me flamed but since when is equal oppression is "good news"? What about when the rule excepted is unjust or arguably unconstitutional, and limits rights in general?

Overall, I absoluetly agree with with the point that an LEO's gun rights should be equal to everyone else's. But there should be no exception because there should be no AWB.

Exactly - the AWB isn't accomplishing anything, and needs to go into the history books under 'Failed Experiments'.

 

[KMaurer]

This might get me flamed but since when is equal oppression is "good news"? What about when the rule excepted is unjust or arguably unconstitutional, and limits rights in general?.

Giving those groups with the most political power (which is the only reason anybody gets any special treatment) special exemptions to avoid the oppression simply reduces the pressure to end the oppression for everybody. That's how the whole damn thing got started in the first place. First it was "it's OK for the nobility to have arms, but not the common people"; then it became "it's OK for white people to have guns, but not Blacks"; now it's "it's OK if you're an LEO or a friend of the chief"; in this particular case it's "LEOs only". As long as you let "the right people" escape the oppression, nothing will ever change.

Ken

 

[andyc4728]

This might get me flamed but since when is equal oppression is "good news"? What about when the rule excepted is unjust or arguably unconstitutional, and limits rights in general?

Overall, I absoluetly agree with with the point that an LEO's gun rights should be equal to everyone else's. But there should be no exception because there should be no AWB. I disagree that making such "equality" happen by limiting anyone's rights futher whether they be an LEO or a carpenter is the way to go. Seems to me if you agree with that, you're no less a threat to the 2nd AMD than any other gungrabber. And the biggest irony is that LEO's who purchase a AR for private use in what Glidden would interpret as a violation of the AWB are by and large hugely pro-RKBA for everyone else as much as themselves.

Listen, I completely understand your point and agree it's logical and well-principled. I simply feel we should be using our energy to push the debate towards something that appeals the law, a not take pleasure in something that broadens it's enforcement.

I find the logic in your reply a bit confused. You seem to imply that enforcement of an unconstitutional law is OK against ordinary folks, but not against LE folks. Really?

My position stems from, and is rooted in, being against the creation of a secondary class of citizens.

Equal "oppression" (where "oppression" means enforcement of MGL by the book?) can be good because justice should be blind, we don't create unequal classes of citizens, or any number of additional such sayings. The water is fine come on in

I'm not, in any way, saying the AWB is a good thing. But the fact that it exists means it should be enforced by the book, which means exemptions for LE duty guns but not for their personal toys at home. This enforcement has nothing to do with my personal opinion on this law but rather my respect for the law as a whole, the system that created it, and my strong desire to see it applied evenly for all.

Your implication that I'm anti-2nd amendment based on this logic is rather farcical.

To walk a few more moves into this game, if the law were applied and enforced evenly I believe it would result in better clarity and outcome for all citizens. I would like to see the LE community really pissed and to help reform the laws rather than to consider themselves above it.

 

[WPDC13]

GSG-dont know where you got your info, but Wellfleet does not allow that, they have patrol rifles in the cruisers and thats what they qualify with. How do I know this?.......I'm the one who bought them.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A rational argument can be made for special police privileges with regard to carry ("always on duty" and all that), but there is no argument other than "This person is special and should not be bound by the laws (s)he is sworn to enforce" that justifies allowing officers to purchase and possess personal weapons that will not be carried on the job.

If off duty police were subject to the same restrictions as ordinary folk when it comes to carry, the police would be a strong ally for shall-issue; mandatory reciprocity; etc.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Giving those groups with the most political power (which is the only reason anybody gets any special treatment) special exemptions to avoid the oppression simply reduces the pressure to end the oppression for everybody. That's how the whole damn thing got started in the first place. First it was "it's OK for the nobility to have arms, but not the common people"; then it became "it's OK for white people to have guns, but not Blacks"; now it's "it's OK if you're an LEO or a friend of the chief"; in this particular case it's "LEOs only". As long as you let "the right people" escape the oppression, nothing will ever change.

You point relies on the assumption that the police in Massachusetts contiue to be a political powerhouse. Not nearly as true as it used to be, even in 1998 when MA passed the AWB legislation. (See debate on Quinn Bill, Police Details if you think the legislature bows to the police unions/police admin anymore.)

Second, while I see your reasoning with the historically oppressed sections of society, I can't think of one of those groups that arose from that place by taking the same liberties from the oppressive class.

I find the logic in your reply a bit confused. You seem to imply that enforcement of an unconstitutional law is OK against ordinary folks, but not against LE folks. Really?

I never implied enforcing an unconstitutional law is okay under any circumstance. Nor did I say this law was indeed unconstitutional in law (though I personally believe it to be in fact), only that it's arguably so, and clearly unjust.

I'll do whatever I can within my discretion to avoid such enforcement, but if a power appointed above me orders such enforcement, I'm duty bound to do so. Why? Because of my similar respect to the law as yours. When I act in an official capacity, what I personally think is constitutional means jack squat. Unfortunately a court of competent authoity is yet to agree with me (and thus the "I was only following orders" retorts everyone likes to bring up are moot), and until they do, I'd be usurping the very Constituition that protects these rights, as it also sets up the very framework to adjudicate these disputes.

Does that make it "OK"? Not at all, at least in my mind. But as you yourself note above, the law is to be respected, and if I were to unilaterally decide the constitutionality on my own, than I've usurped that law.

My position stems from, and is rooted in, being against the creation of a secondary class of citizens. Equal "oppression" (where "oppression" means enforcement of MGL by the book?) can be good because justice should be blind, we don't create unequal classes of citizens, or any number of additional such sayings. The water is fine come on in

I'm not, in any way, saying the AWB is a good thing. But the fact that it exists means it should be enforced by the book, which means exemptions for LE duty guns but not for their personal toys at home. This enforcement has nothing to do with my personal opinion on this law but rather my respect for the law as a whole, the system that created it, and my strong desire to see it applied evenly for all.

Your implication that I'm anti-2nd amendment based on this logic is rather farcical.

My gripe is not with your favoring the reason why, but favoring the result.

If your opinion of reading the AWB is that officers should not be exempted on a personal level because of fidelity to the law, as I said, I consider your argument to be a principled one. However, while the means may be a good thing, I don't consider the result to be. And if you do, I stand by my point that favoring that result is to favor the disarming of fellow citizens. Period. The citizens simply happen to be cops.

My anti 2nd-AMD barb was perhaps was a bit strong and should have been worded differently. If I offended you, my apologies. Rereading that, it definately seemed ad hom, and I apologize for that.

To walk a few more moves into this game, if the law were applied and enforced evenly I believe it would result in better clarity and outcome for all citizens. I would like to see the LE community really pissed and to help reform the laws rather than to consider themselves above it.

First, I don't think many LEO's affected by this--and I know many will disagree--thought themselves as above the law. I think they simply thought the law allows for a personal exception under any interpretation, and aren't even aware there's a debate it may not be.

Second, I think those few moves will send you right off the playing table. The LE community won't get "really pissed" because a) they'd have to admit they broke the law, whether knowingly or unknonwingly, 2) LE has a fraction of the political power it used to, and 3) while I think cops are generally more RKBA than the general public, I doubt there's enough passionate RKBA advocates in LE that it would make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

Even if LE leaders came out and said "The AWB was a complete failure" the sheeple will still ask "Why does anyone NEED a kitten killing assault weapon?" Hell, many don't even think the police need them (See: Ed Davis, Summer 2009). The rest of the public views the AWB as a positive thing, regardless of whether it works or not, regarless of what the cops think. They think such guns should be limited to need rather than "because the 2nd AMD says I can". And as long as those people continue to vote, there will be no legislative AWB repeal.

As to Rob's point, I absolutey think police can make a difference on the shall-carry/LTC issuance issue, but I don't think this AWB issue will be a factor at all.

 

[Len-2A Training]

If off duty police were subject to the same restrictions as ordinary folk when it comes to carry, the police would be a strong ally for shall-issue; mandatory reciprocity; etc.

Rank and file officers have NO political clout and if they raise their voices they can face serous sanctions up to and including termination. Only the brass (and those anointed by the brass) have permission to speak out . . . and it better be the "party line" of said department.

You point relies on the assumption that the police in Massachusetts contiue to be a political powerhouse. Not nearly as true as it used to be, even in 1998 when MA passed the AWB legislation. (See debate on Quinn Bill, Police Details if you think the legislature bows to the police unions/police admin anymore.)

Second, I think those few moves will send you right off the playing table. The LE community won't get "really pissed" because . . . 3) while I think cops are generally more RKBA than the general public, I doubt there's enough passionate RKBA advocates in LE that it would make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

Even if LE leaders came out and said "The AWB was a complete failure" the sheeple will still ask "Why does anyone NEED a kitten killing assault weapon?" Hell, many don't even think the police need them (See: Ed Davis, Summer 2009). The rest of the public views the AWB as a positive thing, regardless of whether it works or not, regarless of what the cops think. They think such guns should be limited to need rather than "because the 2nd AMD says I can". And as long as those people continue to vote, there will be no legislative AWB repeal.

IMNSHO, ONLY MCOPA has real political clout in MA and the legistraitors do listen to them. They are as anti-gun as possible and they would probably disarm their own officers if they thought they could get away with it.

I agree with Obie's assessment of the AWB in the public mind as well.

Our only way of winning in MA is thru the courts and only with specially hand-picked cases. It's going to take a very long time for that to happen!

 

[OfficerObie59]

Len, I tend to agree, but even MCOPA couldn't persuade the legislature to keep the Quinn Bill from the chopping block. Plus, MCOPA has a power interest in maintaining the status quo, whereas the rank-and-file have very little to none.

 

[GSG]

Glidden's reasoning was that while 131M exempted possession by LEO's from the law LE puposes, he argued nowhere does the exemption allow for sale or purchase.

I still disagree with homeboy. 140-131M doesn't address the hypothetical scenario of a cop personally buying a post-ban gun/mag because when used in this way elsewhere in firearms MGL, "transfer" refers to an outbound transaction (i.e. a sale), not a purchase. The FFL could still get in some serious felony trouble for selling it due to the 16th condition of 140-123, but the cop is free and clear to purchase, as long as it's for LE purposes.

Listen, I completely understand your point and agree it's logical and well-principled. I simply feel we should be using our energy to push the debate towards something that appeals the law, a not take pleasure in something that broadens it's enforcement.

I don't see it as taking pleasure in seeing people's legal access to guns further restricted. I personally take pleasure in seeing the law enforced in a legally correct manner. A huge problem in Mass. is the gap between what the law says and how it is enforced. No matter how unpleasant the position it puts some in, it's imperative that the legal standard is followed, and not an imaginary one.

So, Glidden's reasoning is that whatever isn't specifically allowed by the law must be illegal. I'd like to say I'm surprised by that, but this is Massachusetts. What he's saying to me is that if my department can't afford (financially or politically) this equipment, tough shit.

Even if we assume that I'm mad from dipping hats in MGL for too long and the purchase you described above is illegal, 131M would still allow a post-ban rifle build or purchase out of state by an individual officer for LE purposes. With an honest reading of the law though, a purchase in state is not prohibited for what you described.

Exactly - the AWB isn't accomplishing anything, and needs to go into the history books under 'Failed Experiments'.

Agree 100%.

GSG-dont know where you got your info, but Wellfleet does not allow that, they have patrol rifles in the cruisers and thats what they qualify with. How do I know this?.......I'm the one who bought them.

I was talking about handguns. The (now former) chief of Wellfleet PD posts on Glocktalk. I'm guessing there was a server crash or or other problem because a lot of his posts are gone, but I remember him posting something about allowing his officers to carry an approved, personally owned handgun in a serious caliber. I could be wrong on that aspect, but my point still stands about some department's allowing it. I also just remembered Pepperell Aux. PD and North(?) Brookfield Aux. PD allow a personally purchased duty handgun.

 

[Coyote33]

...If off duty police were subject to the same restrictions as ordinary folk when it comes to carry, the police would be a strong ally for shall-issue; mandatory reciprocity; etc.

That was the intent of the rhetorical post here:

exempt from MA and US laws

 

[OfficerObie59]

That was the intent of the rhetorical post here:

exempt from MA and US laws

The theory makes sense but it wouldn't work in practice.

Again, I agree LE support on the "shall carry" issue would carry weight insofar as it's supported by CLEO's, but LE support on the AWB wouldn't do anything. Whether it works or not, the sheeple don't see any benefit to repeal.

Thus if you focus on what is possible to be fixed, the only change that would affect the "shall issue" debate would be the EOPSS handgun compliance restrictions. The problem there is the legislature is only listening to the chiefs on that one. And if it comes down to maintaining their own power in licensing or giving up the EOPSS exemption, they'll suck it up and fill their arsenals with MA-compliant firearms.