MA Handgun Compliance Q+A Thread (new)

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,345
Likes
26,199
I decided to start this thread because of the enormous amount of questions
we get on this issue.

Any URLs that you guys want me to add to the sticky, please post in
thread.

MA Handgun Compliance Q+A/FAQ:

Q: How do I know if a handgun is "MA compliant" or not? How do all these rules/lists I keep hearing about affect me?

A: MA Handgun Compliance laws/regs are dealer based and primarily have an effect on what MA FFLs can sell or transfer to consumers.

In the most basic terms, there are really FIVE categories of MA handgun compliance at the dealer level:


1. Handgun is currently "MA compliant" on EOPS roster and AG's regs. EG- the stuff you see new in most MA gun stores.... S+W M+P, SW1911s, etc, etc, etc... law is must be on roster plus be (somehow) compliant with the AG's insane regulations.

2. Handgun is currently listed on new EOPS Target Roster (see below for current URL)

3. Pre 98 documented - (eg, owner has paperwork showing it was owned/registered in MA before 10/21/98) = completely exempt from AG and EOPS regs. Doesn't matter what the handgun is, etc, as long as that paperwork is there. Also doesn't matter WHERE the handgun currently is either, as long as the paperwork is there. I once had a friend of mine that moved out of MA but had "MA guns" with paperwork intact. He could still transfer them back in the state to a new MA owner, because they were "registered and in the state on/before 10/21/98".

4. Pre 98 on EOPS roster but AG exempt - handgun is on EOPS roster and exempted from AG's regs, by virtue of having been manufactured before 10/21/98. Example here is a typical Glock made before 10/21/98.

5. handgun is on EOPS roster but buyer is a LEO. This situation exempts the dealer from the AG's regs because the customer is a LEO. In this case it doesn't matter when the gun was made, only that the gun was tested and put on the roster.

Edit: Some readers may be wondering what any guns that don't fit into these categories are... the answer is. they're not "MA compliant" by either the AG''s or EOPS regs, or only by EOPS and not the AG's regs... but it should be noted that "MA compliance" is an issue of dealer transfers and has nothing to do with individual possession or private sale. EG- mere possession of a noncompliant handgun, is NOT a criminal offense. This can't be stated enough, as many in MA improperly use terms like "illegal in MA" or "banned in MA" to describe a handgun which a dealer cannot sell or transfer.

Q: Isn't there an AG's list of which handguns pass both the EOPS and AG's regs?

A: No, not that anyone is aware of. Basically the only mechanism that is used for AG compliance is either the AG whining about it, or not after a manufacturer or dealer makes a statement that the gun is "AG reg compliant" and attempts to start selling it.

Q: My dealer doesn't agree with these standards! His are stricter than the above!!!!

A: Some dealers are overly paranoid and don't completely understand the law. Others rely on bad
sources of information to determine what is or is not compliant.

Q: My dealer doesn't agree with these standards! his are LESS STRICT than the above.

A: Some dealers may be defiant or not know the law very well.

Q: My LEO friend says he can get any handgun he wants from XYZ dealer, this doesn't agree with the above!?!?!

A: Some dealers falsely interpret the LE exemption as a full blown free pass to sell any handgun to a
LEO. These LEOs should not look the gift horse in the mouth. [laugh]

Q: Why can't I just buy something on Gunbroker/Gunsamerica and have it transferred in? Since I'm buying it from out of state this shouldn't count as an MA sale

A: The state appears to treat dealer transfers and direct sales as the same thing. So an MA dealer typically won't even transfer a noncompliant handgun if the end-recipient is an MA resident.

Q:Why can't I just drive to (insert some free state here) and buy whatever handgun I want?!?!?!?!?

A: Problem is per federal law all handgun transfers must occur in ones state of residence, and if you're reading this FAQ, you probably reside in MA. This means the FFL in the other state must send the handgun to an MA FFL before it is transferred to you, per federal law. Obviously, if the handgun isn't compliant, a typical MA FFL is going to
reject the transfer, send the gun back, or if you're lucky, tell the other dealer not even to bother sending it here.

Q: A dealer I know has non-compliant handguns in his shop. How can they do this??!?!?! Isn't that illegal????

A: The dealer is probably selling these guns to out of state residents via FFL transfer, or may be selling them to LEOs if the gun is AG exempt as described above. There is nothing stopping MA FFLs from having non-compliant guns in their inventory- it is the act of selling/transferring one to an MA consumer that is the regulated act.

Q: An MA dealer just sold me a handgun, and (for whatever reason) I think it might not be AG/EOPS compliant. Can I get in trouble????

A: Unless the handgun in question violates the MA AWB (most do not) or there are post-ban large capacity mags with it, no, you cannot get in trouble. It's basically not your problem. The best thing to do is just enjoy your new handgun and not fuss about it. (Also, don't run on to NES to tell everyone else about it, either... think about that for a moment and you'll understand why that is a dumb idea).

Q: I want to know WHY these regs are the way they are!!!???!?!? this doesn't make any sense!!!

A: There are TWO sections of law you should look at, if you want to be bored to death:

Law Governing EOPS testing of handguns:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-123.htm

AG's Regulations for "Handgun Safety" (AKA 940 CMR 16.00 )
http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/regulations/940-cmr-16-00.pdf

Other Common (related) Questions:

Q: What do I need to buy a handgun in MA?

A: You must be an MA resident and possess a currently valid LTC A or B (An LTC B will severely restrict your options. )

Q: What about magazines that hold more than 10 rounds? I was told you can't buy any gun that can
take a large capacity magazine!!!!

A: That is at least partially wrong. An LTC-A holder can possess any "large capacity" capable handgun. However, be aware that you can only legally use "large capacity" magazines manufactured before 9/13/1994
(This issue is a whole other can of worms- see also- "MA Assault Weapons Ban" )

See Also this thread discussing Glock Mags, for example:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=4944

Q: I bought a new "MA compliant" gun that has a terrible "MA only" heavy trigger on it. I want to get it fixed.... is this illegal?

A: No, it's not illegal, and yes, you can have a gunsmith adjust the trigger to how you see fit. This is NOT illegal. About the only downside to doing this is that if you turn around to sell the gun later you might have to sell it FTF-FA-10 transfer only, as an MA FFL may not accept it because it may not be "MA compliant" anymore.

Q: I bought an MA compliant gun in one caliber. Is it legal to change the barrel? (eg, .40 to .357 sig, etc. )

A: Yes. Again, handgun compliance is only a dealer issue. Further, there is nothing in MGL which prohibits you from doing this.

Q: I am a non-resident LTC holder visiting MA and normally carry a "non compliant" handgun. Will I get in trouble because it's non compliant???

A: No. If you have a valid MA non resident LTC, and have pre-ban (eg, made before 9/94) magazines (if they hold greater than 10 rounds) you're good to go. Remember that MA handgun compliance is an issue of dealer transfers, not possession.

Q: What about AR / AK and similar style "rifles which have been cobbled into pistols"? Someone told me those are never legal in MA.

A: They may be right, depending on the construction of the pistol. Most of those types of pistols violate the MA AWB unless they were made before 9/13/94. Like the magazine issue above, however, this issue is beyond the scope of "Handgun Compliance".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,345
Likes
26,199
Informative threads/links on this issue:

MA EOPS Approved Firearms Roster (Jan 2017, despite name in URL)
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/firearms/approvedfirearmsroster10-2016.pdf


MA EOPS Formal Target Shooting Roster: (Jan 2017 despite url name)
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/firearms/formaltargetshootingroster03-2016.pdf


MA EOPS 501 CMR 7.00 Approved Weapons Roster Regulation (details implementation of testing, etc)
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/firearms/501-cmr-7.pdf


"MA Gun Law Interpretation"
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=31101

"EOPS Firearms Roster Discussion"
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=29756

Law Governing EOPS testing of handguns:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-123.htm

AG's Regulations for "Handgun Safety" (AKA 940 CMR 16.00 )
http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/regulations/940-cmr-16-00.pdf
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
10,989
Likes
1,224
just input here:

I thinnk the section on on the roster, compliance, etc could be clearer. The five categories are sort of confusing, perhaps there is some way to fsimplify and clarify a bit?
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,345
Likes
26,199
just input here:

I thinnk the section on on the roster, compliance, etc could be clearer. The five categories are sort of confusing, perhaps there is some way to fsimplify and clarify a bit?
Points taken, of course this is a work in progress. [smile]

FWIW those 5 or 6 paragraphs are simplified, compared to what it could
be. It's a distillation of the whole miasma of fun.

-Mike
 

jar

Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
6,372
Likes
697
Location
Needham, MA
just input here:

I thinnk the section on on the roster, compliance, etc could be clearer. The five categories are sort of confusing, perhaps there is some way to fsimplify and clarify a bit?
If you have some control over the legislature that we don't know about, I'm all ears. [laugh]
 
Rating - 100%
55   0   0
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
10,989
Likes
1,224
Points taken, of course this is a work in progress. [smile]

FWIW those 5 or 6 paragraphs are simplified, compared to what it could
be. It's a distillation of the whole miasma of fun.

-Mike
Im thinking perhaps an explanation as to who makes the list, etc, and how they work together to work against us
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,345
Likes
26,199
Im thinking perhaps an explanation as to who makes the list, etc, and how they work together to work against us
The idea behind it was a "just the facts" type of presentation. [smile] Most don't care how it happened, they just want to know what the basic
framework is, so they can say "yes I can transfer this gun in" no I can't, etc.

Anyways, here goes..... WARNING- much of this is rambling, so I apologize in advance... this is all written over a cigar and a cup of coffee.

In MA handgun compliance is a "two tiered" situation.

We have the EOPS (Executive Office Of Public Safety) which publishes a roster on a regular basis of handguns that have passed their testing regimen. This testing is outlined in the law.

Now, when you read the law, you realize "this testing sucks it costs the manufs money, etc etc etc...

The thing is, that isn't the real bone job when it comes to making handguns compliant in MA.

Then we get to the SECOND tier of compliance, where the real bone job occurs... by the attorney general's office. The problem there is that the AG's regs are REGULATIONS- regulations which were essentially written by the AG. The problem is even though the AG's regs are spelled out, they're not abundantly clear in terms of interpretation; eg, for dumb terms like "series of multiple motions" or "unable to be activated by a small child" (or whatever the verbiage is) the definitions of these are frequently bogus and left up to the standing AG's interpretation. The AG is essentially allowed to invent the rules as he/she goes along under the bullshit guise of "consumer protection". [rolleyes]

So, in a nutshell, the reason we get BONED in MA on new handguns is because manufacturers have no sure fire way of determining whether or not they will be able to sell their product here even if they get it tested and even if they get it on the EOPS roster. So as a result of that, a lot of manufacturers don't even bother getting their guns tested. Some of it depends on the lawyers the gun companies have, etc. Many are just too paranoid to deal with MA laws because they don't make any sense.

Case in point- S+W, for example, is the king of getting stuff certified, and even they had to pull out one of their latest offerings, the M+P .45 because they weren't completely sure about its compliance or the AG whined about it.

Many companies don't bother with testing and so on because they're not 110% sure of a return on investment in the MA market. It's very possible, for instance, for a small gun manufacturer, to invest a lot of money in getting guns tested (IIRC its thousands of dollars per gun, not to mention the guns get destroyed in the process) and then get screwed over on the investment when the AG comes out and stops them from selling it saying "wah your gun doesnt meet my bullshit standards". The risk is too great for a lot of smaller manufacturers.

While we're on the topic, this does bear mentioning... some companies, eg, S+W, Para Ord, SVI, have gone to great lengths to try to get us a lot of new guns in MA, and they should be commended for their effort. I have to give Kudos to SVI especially, because despite the "niche" nature of their product, they actually bothered to certify guns in MA.

This compliance BS occurred over a period of time. The AG's regs were introduced by AG Harshbarger, but enforcement was mostly impotent and for awhile a lot of dealers simply either ignored the regs or creatively interpreted them. I think Harshbarger may? have hit a few dealers but he was mostly impotent, despite having come up with the whole ponzi scheme. Then when Reilly got into the AGs seat, things took a turn even worse- there were stings, AG moles, all kinds of other crap, and dealers getting hit left and right. Reilly was even worse than Harshbarger,IMO. Now we have "Frau Coakley" who seems to be enforcing the BS similar to Reilly, but it remains to be seen how vigorous she will be in comparison. Minimal evidence on the ground indicates "reilly clone" more or less, so far.

I'm not exactly sure when the EOPS regs were coded into law, perhaps as part of GCA98? Maybe someone more familiar with the exact background can fill in the blanks for me here. Regardless, the EOPS regs, while onerous, at least are "burned into law" and easy to understand compared to the AGs bullshit. If all we had to deal with was EOPS, there would be a lot more guns on the roster and a lot more would be available.

Also, many ask "What about a LAWSUIT against the AG?" IIRC, there was an effort to do this awhile ago by some dealers assoc. in MA but somewhere the ball got dropped when there was a changing of a guard in this group; I've also heard noises (on NES and elsewhere) that some attorneys don't see an end game in such a lawsuit.

FWIW, there is a lot more to it than what I've written here... there is a wealth of info about it, buried on NES. The search function is your
friend.


-Mike
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
1,865
Likes
67
good post. It still enrages me to no end that we just bend over and take this bull.... Where else in "America" do we see this???? Is there even another state that you cannot buy new glocks from dealers??
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,345
Likes
26,199
good post. It still enrages me to no end that we just bend over and take this bull.... Where else in "America" do we see this???? Is there even another state that you cannot buy new glocks from dealers??
At the moment California, IIRC, is the only state with similar regulations, although recently they've bumped up their standards a bit, overall CA inmates still have access to more new models of handguns than we do. That may change in the near future there, though, as things appear to be getting worse by the minute in CA. (seems every other year there is a new ban or regulation).

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
448
Likes
48
good post. It still enrages me to no end that we just bend over and take this bull.... Where else in "America" do we see this???? Is there even another state that you cannot buy new glocks from dealers??

"We" (all 240,000 of us) get screwed because the sheeple here in the People's Republic of MA continue to vote in these liberal lefty loonies who dream this crap up all day long.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1
Likes
0
2nd Amendment Violation?

The idea behind it was a "just the facts" type of presentation. [smile] Most don't care how it happened, they just want to know what the basic framework is, so they can say "yes I can transfer this gun in" no I can't, etc. Anyways, here goes..... WARNING- much of this is rambling, so I apologize in advance... this is all written over a cigar and a cup of coffee. In MA handgun compliance is a "two tiered" situation. We have the EOPS (Executive Office Of Public Safety) which publishes a roster on a regular basis of handguns that have passed their testing regimen. This testing is outlined in the law. Now, when you read the law, you realize "this testing sucks it costs the manufs money, etc etc etc... The thing is, that isn't the real bone job when it comes to making handguns compliant in MA. Then we get to the SECOND tier of compliance, where the real bone job occurs... by the attorney general's office. The problem there is that the AG's regs are REGULATIONS- regulations which were essentially written by the AG. The problem is even though the AG's regs are spelled out, they're not abundantly clear in terms of interpretation; eg, for dumb terms like "series of multiple motions" or "unable to be activated by a small child" (or whatever the verbiage is) the definitions of these are frequently bogus and left up to the standing AG's interpretation. The AG is essentially allowed to invent the rules as he/she goes along under the bullshit guise of "consumer protection". [rolleyes] So, in a nutshell, the reason we get BONED in MA on new handguns is because manufacturers have no sure fire way of determining whether or not they will be able to sell their product here even if they get it tested and even if they get it on the EOPS roster. So as a result of that, a lot of manufacturers don't even bother getting their guns tested. Some of it depends on the lawyers the gun companies have, etc. Many are just too paranoid to deal with MA laws because they don't make any sense. Case in point- S+W, for example, is the king of getting stuff certified, and even they had to pull out one of their latest offerings, the M+P .45 because they weren't completely sure about its compliance or the AG whined about it. Many companies don't bother with testing and so on because they're not 110% sure of a return on investment in the MA market. It's very possible, for instance, for a small gun manufacturer, to invest a lot of money in getting guns tested (IIRC its thousands of dollars per gun, not to mention the guns get destroyed in the process) and then get screwed over on the investment when the AG comes out and stops them from selling it saying "wah your gun doesnt meet my bullshit standards". The risk is too great for a lot of smaller manufacturers. While we're on the topic, this does bear mentioning... some companies, eg, S+W, Para Ord, SVI, have gone to great lengths to try to get us a lot of new guns in MA, and they should be commended for their effort. I have to give Kudos to SVI especially, because despite the "niche" nature of their product, they actually bothered to certify guns in MA. This compliance BS occurred over a period of time. The AG's regs were introduced by AG Harshbarger, but enforcement was mostly impotent and for awhile a lot of dealers simply either ignored the regs or creatively interpreted them. I think Harshbarger may? have hit a few dealers but he was mostly impotent, despite having come up with the whole ponzi scheme. Then when Reilly got into the AGs seat, things took a turn even worse- there were stings, AG moles, all kinds of other crap, and dealers getting hit left and right. Reilly was even worse than Harshbarger,IMO. Now we have "Frau Coakley" who seems to be enforcing the BS similar to Reilly, but it remains to be seen how vigorous she will be in comparison. Minimal evidence on the ground indicates "reilly clone" more or less, so far. I'm not exactly sure when the EOPS regs were coded into law, perhaps as part of GCA98? Maybe someone more familiar with the exact background can fill in the blanks for me here. Regardless, the EOPS regs, while onerous, at least are "burned into law" and easy to understand compared to the AGs bullshit. If all we had to deal with was EOPS, there would be a lot more guns on the roster and a lot more would be available. Also, many ask "What about a LAWSUIT against the AG?" IIRC, there was an effort to do this awhile ago by some dealers assoc. in MA but somewhere the ball got dropped when there was a changing of a guard in this group; I've also heard noises (on NES and elsewhere) that some attorneys don't see an end game in such a lawsuit. FWIW, there is a lot more to it than what I've written here... there is a wealth of info about it, buried on NES. The search function is your friend. -Mike
Mike- Not sure what your thoughts are on this, but given your dissertation on the AG's office and how they handle the compliance of handguns in Massachusetts, I wonder if any lawyers have questioned the idea of the AG's office violating the 2nd Amendment. If your theory is correct and the AG gets to make the rules as he/she goes along, then how is it not a violation of my 2nd Amendment right, given the USSC's recent ruling? Case in point, if I wanted to buy the new Sig P250, I couldn't because it's not MA Compliant. However, if the MA compliance laws are as fluctuating as you make them out to be, then would this be a violation as the state is preventing me from owning a firearm? If there are any Constitutional Lawyers, or any lawyers for that matter, on this message board, I would like to hear your thoughts. Shane
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,345
Likes
26,199
Mike- Not sure what your thoughts are on this, but given your dissertation on the AG's office and how they handle the compliance of handguns in Massachusetts, I wonder if any lawyers have questioned the idea of the AG's office violating the 2nd Amendment. If your theory is correct and the AG gets to make the rules as he/she goes along, then how is it not a violation of my 2nd Amendment right, given the USSC's recent ruling?
Probably because the AG's regs don't completely ban handguns. Remember that the ruling in Heller is pretty narrow and is only tailored to a very specific set of circumstances. (Further, it isn't fully binding, see below...)

Case in point, if I wanted to buy the new Sig P250, I couldn't because it's not MA Compliant.
I don't think Sig has even had the thing put on the roster yet...

However, if the MA compliance laws are as fluctuating as you make them out to be,
Remember, the EOPS half of the handgun sales BS in MA is pretty static. If SIG tested the P250, I have no doubt it would pass all the testing. The problem lies in what the attorney general thinks, which is the real problem. That's where the "subjectivity" is. If I was a betting man I would bet that Sig might test it, but they may not bother trying to make it "AG regs compliant" because of the propensity for many guns to fail those subjective tests. They could spend thousands in legal fees and such on it, and get nothing back. This latest snafu with S+W and the M+P .45 is probably not helping matters, either, as that gun is likely more than compliant, but S+W still has gotten cold feet on it for some reason, and I'm not sure what the real deal is on that. It shouldn't need a cripple trigger when it has a manual safety.


then would this be a violation as the state is preventing me from owning a firearm?
Again, they would probably levy the argument that you haven't been completely barred from buying a handgun, as there are a bunch of other models to choose from.

I'm not saying any of that is "right" obviously, but that's how a court will probably see it. It's still incremental infringement.

A more viable case for trying to leverage Heller would be a case involving something like an arbitrary denial of a license to carry- as denying someone an LTC functionally would prevent them from owning a handgun in their home. Even that case would have to be pushed up far enough to result in anything happening, it's not just a slam dunk because of Heller. Remember that Heller has not, as of yet, really become incorporated as fully binding against the states. That challenge is likely to take years.


-Mike
 

drumenigma

NES Member
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
3,538
Likes
600
Location
Purgatory
It's basically interstate commerce regulation hidden behind the mask of "safety regulations". So technically I would think they are breaking federal law here but apparently no one has been able to prove that.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
34,741
Likes
11,262
A more viable case for trying to leverage Heller would be a case involving something like an arbitrary denial of a license to carry-
Some interesting cases that the courts held against the LTC holder -

- Revocation of an LTC for exercising the right to remain silent

- A blanket policy of one PD that no person with an expired non-emergency restraining order may ever obtain a LTC, even if the order expired without any allegation of violations thereof.

Both cases could have gone differently if the court recognized that denial or revocation of the LTC was taking a right away - something both courts refused to acknowledge. This approach is so ingrained in the courts that both cases went against the LTC holder or applicant at both the district and appellate court level.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
27
Likes
0
interesting read...

thanks for posting this info and trying to clear up this mess.

if i interpret the 5 options for handguns correctly, the current roster shows the H&K USP .40 S&W but i know that H&K has effectively told the douche bag AG where to put their BS compliance. Does that mean that if I find a USP manufactured pre-10/21/98 I can legally acquire and register that gun?
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,345
Likes
26,199
thanks for posting this info and trying to clear up this mess.

if i interpret the 5 options for handguns correctly, the current roster shows the H&K USP .40 S&W but i know that H&K has effectively told the douche bag AG where to put their BS compliance. Does that mean that if I find a USP manufactured pre-10/21/98 I can legally acquire and register that gun?
In theory, yes. EG, if you had the appropriately date coded USP .40 that
was pre-98 it should be MA importable.

For practical purposes, the final arbiter of whether or not you can import
something is the FFL that you use for the transfer, and what they will allow.

BTW, Welcome to the Forum!


-Mike
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
5
Likes
0
Location
Mason, NH
Re: HK USP

Mike's summary of the MA AG regulations and the whole issue of "MA compliant" handguns is the best I've ever seen. I do have one small area of disagreement, however. The whole issue of weather or not a handgun is compliant if is on the Public Safety List and made before '98 is open to inturpretation. As a dealer who has much to loose by making a mistake, I only sell previously MA registered, pre '98 guns, or guns that have been sent from a distributor as MA compliant. One point that many find confusing is that these regulations only apply to dealers, not consumers. What this means is that if you, as a MA class A license holder, find an HK USP, (or any other handgun for that matter), for sale by an individual or dealer who is willing to sell it to you, buying it will not put you in violation of the law, even if the gun is not MA compliant.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,345
Likes
26,199
Could you add more on magazines? Such as "restricted for LEO only", dated magazines, etc...
I would do that but IMO MA AWB stuff probably deserves a thread of
its own. It would also unnecessarily confuse things in the sense of calling it
part of MA handgun compliance, because the issue of compliance does not
really discuss or address magazine capacity at all. I kind of delved into this
a bit, but I'd rather not open that can of worms any more than it already has
been.... I'm going to update that question with a link to the Glock mag
thread, for starters.... [laugh] )

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
27
Likes
0
In theory, yes. EG, if you had the appropriately date coded USP .40 that
was pre-98 it should be MA importable.

For practical purposes, the final arbiter of whether or not you can import
something is the FFL that you use for the transfer, and what they will allow.

BTW, Welcome to the Forum!


-Mike
this and paul's response are right in line with my very limited experience to date trying to acquire this weapon since i received my LTC-A about a month ago. i even had one FFL tell me that the eops list i referenced was for law enforcement only! it's clearly so confusing that even the dealers screw it up or worse for consumers, take the safest road possible because of the implications to their livelihood.

well done by the attorney general... if the goal was to make it so convoluted and confusing to legally acquire handguns that many people would give up, mission accomplished. the only problem is that the criminals we should be most concerned with aren't impacted by this quagmire of left-wing nonsense, while law abiding individuals such as myself struggle.

also, thanks for the welcome mike and for the great information. i'm very happy to have found this site, i've gleaned more in one day here than i found in a month on other sites.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
68,345
Likes
26,199
I do have one small area of disagreement, however. The whole issue of weather or not a handgun is compliant if is on the Public Safety List and made before '98 is open to inturpretation.
I guess we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree on that point then- I know of several dealers that basically use that as a ruleset. This is why you see lots of dealers with pre-98 Kahr's, Glocks, etc, for sale in MA, and there are many who will transfer these guns with no problem as long as they meet the criteria. If a dealer chooses not to, that's their business of course, and they're free to do that, however, I think many here would prefer that the dealer just simply state that they prefer not to do those transfers, as opposed to trying to reference laws or regulations that don't actually exist.

One of these days I'll put another post in this thread outlining the relationship between MGL/CMR and the
handgun compliance stuff as outlined above. The readers will need a strong cup of coffee, though, as it is likely
to be boring as hell. [laugh]


-Mike
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
5
Likes
0
Location
Mason, NH
Mike is correct: The main objective of the regulations is to confuse and discourage the whole issue of firearms ownership on the part of the only citizens who care about following the law: the law-abiding. This theory is proven by the fact that the AG's office will not answer any questions about the regulations: I know, I've called to inquire, and been told: "We don't answer any questions about the law. If you want questions answered, hire an attorney. We only enforce the law". Contrast this with the BATF. Anyone can call them about any question about federal law, and they will either give you a direct answer or research it for you. In other words, they do what they can to help you comply with the law.
 

Scrivener

Banned
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
10,156
Likes
507
i even had one FFL tell me that the eops list i referenced was for law enforcement only! it's clearly so confusing that even the dealers screw it up or worse for consumers, take the safest road possible because of the implications to their livelihood.
Interesting.

So what handguns DID this ignorant dealer actually stock if any?
 

Manomet

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
1,684
Likes
392
Location
SE Mass
Can a Mass LTC buy an out of state pre ban colt handgun from a private party and complete the transaction at his /her local FFL. If yes would the FFL not want to do the transaction due to some fuzzy area of Mass law. Thanks for any help.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.1%
52   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
51,436
Likes
9,116
Location
Escaping to NH
Nothing fuzzy here.

FED Law PROHIBITS any handgun transaction between people (where both aren't residents of the same state) who do not hold FFLs UNLESS it is done in the state where the new owner resides at an FFL.

Inheritance (only from dead people) is the sole exception to the above.
 

Manomet

NES Member
Rating - 100%
18   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
1,684
Likes
392
Location
SE Mass
I am aware of that. I am asking about a gun which is not on the "approved" list ( any colt ). Thanks. I have contacted five FFL's well known on this forum and none of them will make the transaction.
 
Top Bottom