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

[PD7]

It's been over a year, any updates or clarification on this?

This EOPS letter basically states that a LEO is in violation of the law if he takes his dept. issued handgun (with its dept issued high cap mags) home with him after his shift, or carries it concealed off duty. Insanity.

 

[WPDC13]

of course there is no clarification on this. They want everyone to be scared of "their" interpretation on whatever day it might be. Now that Guida is gone from the FRB (Firearms Records Bureau) maybe this drivel will stop, but I doubt it. Always baffles me how a records bureau can be passing things off as law. F this state

 

[Len-2A Training]

of course there is no clarification on this. They want everyone to be scared of "their" interpretation on whatever day it might be. Now that Guida is gone from the FRB (Firearms Records Bureau) maybe this drivel will stop, but I doubt it. Always baffles me how a records bureau can be passing things off as law. F this state

I strongly believe that Jason was "carrying water for others" in some of this stuff, that the interpretations came down "from on high" and he was told to "make them yours" (low level fall guy)! No proof on this one but now know this is true on another issue that he was strong about.

 

[Coyote33]

So, who is in charge there now? Now that he is gone, they are no longer "his", right?

 

[appraiser]

(and on another thread today we had people advocating non residents carrying on expired resident permits as an affirmative legal defense while the state is trying to jam up their own LEO's, ya I think the courts are sympathetic)

 

[OfficerObie59]

I strongly believe that Jason was "carrying water for others" in some of this stuff, that the interpretations came down "from on high" and he was told to "make them yours" (low level fall guy)! No proof on this one but now know this is true on another issue that he was strong about.

Well, he could have said "Screw it" and entered private practice in May 2011.

Len, I know he means a lot to you, but that letter was essentially Ron Glidden's MACOPA newsletter article codified into an official interpretation. I know he feels like what he was doing was to benefit officers, but in addition to having issues with his reasoning, it was a restrictive interpretation on an issue that no one was concerning themselves with. IMO, the chain reaction put far more officers at risk of prosecution than the number of officers it was ever intended to help.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well, he could have said "Screw it" and entered private practice in May 2011.

Len, I know he means a lot to you, but that letter was essentially Ron Glidden's MACOPA newsletter article codified into an official interpretation. I know he feels like what he was doing was to benefit officers, but in addition to having issues with his reasoning, it was a restrictive interpretation on an issue that no one was concerning themselves with. IMO, the chain reaction put far more officers at risk of prosecution than the number of officers it was ever intended to help.

Obie,

No, Jason was merely a good source of info, not a friend, just like Glidden. I understand, that interpretation caused many including myself a lot of consternation. For reasons that fail me, there did seem a great desire to prosecute officers! As for Glidden, I was at his seminar (as was Jon Green, Rob Boudrie & Knuckle Dragger) the day after that memo "hit" and Ron expressed surprise and said out loud to all 200+ chiefs/LOs attending that he disagreed with it! For whatever that is worth. IIRC, it was Jack Collins (MCOPA Counsel) who wrote about the restrictions and probably negotiated to relax them ONLY if a chief issued a letter to his officers-which is unlikely to happen and he would know that too).

 

[yanici]

Glad to see this thread reopened.

So, in a nutshell, where does this stand. Is there anything concrete?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

(and on another thread today we had people advocating non residents carrying on expired resident permits as an affirmative legal defense while the state is trying to jam up their own LEO's, ya I think the courts are sympathetic)

The posts on that thread (at least mine) were not "advocating" that non-residents carry on an expired LTC, but merely pointing out the statutory protection from criminal conviction that holding an expired LTC (without revocation for reason other than failure to change address of denial of renewal) provides.

Funny thing - even those who disagreed with his politics didn't tend to attack senator Arlen Specter for representing murderer and bail jumper Ira Einhorn, and even making the successful argument before the court that allowed Einhorn to make bail (which allowed him 25 years of freedom). Part of a lawyers job is to represent undesirables to the best of their ability. Sort of the legal system's equivalent of "nothing personal, I just have to kill you".

 

[JGreen]

The latest roster dated 6/11 has this little gem on page 2.

NOTE: Only MA
compliant
versions of the
models listed
below may be
lawfully
possessed in
Massachusetts if
the weapon was
manufactured
after 9/13/94.

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/firearms/large-capacity-roster-06-2011.pdf

Seems like a tiny win regarding the outright lies in the enforcement letters.

 

[yanici]

The latest roster dated 6/11 has this little gem on page 2.

NOTE: Only MA
compliant
versions of the
models listed
below may be
lawfully
possessed in
Massachusetts if
the weapon was
manufactured
after 9/13/94.

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/firearms/large-capacity-roster-06-2011.pdf

Seems like a tiny win regarding the outright lies in the enforcement letters.

If I get the gist of what this means, then if someone moves to MA with a noncompliant, post ban, gun, they will be unlawfully in possession. Also, if someone makes their gun noncompliant by modifying it, i.e. trigger job, or adding preban mags over 10 rounds they will be subject to prosecution. Right?

 

[milktree]

If I get the gist of what this means, then if someone moves to MA with a noncompliant, post ban, gun, they will be unlawfully in possession.

right.

Also, if someone makes their gun noncompliant by modifying it,

Yes, if the modification includes evil features (flash hider, bayonet mount, folding stock, &c.) then it would be illegal to possess.

But...

i.e. trigger job, or adding preban mags over 10 rounds

Those aren't evil features. "pre-ban" makes the mag. non-evil, and nobody cares about triggers.

 

[yanici]

I was always under the impression that a person could move to MA with a noncompliant handgun, as long as the mags were either compliant or, preban if over 10 rounds. I also understood that we could transfer, by person, these noncompliant handguns. This is getting really confusing or I'm just not getting it.

 

[yanici]

I just went to the MA site. The statement that was referred to covers rifles and shotguns, not hand guns. So, I was worried for nothing. Carry on.

 

[milktree]

I was always under the impression that a person could move to MA with a noncompliant handgun, as long as the mags were either compliant or, preban if over 10 rounds. I also understood that we could transfer, by person, these noncompliant handguns. This is getting really confusing or I'm just not getting it.

I just went to the MA site. The statement that was referred to covers rifles and shotguns, not hand guns. So, I was worried for nothing. Carry on.

It's not technically a "rifle vs handgun" thing.

The difference is the AWB, (which covers possession of "non-compliant" rifles, shotguns, and magazines) and the EOPS/AG's rules, which only cover the *sale* of handguns *by dealers*. (but not possession)

 

[KiloVictorTango]

You guys got my heart to skip a beat making me thing I had to hide my Gen 4 Glock from Martha

 

[Rob Boudrie]

n. Also, if someone makes their gun noncompliant by modifying it, i.e. trigger job

Trigger jobs are not prohibited.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

"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"

I buy preban lowers like hotcakes. How the hell am I supposed to know if it was "lawfully possessed under a Massachusetts firearms license on September 13, 1994". Is the state going to provide me a way to check that? How do I check my existing lowers against this new interpretation? How would the state even know for sure?

This is just stupid... It's not even what the law says. Now I can't buy preban lowers from out of state. **** you Marsha!

 

[stinx]

Its total crap,The section about being possesed in Ma was not in the original law,its been added recently. Im not even going to worry about this, this state has gone full retard.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Its total crap,The section about being possessed in Ma was not in the original law, its been added recently. I'm not even going to worry about this, this state has gone full retard.

I agree. I'm working in a business as usual mindset as well. I can't see the courts ever enforcing it the way this "interpretation" says.

 

[PaulD]

I was always under the impression that a person could move to MA with a noncompliant handgun, as long as the mags were either compliant or, preban if over 10 rounds. I also understood that we could transfer, by person, these noncompliant handguns. This is getting really confusing or I'm just not getting it.

It says "of the models listed below". In other words, it only pertains to the models (rifles) that are listed after that note, not to the models listed previously (handguns). Or that's my read at least.

 

[Len-2A Training]

"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"

I buy preban lowers like hotcakes. How the hell am I supposed to know if it was "lawfully possessed under a Massachusetts firearms license on September 13, 1994". Is the state going to provide me a way to check that? How do I check my existing lowers against this new interpretation? How would the state even know for sure?

This is just stupid... It's not even what the law says. Now I can't buy preban lowers from out of state. **** you Marsha!

Its total crap,The section about being possesed in Ma was not in the original law,its been added recently. Im not even going to worry about this, this state has gone full retard.

That quote is WRONG. It was Not in the law in 1998 and it STILL IS NOT IN THE LAW! A memo (probably mandated by the AG but I have no proof of that) does NOT make a law happen.

As for buying pre-ban lowers! During the Fed Ban the ATF ruled that said lowers to qualify as "pre-ban" MUST have been assembled or kitted with evil features as a gun PRIOR to or ON 9/13/1994. Merely being made and shipped as a bare-ass lower prior to that date did NOT meet the law as a "pre-ban". Although I am unaware of any case law in MA, I'd hazard an educated guess that the same would be held true in MA.

As for "how do I check", try educating yourself. We posted a list of S/Ns of legit (per Feds) pre-ban AR lowers/guns here on NES (taken from AR15.com where it also still exists). ATF demanded said list from every mfr back in 1994 and published the info so it is there for any PD or prosecutor to verify without breaking a sweat.

This lack of understanding is part of why I created the MA Gun Law Seminar that I did, to try to educate people before they become felons due to ignorance or bad info.

I agree. I'm working in a business as usual mindset as well. I can't see the courts ever enforcing it the way this "interpretation" says.

It was sent to all the DAs and police chiefs, so YES I could see a MA court over-reaching and "declaring it law" in spite of the fact that it is NOT law. MA judges rule from their gut/heart . . . those that hate guns will find a way to make their ruling meet that pre-disposition regardless of the "Law" (as written by the legislature)!!!

 

[stinx]

Len S you are right, what I should have posted is that this interpetation of the law is fairly recent, thanks for correcting this.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Len S you are right, what I should have posted is that this MIS-interpetation of the law is fairly recent, thanks for correcting this.

FIFY

 

[ThePreBanMan]

As for "how do I check", try educating yourself.

Thanks for the info Len, although you can keep the sarcasm. I do check the serial numbers against "the list" and have called Armalite (Eagle Arms) on occasion as they DIDN'T publish theirs. By the by... I "educated" myself at Roger Williams University.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Thanks for the info Len, although you can keep the sarcasm. I do check the serial numbers against "the list" and have called Armalite (Eagle Arms) on occasion as they DIDN'T publish theirs. By the by... I "educated" myself at Roger Williams University.

Here's all the info from the list of pre-ban AR S/Ns for those brands (Source: List on AR15.com created in 1999 and downloaded).

Armalite/Eagle 800-336-0184
Slightly over S/N 30,000 was the Pre-Ban cut-off, call to verify.* (Some Eagle lowers below the 30,000 range were determined to be POST ban by BATF - call to verify) Armalite sells Eagle lowers, but sells factory complete rifles with Armalite lowers.

Eagle Arms 309-944-6939
Now called ArmaLite. They will not give out a list, but will look up on an individual basis. Lower receiver serial numbers DO NOT begin with EA.

Agreed, not as useful as most mfrs in this regard. Your question was misleading if you already knew about the list and the info on it. Nobody here can tell you more than what is posted above, as obviously the company didn't stay in sequence with S/Ns (or perhaps some weren't kitted/assembled leading to the BATF conclusion that some were "post ban"). Best answer to this problem if you can't get proof is to only buy/build receivers that you can verify prior to the start of a pre-ban build project.

And it's good to know that Roger Williams University teaches gun law! In fact that would be awesome!

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Here's all the info from the list of pre-ban AR S/Ns for those brands (Source: List on AR15.com created in 1999 and downloaded).



Agreed, not as useful as most mfrs in this regard. Your question was misleading if you already knew about the list and the info on it. Nobody here can tell you more than what is posted above, as obviously the company didn't stay in sequence with S/Ns (or perhaps some weren't kitted/assembled leading to the BATF conclusion that some were "post ban"). Best answer to this problem if you can't get proof is to only buy/build receivers that you can verify prior to the start of a pre-ban build project.

And it's good to know that Roger Williams University teaches gun law! In fact that would be awesome!

The question was how one can verify it was registered in Massachusetts and in possession of a Mass LTC holder on the day the ban was effective, not if it is an actual preban rifle.

Short of the seller having a paper trail record of all transfers from the rifle's birth to today, how could you tell if it was owned in Mass when the ban started? How could the state tell? You see a rifle for sale at a gun show, you don;t know where that rifle was in 9/94. I'm willing to bet 99.9 % of the time the seller doesn't either.

 

[glide]

The question was how one can verify it was registered in Massachusetts and in possession of a Mass LTC holder on the day the ban was effective, not if it is an actual preban rifle.

You can't. And you don't have to.

Nothing in the law requires it to have been possessed in-state. They *wish* it was worded that way and are doing their best to make believe it was.

 

[Len-2A Training]

ThePreBanMan . . . then your question certainly wasn't clear to me at all!

Glide gave you the right answer. Just ensure that the lower was a legal (by Fed standards) pre-ban and do what you want and enjoy it.

Don't sweat the memo full of bullshit! It's not the law and we shouldn't concern ourselves with the Brady Bunch wish list (vs. MGL).

 

[ThePreBanMan]

I hate this damn state. If I could just find work south of the mason dixon line I'm farkin outa here! I don;t know what I would do at that point... Would I sell all my pre-ban lowers, or take them with me??? Decisions.... Decisions.... Probably keep em just in case I ever wind up in another ban state.