• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Latest police interpretation of MA Firearms transfer laws/regulations

bandaid bandit

bandaid bandit

Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,953
Likes
587
Location
DPRM
Feedback: 10 / 0 / 0
Earlier, I was talking with a number of LEOs, when one mentioned he had mistakenly bought a Glock 42 instead of the intended Glock 43, and was wondering what he'd have to do to sell it back to the shop. The Sgt explained that even though it was unfired, the officer would likely only get 60% of book value. Naturally, I offered to buy it off him for his costs.
Apparently, according to the Sgt, that would be highly illegal as Glocks made past 1998 are only legal for LEOs to possess/own. He said that they slipped into the MA AGs regs that on top of dealers not being able to sell new Glocks without the danger of a $5000 fine, "civilians" face a $1000 fine per firearm for post 1998 Glocks, and that the AG's office is cracking down and sending out notices.
I by no means consider myself an expert on the law, but I do try to keep current so as to avoid expensive legal troubles. As expected, I got the cop-out "look it up" response when asked for a cite on the law, so as to make sure I'm in compliance and to further inform friends and family. I've looked through the applicable MGLs and CMRs, finding nothing (as expected)stating the illegality of possessing current model Glocks. Is there a section I'm missing, or is this yet another case of LEOs misinterpreting the law?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
bandaid bandit said:
Earlier, I was talking with a number of LEOs, when one mentioned he had mistakenly bought a Glock 42 instead of the intended Glock 43, and was wondering what he'd have to do to sell it back to the shop. The Sgt explained that even though it was unfired, the officer would likely only get 60% of book value. Naturally, I offered to buy it off him for his costs.
Apparently, according to the Sgt, that would be highly illegal as Glocks made past 1998 are only legal for LEOs to possess/own. He said that they slipped into the MA AGs regs that on top of dealers not being able to sell new Glocks without the danger of a $5000 fine, "civilians" face a $1000 fine per firearm for post 1998 Glocks, and that the AG's office is cracking down and sending out notices.
I by no means consider myself an expert on the law, but I do try to keep current so as to avoid expensive legal troubles. As expected, I got the cop-out "look it up" response when asked for a cite on the law, so as to make sure I'm in compliance and to further inform friends and family. I've looked through the applicable MGLs and CMRs, finding nothing (as expected)stating the illegality of possessing current model Glocks. Is there a section I'm missing, or is this yet another case of LEOs misinterpreting the law?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Sounds like another genius on the lose.. .
 
bandaid bandit said:
Earlier, I was talking with a number of LEOs, when one mentioned he had mistakenly bought a Glock 42 instead of the intended Glock 43, and was wondering what he'd have to do to sell it back to the shop. The Sgt explained that even though it was unfired, the officer would likely only get 60% of book value. Naturally, I offered to buy it off him for his costs.
Apparently, according to the Sgt, that would be highly illegal as Glocks made past 1998 are only legal for LEOs to possess/own. He said that they slipped into the MA AGs regs that on top of dealers not being able to sell new Glocks without the danger of a $5000 fine, "civilians" face a $1000 fine per firearm for post 1998 Glocks, and that the AG's office is cracking down and sending out notices.
I by no means consider myself an expert on the law, but I do try to keep current so as to avoid expensive legal troubles. As expected, I got the cop-out "look it up" response when asked for a cite on the law, so as to make sure I'm in compliance and to further inform friends and family. I've looked through the applicable MGLs and CMRs, finding nothing (as expected)stating the illegality of possessing current model Glocks. Is there a section I'm missing, or is this yet another case of LEOs misinterpreting the law?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What towns in the DPRM do these guys work in?
 
59874401.jpg
 
You can buy as many Glocks you want in Massachusetts, Just not from a dealer. But then again cops know the laws the best just ask them!
 
Lank said:
What towns in the DPRM do these guys work in?
Click to expand...

Would rather not mention it, as I know the department monitors NES, and the "legal expert is a lurker, if not a member here." The department involved was one of the original defendants in Davis v Grimes on the north shore though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mjbitt said:
You can buy as many Glocks you want in Massachusetts, Just not from a dealer. But then again cops know the laws the best just ask them!
Click to expand...

You CAN buy a Glock from a dealer, if you can find one to sell you one. The dealer is assuming the risk, YOU are not.

snowballs said:
What about a dealer that will sell you one.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Convince him to sell it you, arrest you, then when you fight it in court we'll have some case law.
 
And these are the people charged with enforcing actual laws. This is why the amount of tax payer money spent for lawsuits and settlements is measured in the tens of billions of dollars.
 
BB, you're totally legal. The CMRs are only for what FFL dealers can sell or transfer to you. You will not find this "law" in the MGLs because it's in the CMRs that only FFL dealers have to go by. Face to face transfers are exempt from CMRs but not MGLs.

ETA: well, hopefully they're monitoring the Stickies because all this info on legality is in the Stickies.

And if they doubt the power of the Stickies, then hopefully Maura herself can come on here and tell us all that it is legal.
 
Last edited:
bandaid bandit said:
Would rather not mention it, as I know the department monitors NES, and the "legal expert is a lurker, if not a member here." The department involved was one of the original defendants in Davis v Grimes on the north shore though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not hard to figure out which PD you are referring to, so big f**king deal, the Peabody police lurk on NES. If they actually lurked though, they would know that they are full of $hit with regard to what you were told!
 
Glockster30 said:
Not hard to figure out which PD you are referring to, so big f**king deal, the Peabody police lurk on NES. If they actually lurked though, they would know that they are full of $hit with regard to what you were told!
Click to expand...

Exactly! Even an absolute moron, devoid of the most basic thought, would pick up some small amount of knowledge just by lurking here, wouldn't he?
 

Similar threads

Personal transfer of pre-Healy MA compliant AR and/or lowers
Replies
4
Views
266
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
Your Knife Laws Suck
Replies
19
Views
410
greencobra
greencobra
  • Locked
Does Massachusetts have the best "gun control laws" for Pro-2A people?
Replies
28
Views
467
Picton
Picton
Expired MA LTC = useful?
Replies
12
Views
350
Laura
Laura
FFL Refuses Transfer Because Address on LTC not matching DL address
4 5 6
Replies
159
Views
4K
EddieCoyle
EddieCoyle
Back
Top Bottom