-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
MA Gun Laws
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
IMO A pin is more than likely "enough" as it means that a person is not going to be able to adjust it without tools, and it is basically a fixed stock. It would take the same amount of effort to remove the pin (eg, something like a roll pin) as it would be to take a removable stock and replace it with one of a different length. Of course one item of fun with the law is it's anyone's guess as to what the real "spirit and intent" of that garbage is.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
ETA: There are probably BATFE tech branch decisions regarding this issue, but I am unsure of the relevance as I don't think there is any enabling statute in MGL
that makes those decisions legally binding in an MA sense. Same thing with the flash suppressor determination- it's all open to whether or not MA would
adopt the BATFE standards (or not) that are not codified in law.
-Mike
There is a Massachusetts Gun Laws" poster which is supposed to be in every city hall and town hall.
Chapter 269: Section 11. Printing statutes for posters; display
Quick question. A personal defense handgun/weapon according to Mass law cannot be modified in any way internally and must be stock, is this correct? I can have different sights but that's about it, right? I've pretty much rendered my G21 to sport shooting only with the upgrades I've done. However, would the same hold true for say, the state of NH? Thanks all.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 69
what law is that?
Big Daddy 45acp
Instructor
My money is on Gun Shop Commandos, the local cop, or non-NES instructors.
It's as if anti-gun groups are air dropping disinformation leaflets into the parking lots of gun clubs and gun shops. And the leaflets encourage readers to post their newly gathered information on NES.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,550
- Likes
- 33,612
Time to set down the USPSA rulebook which you have open to appendix D4 and pick up the book on MA law
Ha, the responses are encouraging. I didn't read any laws as it's all a bunch of mumbo jumbo to me anyways, but I knew you guys would know. I just threw it out there for you's to tear apart. I work with a few LEO's and they're always telling me their duty guns have to be stock according to their respective departmenst rules. I assumed that if a LEO couldn't engage a crook having a modified handgun, neither could we sheepdogs. I've installed a lot of upgrades to my Glock and was just concerned about the legality of it. You know MA, they'll protect the criminal and go after the law abiding, just had to check.
Department rules are department rules, not laws. Departments have reasons for those rules (some of which make sense and some that don't). They don't want Officer Random J. Goonsmith mucking up his gun. They also have serious liability issues.
You are not subject to internal police department regulations.
The kinder, gentler, Scriv... it must be the Holiday Season. I can't wait until we hit the doldrums of February and March.
I'm gonna ask what might be a dumb question, but I'm a newbie, so what the heck: what is it that makes an adjustable stock, in of itself, "evil". I just don't get it. Figure you guys will have an opinion...
The consensus of those who wish to infringe upon your civil rights believe that a collapsible stock is evil because it decreases the length of the rifle making it more easier to conceal under your trench coat. Note: It does not matter if you are wearing any clothes under the trench coat.
Ahh, concealment is the issue...
Is my understanding correct that only two "evil" features are allowed in MA? But we can choose which two. So concealment alone isn't inherently bad, but only in combination with another evil feature?
Just trying to understand the intent, if that's possible...
Is my understanding correct that only two "evil" features are allowed in MA? But we can choose which two. So concealment alone isn't inherently bad, but only in combination with another evil feature?
Just trying to understand the intent, if that's possible...
But with such knowlegeable persons as yourself isnt this place one of the most logical places to start such investigation?
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
No, it can't be the length that makes it evil, because you can have the stock collapsed and pinned. It must be that they're afraid of having more things that go back and forth (not to mention up) on the stock. All those things moving around make anyone near the gun want to kill everyone around.
Ken
Ken
The problem that the writers of the 1994 Fed Assault Weapons ban had, was that they wanted to ban "assault weapons," so they had to define what an "assault weapon" was, in contrast to gentle, "hello kitty" semiautomatic guns. So they did it by banning guns that, to them, look bad -- black, scary guns, with evil features like:
- pistol grips
- flash suppressors
- bayonet lugs
- collapsible stocks
- barrel shrouds
- threaded barrels
So there isn't a lot of logic to the law that you can divine.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,550
- Likes
- 33,612
There is a LOT of logic.
The proponents wanted to ban as much as they could. They very effectively identified some items that had virtually no political constituency to speak of, and took the most territory they could get.
For roughly the 13.7 trillionth time, there is not nor has there ever been any such thing as the AG's list. Giving a definitive answer as to which guns were approved by their office and which ones were not would take away the fear factor that scares away so many manufacturers and dealers.
There are only 3 guns on the "Formar Target Competition Roster", none by Ruger (or Colt). Most Ruger revolvers are included on the EOPS Approved Firearm Roster.
Ken
There are only 3 guns on the "Formar Target Competition Roster", none by Ruger (or Colt). Most Ruger revolvers are included on the EOPS Approved Firearm Roster.
Ken
especially when SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd amendment applied to all states!!!!! what are we afraid of?!? i doubt if we present a strong case, the lower courts are going try to overrule SCOTUS!!!!
I still can't swallow statements made by PD's on their site about how the chief can put restriction on the LTC.
Sentence such as 'The Chief of Police maintains the right to place any restrictions he deems necessary on individual Class A License to Carry permits' -- Andover PD, Haverhill PD
Sure pass your background check and firearms safety etc but we will still treat you like a second class citizen.
Is that really legal for PD's to do that? Who gives the chief that much power?
Is there anything that can be done to change that (short of ticking the chief off) ?
Sentence such as 'The Chief of Police maintains the right to place any restrictions he deems necessary on individual Class A License to Carry permits' -- Andover PD, Haverhill PD
Sure pass your background check and firearms safety etc but we will still treat you like a second class citizen.
Is that really legal for PD's to do that? Who gives the chief that much power?
Is there anything that can be done to change that (short of ticking the chief off) ?
NRA4Life, do some reading of MGL Ch. 140 S. 131 (a) for the "how can they do this".
Only a change in MGLs can change this. H. 2259 was an attempt to do this and went nowhere. MCOPA makes sure that chiefs can discriminate whatever way they wish with legal impunity.
Only a change in MGLs can change this. H. 2259 was an attempt to do this and went nowhere. MCOPA makes sure that chiefs can discriminate whatever way they wish with legal impunity.
Yes.
The legislature. Specifically, MGL Chapter 140 Section 131, which reads, in part:
The law is against you, unfortunately.
