New EOPS roster for July is out.

Rating - 100%
15   0   2
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,135
Likes
149
Location
Mass :(
I'm not seeing it. The link you provided links to the April (Corrected May) 2012. When I tried going to the EOPS website directly, it took me to the same place.
Aloha
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
4,122
Likes
196
Location
In the back of the truck
YESSS!! (For M&P Shield) Dying to get my hands on one of those!! Hope it doesn't have that goofy red indicator like the CA ones!

Thanks for posting!

Yea, this makes it easier to get one.

S&W's site shows the regular model, and a CA specific model, but nothing about an MA specific version. So hopefully the regular model without the stupid LCI will be available here in MA, just like the rest of the free world.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
3,670
Likes
865
Yes!!!!!! Finally! haha

Yeah yeah yeah, there are dealers who will sell it even though an item isn't approved... but I don't know those dealers, so seeing the Shield on the list is good news!
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
573
Likes
73
Location
South Shore
So what happens when Martha stops being the AG? Does her approved "safe" firearms list still exist or does the new regime have to replace her list with their own?

Also, how do we the citizens force a change? I'm sure she would be outnumbered if gun owners all banned together and said "your list is BS as the guns that are on it are not causing safety problems in other states".
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,904
Likes
8,473
Location
Near Framingham
So what happens when Martha stops being the AG? Does her approved "safe" firearms list still exist or does the new regime have to replace her list with their own?

It actually isn't hers. It was enacted by the previous AG, Tom Reilly. Second, there is no AG list. The AG's office won't say which handguns meet their regulations which don't. Third, the regulations will stay in effect until an AG revokes them or some court action strikes them down.

Also, how do we the citizens force a change? I'm sure she would be outnumbered if gun owners all banned together and said "your list is BS as the guns that are on it are not causing safety problems in other states".

You think wrong. Most people in MA are anti-gun. That is why anti-gun politicians keep getting elected all across MA.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,765
Likes
70,404
There is a list, we just don't get to see it.

No list, does not exist. Please don't spread this misinformation any longer. If you want to, waste the money to file a FOIA request. I guarantee there is no list.

CMR940 compliance is not asserted on paper by the AGs office- in any other form than the absence of a nasty letter from them telling someone not to sell something anymore.

The AGs office keeps CMR940 in a black box, so to speak, because if someone had a "list" published by the AGs office about which guns the AG believed to be CMR940 compliant, they could use the logical inconsistencies present in such a list to punish the AG in court and destroy CMR940 pretty easily.

-Mike
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,765
Likes
70,404
You think wrong. Most people in MA are anti-gun. That is why anti-gun politicians keep getting elected all across MA.

I don't even think most are what I would call "actively" anti gun, per se. Even with the dumb voters in MA, I think most are indifferent. I think the problem in MA is most are left leaning independents, and the rest of their democrat platform garbage means more to them than gun rights or anything else. I've heard the phrase "There are more important things than guns" from these people (who describe themselves as independents, but they're really just closet democrats) on too many occasions to count. -and those are the bozos who decide most elections in this state.

I think they get elected and re-elected because being pro/anti gun is of little to no concern for the typical idiot MA voter. So they can effectively choose whatever position they want without being penalized politically for it. After that it's just probabilities- some liberal douchebag running for office in one of the rotten urban core places will almost always be an anti, because that's how they roll.

-Mike
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,904
Likes
8,473
Location
Near Framingham
Mike, I disagree. Most MA residents are not anti-gun activists. But I believe that most believe in "common-sense" gun control. Most think that there are too many guns in the US, that assault weapons should be banned, and would be appalled if they knew that many people in MA are licensed to carry concealed. I think most would be horrified to learn that the MA assault weapon ban doesn't actually ban so-called assault weapons - it just bans flash suppressors, bayo lugs, collapsible stocks, etc.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.6%
71   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
54,910
Likes
15,740
Location
NH
Mike, I disagree. Most MA residents are not anti-gun activists. But I believe that most believe in "common-sense" gun control. Most think that there are too many guns in the US, that assault weapons should be banned, and would be appalled if they knew that many people in MA are licensed to carry concealed. I think most would be horrified to learn that the MA assault weapon ban doesn't actually ban so-called assault weapons - it just bans flash suppressors, bayo lugs, collapsible stocks, etc.

Yup and my first gun club was made up of ~350 members who also thought this same way. They were horrified to see me OC on the property . . . no need they claimed. They were perfectly happy with their shotguns and target pistols and would gladly see a ban on everything else.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,765
Likes
70,404
Mike, I disagree. Most MA residents are not anti-gun activists. But I believe that most believe in "common-sense" gun control. Most think that there are too many guns in the US, that assault weapons should be banned, and would be appalled if they knew that many people in MA are licensed to carry concealed. I think most would be horrified to learn that the MA assault weapon ban doesn't actually ban so-called assault weapons - it just bans flash suppressors, bayo lugs, collapsible stocks, etc.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think most are indifferent based on reactions I get from people. Obviously if you go into moonbat communities things change, but outside of 128, most people don't know, know very little, or don't care about gun laws. It's just not something that enters their mind.

If they weren't indifferent, then there would be a ton of proactive forces against us, and we'd probably end up with an amalgamation of NJ and DC style laws, and people in MA sure as hell wouldn't be carrying concealed.

-Mike
 

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
39,904
Likes
8,473
Location
Near Framingham
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think most are indifferent based on reactions I get from people. Obviously if you go into moonbat communities things change, but outside of 128, most people don't know, know very little, or don't care about gun laws. It's just not something that enters their mind.

It isn't at the forefront of their mind. But if you ask the average sheep about the Aurora shootings, I think they would say that people shouldn't be able to own those assault weapons that spray bullets or to buy an "arsenal" of ammunition over the internet.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
573
Likes
73
Location
South Shore
No list, does not exist. Please don't spread this misinformation any longer. If you want to, waste the money to file a FOIA request. I guarantee there is no list.

CMR940 compliance is not asserted on paper by the AGs office- in any other form than the absence of a nasty letter from them telling someone not to sell something anymore.

The AGs office keeps CMR940 in a black box, so to speak, because if someone had a "list" published by the AGs office about which guns the AG believed to be CMR940 compliant, they could use the logical inconsistencies present in such a list to punish the AG in court and destroy CMR940 pretty easily.

-Mike
This is what I meant by my comment.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
573
Likes
73
Location
South Shore
CMR940 compliance is not asserted on paper by the AGs office- in any other form than the absence of a nasty letter from them telling someone not to sell something anymore.

The AGs office keeps CMR940 in a black box, so to speak, because if someone had a "list" published by the AGs office about which guns the AG believed to be CMR940 compliant, they could use the logical inconsistencies present in such a list to punish the AG in court and destroy CMR940 pretty easily.
I'm just trying to understand this, not trying to stir the pot.... but if an FFL received a letter telling them "You are selling S&W Shields and you can't so stop it!" and the FFL comes back with "But its on EOPS?!"... why cant this be fought in court as the AG is officially specifying "S&W Shield" in a letter to the FFL? Now that the AG has officially mentioned something by name, it has to exist on some sort of "list" or somewhere in their records (in the black box of which you speak). How can the AG go to court and have any leg to stand on?
Im not trying to be a prick here, I am just new to this whole thing and I cant wrap my brain around how it works legally and want to be able to give accurate info when someone asks me.
 
Last edited:

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,765
Likes
70,404
I'm just trying to understand this, not trying to stir the pot.... but if an FFL received a letter telling them "You are selling S&W Shields and you can't so stop it!" and the FFL comes back with "But its on EOPS?!"... why cant this be fought in court as the AG is officially specifying "S&W Shield" in a letter to the FFL? Now that the AG has officially mentioned something by name, it has to exist on some sort of "list" or somewhere in their records (in the black box of which you speak). How can the AG go to court and have any leg to stand on?
Im not trying to be a prick here, I am just new to this whole thing and I cant wrap my brain around how it works legally and want to be able to give accurate info when someone asks me.

First of all, forget the EOPS roster, for the purposes of what we are talking about here. The EOPS roster has little to do with this. At all. (Other than, a precursor for something being CMR940 compliant is that it also must already be on the EOPS roster, but that is about the only "static" requirement in CMR940 that has a metric to it!)

My point with the black box commentary is that if the AG's office maintained a list it might be more possible to challenge CMR940 by showing that the AG's office uses arbitrary and inconsistent metrics in terms of determining whether or not something was CMR940 compliant or not. Believe it or not, outside of things like the Glock debacle, enforcement
is limited by the AG's office. There are not a lot of cases where the AG has "banned" something from sale via CMR940. Many manufs tend to go out of their way to avoid getting a "we dont like your gun, you must recall them all" letter- because those can be very expensive for their dealers if they have to try to get the guns back. (It's worth noting, that in that circumstance, the customer is under ZERO obligation to return the gun, as they have not violated any laws!)

The main reason the AG's office does not publish a list is because of the fear factor it creates with vendors and gun
manufacturers. If there was a list they would feel more confident about fully certifying their guns here. The AG knows this
and fully hedges on the "fear of enforcement" factor to promote their anti gun agenda.

-Mike
 
Top Bottom