Just wondering, does anyone here besides me only CCW Mass. Compliant guns? Basically, if it can't be bought or sold in a MA FFL, I won't use it for self defense, due to potential civil liabilty concerns. Any thoughts on this?
-GSG
-GSG
-
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***
Mass. compliant guns for CCW
- Thread starter GSG
- Start date
GSG, no need to draw the line so narrowly.
"Mass. compliant" is a regulation that only concerns what gun dealers can lawfully sell here in MA.
If you moved here with a "non-compliant" gun, or bought one from someone who bought it out of state then moved here, or carry a gun that you've owned since before the sweeping changes of 1998 were enacted, there is no need for any unusual civil liability concern.
In short, "Mass. compliant" provides absolutely no special protection from a lawsuit.
If I were you, I'd be more concerned with whether I had a strong, working knowlege of the lawful use of force in the Commonwealth.
"Mass. compliant" is a regulation that only concerns what gun dealers can lawfully sell here in MA.
If you moved here with a "non-compliant" gun, or bought one from someone who bought it out of state then moved here, or carry a gun that you've owned since before the sweeping changes of 1998 were enacted, there is no need for any unusual civil liability concern.
In short, "Mass. compliant" provides absolutely no special protection from a lawsuit.
If I were you, I'd be more concerned with whether I had a strong, working knowlege of the lawful use of force in the Commonwealth.
+100
And technically, guns made before 10/21/98 that many refer to as "MA Compliant" are NOT MA COMPLIANT AT ALL! They are "MA EXEMPT" to the compliance laws!
e.g. There are NO MA COMPLIANT GLOCKS! The AG has said so! There just are millions of Glocks that are "grandfathered", having been mfd prior to 10/21/98. Glock never changed their mfg process on 10/22/98 . . . they are the same exact guns, but they can't legally be sold in MA by MA Dealers. Any competent counsel could bury this "MA Compliant" BS in a courtroom in a heartbeat.
Also, just understand that in MA if you ever have to use your gun to defend yourself, you are going to be arrested, jailed and prosecuted for murder (the probability is I'd estimate in the 70-90% range). So the gun you used is going to be a very small part of this equation anyway.
And technically, guns made before 10/21/98 that many refer to as "MA Compliant" are NOT MA COMPLIANT AT ALL! They are "MA EXEMPT" to the compliance laws!
e.g. There are NO MA COMPLIANT GLOCKS! The AG has said so! There just are millions of Glocks that are "grandfathered", having been mfd prior to 10/21/98. Glock never changed their mfg process on 10/22/98 . . . they are the same exact guns, but they can't legally be sold in MA by MA Dealers. Any competent counsel could bury this "MA Compliant" BS in a courtroom in a heartbeat.
Also, just understand that in MA if you ever have to use your gun to defend yourself, you are going to be arrested, jailed and prosecuted for murder (the probability is I'd estimate in the 70-90% range). So the gun you used is going to be a very small part of this equation anyway.
Last edited:
Rockrivr1
NES Member
Great points by LenS and Cross-X. I personally carry a Kahr PM9 on most days. It cannot be bought new in Mass, but was lucky enough to find one for sale at a gun show for a decent price. To me it small, light and I shoot it well, which is the most important part in my book. That I couldn't buy a new one didn't even cross my mind when I bought it. If I need to use it things have gone awfully wrong. If there are legal consequences after, well, at least I'm alive to deal with those consequences.
Not to pile on, but there is no logical connection between Massachusetts "compliance" and whether or not a particular firearm should be considered less socially acceptable than another. The purpose of these rules, at least ostensibly, was to protect the gun owner from "low quality" firearms.
Yes, that's why they exempted the police from both standards, and why most PD's have non-compliant guns. I'm waiting for the next "accidental" shooting by an officer, when the plaintiff's attorney brings in experts to testify the the department was using firearms that fail to meet the safety standards established by the legislature and the Attorney General's office, and that they're so inherently dangerous that they can't be sold to citizens under consumer safety regulations. Can you say "Mega Bucks" boys and girls? ... I knew you could. ![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Ken
Ken
I was thinking on a similar train of thought to KMaurer. It just seems like it's not such a great idea...? I dunno. Like I said, I was trying to find out if I was the only one, and it looks like I am, no harm done. Thanks for the feedback.
-GSG
-GSG
