MA House Bill 1305 - An act relative to suppressors...

[Jmenton777]

Haven't seen too much on here about this. Wondering if anyone has heard anything about it..

and what does it mean that bill has been referred to committee on Judiciary?

I always thought it would be a cold day in hell before we see suppressors in MA for us law abiding citizens!


Here is the text from GOAL site;

An Act Relative to Suppressors

Section 10A of Chapter 269 of the Massachusetts General Laws bans the use of suppressors in Massachusetts unless the individual is a federally licensed manufacturer or law enforcement officer. This bill does away with the state prohibition. It also puts in place the federal definition for suppressor and creates severe penalties for the criminal use of such devices.
______________________________________________________________


Bill Language:


Section 10A of Chapter 269 of the Massachusetts General Laws is hereby amended by deleting the section in its entirety and inserting in its place the following:

Section 10A.

Any person found to be in possession of a firearm suppressor who is:
a prohibited person under section 131 of chapter 140;
in the commission of a violent crime or felony;
in the commission of a crime of violence against a family member;
conducting sales or has possession of controlled substances as defined in chapter 94C;
shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years in state prison or for not more than two and one-half years in a jail or house of correction.

For the purposes of this section the term “firearm suppressor” shall have the same meaning as Federal law 18 USC 921(24): The terms “firearm suppressor” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[1903Collector]

Even if we could get them, wouldn't they need to permanently attached if the gun was considered an AW? that would suck. Unless you got one that snaps on to a muzzle device I guess.

 

[Jmenton777]

Right... Who knows, MA laws are a mess.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[browncoat]

Even if we could get them, wouldn't they need to permanently attached if the gun was considered an AW? that would suck. Unless you got one that snaps on to a muzzle device I guess.

For rifles, on bolt/lever/pump it's no problem. On a semi, you'd need to use a preban or you could have the threads as your 1 allowed feature.

 

[Cabin Fever]

Even if we could get them, wouldn't they need to permanently attached if the gun was considered an AW? that would suck. Unless you got one that snaps on to a muzzle device I guess.

Not on a pistol

 

[bigblue]

Many modern suppressors use QD muzzle devices so exposed threads are not an issue. This isn't the movies.

 

[Boris]

shit this would be so awesome it's not even funny. Any lawers could comment on this shit?

 

[1903Collector]

Many modern suppressors use QD muzzle devices so exposed threads are not an issue. This isn't the movies.

Yes ....I know it ain't the movies but don't many of them screw on the barrel?

 

[DemonChronicles]

For rifles, on bolt/lever/pump it's no problem. On a semi, you'd need to use a preban or you could have the threads as your 1 allowed feature.

The definition of “assault weapon” is the same as the federal law that went into effect on September 13, 1994. Specific guns are banned by name, and guns with certain combinations of features are banned:

a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;
​

The pistol grip is your "1 allowed" feature (and I use that term very loosely). Having another, such as threaded barrels, would make it 2 and therefore a banned "AW" in Mass, no?

 

[ChevyGuy91]

Yes ....I know it ain't the movies but don't many of them screw on the barrel?

Yes, many suppressors attach to the muzzle device. So you could perm mount a QD muzzle brake to your barrel, but some, like the AAC cans do thread onto their muzzle device, so does that matter for MA AWB? Good question.

 

[rlee]

Isn't a device that meets the definition of a sound suppressor also considered a flash suppressor?

 

[wmass]

PWS FSC556 is designed to be usable with a gemtech halo. Other brakes can run cans as well. how about brakes with external threading for a can? Would the permanent attachment to the barrel mean the barrel is again threaded thus a no go?

 

[bigblue]

These are all questions that could be resolved with an exception for sound suppressors if the political will was there. Alas it is not so the entire argument is elementary and at best wishful thinking.

 

[MAD Geary]

Bolt action rifles would be fine

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

They could have come up with a better name. Something like: "An act relative to firearm safety". In some jurisdictions (the UK) suppressors are regarded as a safety device, not something with nefarious intent.

 

[massBRS]

If anyone knows how we can get involved in actively supporting this, who we'd need to contact, etc - I'm so pumped on helping with this!!!

 

[rlee]

It's in the joint committee on the judiciary.
They have a long list of bills and no hearings have been scheduled for this one.
Creem and Chang-Diaz are 2 of the Senate representatives.
It'll be a long uphill battle.

 

[Jmenton777]

Hmmm 3 out of 11 house members are republicans, 1 out of 6 senate members...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Jmenton777]

They could have come up with a better name. Something like: "An act relative to firearm safety". In some jurisdictions (the UK) suppressors are regarded as a safety device, not something with nefarious intent.

+1


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Steelitall]

The pistol grip is your "1 allowed" feature (and I use that term very loosely). Having another, such as threaded barrels, would make it 2 and therefore a banned "AW" in Mass, no?

For the AR platform at least, featureless stock ala Kalifornia or an Ares SCR lower would solve that

I know which i'd pick

 

[righteousbarbarian]

I'm not going to hold my breath on this one but this bill would be a dream come true for me. I'll do whatever I can to muster support for this.

 

[bigblue]

This bill would cost me a lot of money, of that I am certain. Anything else is sht luck at this point.

 

[Serapis]

This would be huge


Sent from my mobile phone from behind enemy lines.

 

[dcmdon]

They could have come up with a better name. Something like: "An act relative to firearm safety". In some jurisdictions (the UK) suppressors are regarded as a safety device, not something with nefarious intent.

They should have also called it an act relative to SILENCERS.

Since that is the term the ATF uses. There isn't any point in passing a law like this and having it be ambiguous wrt federal laws.
But the modern tacticool-er who uses terms like CCW cringes at the word silencer.

Even though whenever you are speaking of legal issues, the correct term is always "silencer".

Don

 

[cmcgraw2]

From GOAL's email today:


Joint Committee on the Judiciary Hearing, Tuesday July 14th 1:00 PM
GOAL has learned that there will be a public hearing for the Joint Committee on the Judiciary at the Massachusetts State House in Boston on Tuesday July 14th at 1:00 PM in room A2. Click here to see the full listing of bills to be heard.

The committee will be hearing testimony regarding GOAL's H.1305, "An Act relative to suppressors".

At this time section 10A of Chapter 269 of the Massachusetts General Laws bans the use of suppressors in Massachusetts unless the individual is a federally licensed manufacturer or law enforcement officer. This bill does away with the state prohibition. It also puts in place the federal definition for suppressor and creates severe penalties for the criminal use of such devices.

Our friends at the American Suppressor Association have a fantastic page which nicely illustrates how the bulk of states have far less regulation regarding owning a suppressor, please click here to read.

Please join us at the hearing in support of this important legislation.

 

[jhagberg88]

any update on this?

 

[dcmdon]

+1. I just spoke to my Rep - Sean Garbaly. He said from what he has heard, he sees no reason to vote against it.

I'm going to continue to push.

My biggest concern is it gets killed by never letting it out of committee.

Don

 

[71montess]

+1. I just spoke to my Rep - Sean Garbaly. He said from what he has heard, he sees no reason to vote against it.

I'm going to continue to push.

My biggest concern is it gets killed by never letting it out of committee.

Don

Me too.

 

[throttle-junkie]

My wife has been reading up on shooting while pregnant. The number one medical recommendation is suppressors. Suppressors it is for the children, won't somebody think of the children.

 

[jhagberg88]

any update?