New to NES politics and gun laws

[Sputa Arms]

O.K. where do I start...

I am a new GREEN member here and since I was told about this site, even before I got my LTC-A I have been religiously reading and searching pretty much every night on every subject.. (sigh) So many questions

Tonight I was browsing and came across a post that involved NES member Madball writing to charley baker about 2A and mag. capacities. Reading that made me kind of Angry! Do these politicians just write generic replies to blow us off.

Now with that said being new to politics and gun laws.. I am EXTREMELY confused about Ban and Pre-ban laws!.. What is made pre dec. 98 is legal and that same EXACT product made june 99 is not. What the HECK! How the heck can WE as gun owners and Pro gun people get a big IRON, change some things and smooth it out????? Are there just not enough of us or is there too much of them?

From what I learned there is only ONE Attorney general and ALOT of us.. So how can These law and regulation makers make decisions on Principals not facts?. And what can be done about it?

I'll stop here for now thanks.. Wow ever knew these things could be so motivating

 

[EcHo]

Welcome to NES and its great you went green! Don't try to use logic to understand any MA guns laws; no logic was used in making them so no logic should be used in understanding them.


As for your question about pre/post ban firearms:

If the rifle is a semiauto with a detachable magazine and was manufactured before 9/94 you can do pretty much whatever you like to it. You can have all the so called "evil features" you like. These include:

1) pistol grip
2) collapsible stock
3) bayonet mount
4) flash suppressor
5) grenade launcher

If the rifle was manufactured AFTER 9/94 AND is semiauto with a detachable magazine, then you have to pick one evil feature and that can be the only one you have. If you have more then you are in possession of a post-ban "assault rifle" and that is a big no no unless your active/retired law enforcement.
If the rifle is not semiauto or does not have a detachable magazine then you can also have as many evil features as you like no matter when it was manufactured.

Pistols have their own group of standards that define what makes them illegal in this state, but I'm not as familiar with those. I'm sure they've been posted on here before


As for high capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds for magazine-fed rifles and pistols, more than 5 rounds for shotguns):
If the magazine was manufactured before 9/13/94 you may own it in this state. Other than that you are out of luck unless your active/retired law enforcement. This timeline from GOAL (join them if you haven't already) illustrates things pretty well: http://www.goal.org/Documents/law_faq_pdfs/awtimeline.pdf

If you have any doubts as to when a "preban" magazine was made and the seller cannot prove it to you, don't buy it. It is a felony if you have it. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing doesn't really apply in this state with firearms. Most cops don't even know the laws because they are so damn complicated, and when in doubt most of them will arrest you and let you sort it out later.

I'm sure if I said anything incorrect I'll be corrected. I'm almost positive I've grasped the laws by now, but I'm not a lawyer and many people here know much more than I do.

 

[Bill Nance]

Welcome to NES and get ready for some research. the forums on gun laws in your state/mass town are very helpful and leavened by some very experienced firearm attorneys.

Sadly it Is complicated, but it's not impossible to figure out. Buckle down and post specific questions in the relevant forums and you'll get some answers or at least pointed in the right direction.

 

[Coyote33]

Not to play the bad guy here, but this is certainly not news, and if you have been reading for a long time, I hope you were one of the attendees at the public hearing on this a few weeks ago at the Statehouse.

There will be more opportunities, but the best thing for now is to speak up by writing (not email) your representatives in the state legislature on the bills here .

Yes, welcome aboard. Read, learn, ask away.

 

[Len-2A Training]

If the rifle is a semiauto with a detachable magazine and was manufactured before 9/98 you can do pretty much whatever you like to it. You can have all the so called "evil features" you like.

And you can go to jail for your efforts.

I know it's confusing, but if you are going to give advice, please research dates BEFOREHAND to make sure that you are giving solid advice.

MA AWB (and large-capacity mag ban) are based on FED LAW (that expired in Sept. 2004) but remains as MA LAW forevermore. The magic date here is SEPT. 13, 1994, and NOT 1998.

The MGLs related to 10/21/1998 are strictly for handguns that do not meet the handgun testing laws and thus can not be sold/transfered by a MA GUN DEALER . . . NO impact on buyer or private transfers, perfectly legal to possess or move into MA with these guns (just watch out for post 9/13/1994 large-cap mags).

All gov't agencies have the legal right to create "administrative laws" (CMRs in MA, CFRs for Feds) and that is what the AG did and the courts upheld AG Harshbarger's right to do so (GOAL and others challenged it in court and lost). The MA AWB was passed into law by the legislature in 1998 and is somewhat similar to the AG Regs, but different and with a different legal basis for enforcement (jail terms for seller and buyer).


I hope that clarifies it some.

 

[EddieCoyle]

You all have your dates wrong. Both magazines and firearms are 'pre-ban' if they were made before September of 1994, not 1998.

Your getting confused with the dates for the EOPS list, which was 1998. The EOPS list, in conjunction with the invisible AG 'list' limits what a dealer dealer can legally transfer. There are two standards that apply in order for a dealer to legally transfer a handgun.

First, the handgun must either be on the EOPS list -OR- have been 'registered' in Mass prior to 1998. I put 'registered' in quotes because different dealers have different definitions of what 'registered' means.

Second, even if the handgun model is on the EOPS list, the AG must still determine if the gun is 'safe'. The AG does not publish a list of 'safe' guns, or even provide guidelines , but instead uses the Potter Stewart method: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." This is why some post '98 guns that are on the list (Glocks) can't be transferred to non-LEOs, but pre-'98 Glocks can.

ETA: Len beat me to it.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

You all have your dates wrong. Both magazines and firearms are 'pre-ban' if they were made before September of 1994, not 1998.

Your getting confused with the dates for the EOPS list, which was 1998. The EOPS list, in conjunction with the invisible AG 'list' limits what a dealer dealer can legally transfer. There are two standards that apply in order for a dealer to legally transfer a handgun.

First, the handgun must either be on the EOPS list -OR- have been 'registered' in Mass prior to 1998. I put 'registered' in quotes because different dealers have different definitions of what 'registered' means.

Second, even if the handgun model is on the EOPS list, the AG must still determine if the gun is 'safe'. The AG does not publish a list of 'safe' guns, or even provide guidelines , but instead uses the Potter Stewart method: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." This is why some post '98 guns that are on the list (Glocks) can't be transferred to non-LEOs, but pre-'98 Glocks can.

ETA: Len beat me to it.

Eddie, isn't that why so many don't want to go through the process in MA? They can spend all the money on testing, but then the AG can turn around and just say "Nope" later on?

 

[EcHo]

Edited my post to reflect to correct '94 AWB date

 

[Len-2A Training]

Eddie, isn't that why so many don't want to go through the process in MA? They can spend all the money on testing, but then the AG can turn around and just say "Nope" later on?

That is why Taurus made the decision to avoid MA completely. It's also why Glock has refused to "try again".

 

[center442]

Welcome to the green side, Sputa.

By doing a lot of reading and research here you will eventually come to understand the laws that affect gunowners in the PRM. As others have said, don't expect it to make sense. The laws were written by legislators pandering to various groups, or laws that they thought were good based on their own mistaken beliefs. I am sure that some of these legislators had good intentions. Sadly, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

If that makes you angry, channel that anger. Join GOAL. Write letters to your Representatives. Speak out. Take non-shooters to the range. Donate $$ if and when you can. Attend legislative hearings.

The gun laws we have now are FUBAR, but until the legislators realize that, it's never going to change.

 

[Cabin Fever]

That is why Taurus made the decision to avoid MA completely. It's also why Glock has refused to "try again".

And GLOCK jumped through all the hoops!

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

And GLOCK jumped through all the hoops!

So if they passed all the hoops, paid all the dirty money, what did the AG give for the reason?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So if they passed all the hoops, paid all the dirty money, what did the AG give for the reason?

"We do not consider the Glock loaded chamber indicator to be effective"

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

"We do not consider the Glock loaded chamber indicator to be effective"

Oh, like the one on the Sigs and most other that is friggin pinhole? At least the Glock you can clearly see and feel.

 

[EddieCoyle]

I just cleaned up this thread.

Scrivener and 2A1st - if you want to continue your 'discussion' please take it to PM.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

I just cleaned up this thread.

Scrivener and 2A1st - if you want to continue your 'discussion' please take it to PM.

You're right....sorry Eddie.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Second, even if the handgun model is on the EOPS list, the AG must still determine if the gun is 'safe'.

I don't mean to split hairs, but isn't the AG factor more a matter of them determining that a gun is not 'safe'? They don't postivily determine that guns are 'safe' do they? I thought it was more like they decided that a gun wasn't.

It's sort of like they say: "Sure, if it's on the EOPS list go ahead and try to sell it until we have a problem with it."

I'm of the opinion that certain guns are targeted more due to their popularity.