Newsflash -- Precision Target Sports Bill Moves to Governor's Desk!!

Cross-X

Cross-X

Shooting at the big range in heaven
Dealer
NES Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
8,502
Likes
259
Location
Metrowest, MA & Points South and West
Feedback: 9 / 0 / 0
As announced by Nancy Snow, Chief of Staff of GOAL, the Massachusetts Precision Target Sports bill has been approved by the legislature and is now moving to the Governor's desk for signature.


This is very good news.


Be sure to call the Governor's office right away to urge his support of this critical piece of legislation!

Darius Arbabi
 
Excellent (I hope). Is this the latest version that doesn't include SA revolvers or has it been watered down even more?
 
LoginName said:
Excellent (I hope). Is this the latest version that doesn't include SA revolvers or has it been watered down even more?
Click to expand...


From what I understand, the legislation is the same as it was before the bill went to the Senate. Cowboy SA guns are out, but nothing else has been changed.
 
It doesn't do anything relative to large capacity magazines. It simply exempts some handguns from the so-called safety testing requirements.

Ken
 
I believe TWO key provisions were struck in the house; the inclusion of single-action revolvers in the "formal target shooting" exception AND the removal of components from the definition of "ammunition." So, cowboys and reloaders were screwed.

sickone777 said:
so you can own the gun but cant [sic] compete with it
so why bother buy [sic] are [sic] pass this bill
the guns that they will allow now will be useless to some of us
Click to expand...

Hardly. If you can acquire a pre-ban "large capacity" magazine for the gun, then the gun becoming available for sale here is hardly "useless." Even if you can only get 10-round mags, you can compete in L-10.

Moreover, there are many single-stack, target-grade autos that may become available if the onerous testing requirement is removed. Think Kimber, Wilson, etc.

This should please a certain calendar-themed dealer that currently importunes a high-end maker to to sell in MA and even offers to pay for the testing, although it could sell an even higher-grade gun already on the AFR right now. [rolleyes]
 
Scrivener said:
Moreover, there are many single-stack, target-grade autos that may become available if the onerous testing requirement is removed. Think Kimber, Wilson, etc.
Click to expand...
There is one more issue to consider - the AG's regulations contain a specific exemption for guns designed specifically for formal target shooting, however, there is no way a dealer can obtain assurance from the AG's office or the state of MA that the "target designation" has been accepted. As a result, some dealers including the calendar themed one take a conservative approach to selling guns which are on the Chapter 180 list, but rely on the "Target exemption" for complaince with the AG's requirements.

Once the new bill is signed and goes into effect, there will be a mechanism for appropriate guns to obtain an "Official state of Massachusetts certifcation of target status." It is very likely that dealers who are not skittish about accepting obscure (ie, low sales volume) exotic target guns will start to make these models available.

Interestingly enough, Glock has some models which might qualify. The 17L (no longer produced), 24 and 24C (current production) have been listed as "competition" guns on Glock.com for time time now, and come with the trigger connector which is specifically dis-recommended for defense use. The Glock 34 and 35 are listed in the "practical tactical" category, however, the characteristics (long slide, light target trigger) are consistent with purpose specific target competition guns.

In terms of making additional models available for purchase, the ability to obtain "certified target status" may turn out to be as useful as the alternate mechanism on getting onto the statuatory list.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
Interestingly enough, Glock has some models which might qualify. The 17L (no longer produced), 24 and 24C (current production) have been listed as "competition" guns on Glock.com for time time now, and come with the trigger connector which is specifically dis-recommended for defense use. The Glock 34 and 35 are listed in the "practical tactical" category, however, the characteristics (long slide, light target trigger) are consistent with purpose specific target competition guns.

In terms of making additional models available for purchase, the ability to obtain "certified target status" may turn out to be as useful as the alternate mechanism on getting onto the statuatory list.
Click to expand...

That's where I have a bit of uncertainty... what is going to be the criteria for "certified target status"?

Currently under 940 CMR 16.00 the criteria is...

"(f) the transfer in question is of handguns that are solely designed and sold specifically for formal target shooting competition".

The new target handgun law reads...

"“SECTION 1. Section 123 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2004 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the first paragraph the following paragraph:-

Clauses Eighteenth to Twenty-first, inclusive, of the first paragraph shall not apply to: (a) any firearm lawfully owned or possessed under a license issued under this chapter on or before October 21, 1998; or (b) any firearm designated by the secretary of public safety, with the advice of the gun control advisory board established pursuant to section 131½ of chapter 140, as a firearm solely designed and sold for formal target shooting competition. The secretary of public safety shall compile a list, on a bi-annual basis, of firearms designated as formal target shooting firearms in accordance with this paragraph. Such list shall be made available for distribution by the executive office of public safety.”; and by striking out the title and inserting in place thereof the following title:- “ An Act further regulating the use of target shooting weapons.”.

My concern is that the approving authority will adhere to that in the strictest definition. I can see high end competition .22 caliber handguns meeting that requirement (Pardinis, Walthers, Hämmerlis, etc), but I'm not so confident that certain target handguns that could serve a dual purpose
(as in also being a defensive handgun) will pass the boards muster. Think high-end 1911s... does simply installing a competition barrel and manufacturing the gun to closer tolerances make it "designed and sold specifically for formal target shooting competition"?
 
It is both reasonable and truthful to assert that a 1911 which comes from the factory with a 2lb trigger is completely unacceptable for defensive carry, home defense, or any purpose other than target shooting.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
It is both reasonable and truthful to assert that a 1911 which comes from the factory with a 2lb trigger is completely unacceptable for defensive carry, home defense, or any purpose other than target shooting.
Click to expand...

Ron Glidden is a friend, but he walks a thin, narrow line on this sort of thing. I do NOT think he'll go easy on us in these cases.

I hope I'm wrong, time will tell . . . hopefully.
 
LenS said:
Ron Glidden is a friend, but he walks a thin, narrow line on this sort of thing. I do NOT think he'll go easy on us in these cases.

I hope I'm wrong, time will tell . . . hopefully.
Click to expand...
It's real simple. The issue is the to let the TRUTH prevail. If you call a dogs tail a leg, the dog still has for legs - since calling the tail a leg does not make it one. Calling a defensive gun suitable for carry a "target only" gun doesn't make sense either.

On the other hand, if a gun is not a "target" gun, it implies the gun is suitable for some other purpose. Glock for example, is adament that their 3lb connector is not suitable for defense - to the point where the only way a US buyer can get a "Real Glock 3 lb connector" is to buy one of the target only Glocks.

Of course, to the hard-core anti's even a Pardini is not "target only" since it can also be used for other purposes.

Taken to extremes, it would seem absurd to argue this 1911oid is not a target gun:
29.jpg
 
Rob Boudrie said:
It's real simple. The issue is the to let the TRUTH prevail. If you call a dogs tail a leg, the dog still has for legs - since calling the tail a leg does not make it one. Calling a defensive gun suitable for carry a "target only" gun doesn't make sense either.

On the other hand, if a gun is not a "target" gun, it implies the gun is suitable for some other purpose. Glock for example, is adament that their 3lb connector is not suitable for defense - to the point where the only way a US buyer can get a "Real Glock 3 lb connector" is to buy one of the target only Glocks.

Of course, to the hard-core anti's even a Pardini is not "target only" since it can also be used for other purposes.

Taken to extremes, it would seem absurd to argue this 1911oid is not a target gun:
29.jpg
Click to expand...

Look just like mine, except I have the "skateboard tape" type grip! [smile]

As for "formal target shooting" criteria, I'd suggest the following:

1. This firearm is a handgun which is “solely designed and sold specifically for formal target shooting competition” per 940 C.M.R. 16.01(f);

2. This firearm is built with:

A. □ A frame design which complies with IPSC Modified size
requirements

□ a five-inch frame

□ a six-inch frame

B. A match barrel which:

□ is a cone design

□ uses a match bushing

C. A manual (thumb) safety

D. A competition target pistol match-weight trigger; and

E. □ Micro-adjustable (“target”) conventional sights

□ Electro-optic sights

While a couple of items may also be found on a defensive pistol, as a whole, I suggest the whole would result in a target gun.
 
Last edited:
LenS said:
Ron Glidden is a friend, but he walks a thin, narrow line on this sort of thing. I do NOT think he'll go easy on us in these cases.

I hope I'm wrong, time will tell . . . hopefully.
Click to expand...

Just wondering... how does the advisory board decide on something like this?

Does the decision have to be unanimous, simple majority, 2/3'rds?

Is a representative/lawyer from the manufacturer allowed to attend the meeting?
 
Rob Boudrie said:
It's real simple. The issue is the to let the TRUTH prevail. If you call a dogs tail a leg, the dog still has for legs - since calling the tail a leg does not make it one. Calling a defensive gun suitable for carry a "target only" gun doesn't make sense either.

On the other hand, if a gun is not a "target" gun, it implies the gun is suitable for some other purpose. Glock for example, is adament that their 3lb connector is not suitable for defense - to the point where the only way a US buyer can get a "Real Glock 3 lb connector" is to buy one of the target only Glocks.

Of course, to the hard-core anti's even a Pardini is not "target only" since it can also be used for other purposes.

Taken to extremes, it would seem absurd to argue this 1911oid is not a target gun:
29.jpg
Click to expand...


I'm like to be optimistic about this, but from what I've learned from personal experience, knowledge and anecdotes posted on NES I really don't expect a flood of new Les Bauers, Kimbers, STIs, etc to show up in gun stores here (I really hope I'm wrong). The fact that the reloading components and SA revolvers part of the bill was left out is telling. For that reason alone I don't think the intent of the bill as engrossed was meant to include large caliber (center fire), hand guns guns derived from an existing defensive firearm such as certain competition M-1911s. As there are no definitive guidelines or criteria set forth, I think the advisory boards decision will weigh heavily with the intent of the law.
 
Last edited:
LoginName said:
Just wondering... how does the advisory board decide on something like this?

Does the decision have to be unanimous, simple majority, 2/3'rds?

Is a representative/lawyer from the manufacturer allowed to attend the meeting?
Click to expand...

I don't know the "inner workings" of the GCAB. Legally I believe that the meetings are public, held at MSP HQ in Framingham during the workday, once a month.

From what I've learned from Ron, here is my "EXPECTATION" (legal disclaimer: I can't know for sure but this is what I get from the "tenor" of their job and how they go about it):

- They will likely look at ALL the marketing material for a given gun, for ANY market in ANY part of the WORLD. If that model was ever noted for OTHER than TARGET in any marketing literature, etc. it's "OUT!"

- They probably will NOT consider cost of a gun (e.g. $2500 1911 clone vs. $400 SA model) in determining what is a Target gun.

- They may look at the gun and figure that it is close or not to a defensive model (marketed as such) to determine "OK" or "OUT".

I just hope that the GCAB List is "the final word" and that the Sec. of Public Safety does NOT have to approve the GCAB List before it becomes gospel, or there is a good chance (depending on which political appointee sits in that chair) that NO List will be issued for a very long time!
 
From posts on the Pilkguns site, it looks like it may possibly only be international Olympic style guns with an updated list of new guns from USA shooting, just like California does.
If this becomes the case, the wording of "formal target" would be construed interpretively as Precision Shooting only (NRA Bullseye 22, International Free, Standard/Rapid/women's sport).
Teh again however, guns like the Les Baer target pistols are California approved, so if they follow Calilifornia, who knows?

How does one shoot NRA three gun without the 45?
 
Ladies and Gents:

Have you made your call to the Governor's office yet? I have. The bill has not yet made it to the Governor's desk, but it will very soon.

Pleasle make your call as soon as you can. The phone number for the Governor's office is (617) 725-4000. When you call, ask to speak with an aide to the Governor, and tell the aide of your strong support for H. 4552, and that you would like the Governor to sign it into law.

The couple minutes you spend on the phone could make a huge difference!

Darius Arbabi
 
Last edited:
Cross-X said:
Have you made your call to the Governor's office yet? I have. The bill has not yet made it to the Governor's desk, but it will very soon.
Click to expand...

I just got off the phone with Mary in the Governor's office. She had not heard of the bill so I think she could do with a few more calls.

When I called, it took a number of rings (20 or so) before someone picked up. Be patient!
 
Just got off the phone!

Call em up guys!

ETA: I got through on the first ring, and the first ring after being transferred!
 
I called, Turns out you need an appointment to talk to the Governor. I left a happy message to be passed on though. [grin] Keep the calls rolling.
 
Back
Top Bottom