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***
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/firearms/approved-weapons-roster-4-2012.pdf
The new SW MP Shield in both 40S&W and 9mm. Also the SW
SD40 and SD9 are on it.
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!
It goes to the 07-2012 Roster for me. The link url and file name reflects the old one, but the PDF itself is new.
Here it is:
View attachment 36221
Cool. I was getting sick off wiping my ass with the last one...
Seriously, thanks for posting.
I don't.
Some do and I thanked the new guy for taking the time to post it for those who care and for those who don't know where to find an FFL who doesn't GAF about the EOPS roster and AG regs.
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".
There is a list, we just don't get to see it.Second, there is no AG list.
There is a list, we just don't get to see it.
SkydiveGuy said:There is a list, we just don't get to see it.
There is a list, we just don't get to see it.
You think wrong. Most people in MA are anti-gun. That is why anti-gun politicians keep getting elected all across MA.
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.
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.
This is what I meant by my comment.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
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?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.
Most gun stores won't risk a fight with the AG.
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.