Ok, so after reading the new '09 EOPS roster, I have a question that hopefully can be answered here. My question is, if a particular handgun is not on the EOPS list and was not registered in the state prior to the GCA of 1998, then is it legal for a civilian to own here in the Commiewealth? Examples of such handguns would be anything from Taurus, FN, and the Beretta pocket pistols.
-
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.
Question About Handguns NOT on the EOPS List
- Thread starter Trupo
- Start date
IIRC It would be illegal for a dealer to sell it to you. Not illegal to own it.
Last edited:
... Or a dealer would sell to you, but the dealer would be assuming the liabilty for EOPS or AG regs which only apply to dealer sales not to you as buyer.
Well, that's what I'm wondering. If the gun is on the EOPS list, I understand that it is legal to own, regardless of whether it's on the AG's list or not. However, if it is a post 1998 handgun and ISN'T on the EOPS list, where in the law does it state that the gun is legal to own?
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,864
- Likes
- 69
Well, that's what I'm wondering. If the gun is on the EOPS list, I understand that it is legal to own, regardless of whether it's on the AG's list or not. However, if it is a post 1998 handgun and ISN'T on the EOPS list, where in the law does it state that the gun is legal to own?
Laws are written as to what is illegal not what is legal. Hence you will not find a law saying it is legal to own said firearms nor that it is illegal
Last edited:
Well, that's what I'm wondering. If the gun is on the EOPS list, I understand that it is legal to own, regardless of whether it's on the AG's list or not. However, if it is a post 1998 handgun and ISN'T on the EOPS list, where in the law does it state that the gun is legal to own?
I don't think you'll find a statement in the law that says if it isn't on the roster you can still own it. The law says that if a gun does not meet certain requirements, then it can't be sold by a dealer. This is in MGL Chapter 140 Section 123: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-123.htm
Things like:
Licensee, in this context, means the dealer. These regulations control what a dealer can sell. There is no similar law about what a person can own. It just doesn't exist.
The law that authorizes the roster is in MGL Chapter 140 Section 131 3/4: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-131.75.htm
The description of the roster and how it is used is in 501 CMR 7: http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/501 CMR 7.pdf
Bingo!
Last edited:
45collector
NES Member
The question that I've yet to hear a clear answer on is:
If you found an FFL dealer that didn't give a crap about selling you a non-compliant firearm, could there be any legal consequences to you if you bought the gun? As long as an FA-10 and 7743 were filled out correctly, I would assume there's nothing the state could hang on you as the buyer.
But what if a CLEO who was issuing your renewal knew about such a transaction, and decided to deny you your license because you were engaged in a "questionable transaction".![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
If you found an FFL dealer that didn't give a crap about selling you a non-compliant firearm, could there be any legal consequences to you if you bought the gun? As long as an FA-10 and 7743 were filled out correctly, I would assume there's nothing the state could hang on you as the buyer.
But what if a CLEO who was issuing your renewal knew about such a transaction, and decided to deny you your license because you were engaged in a "questionable transaction".
IANAL, but that is my understanding. Both the AG's regulations and the statutes in Chapter 140 control what a dealer can sell, not what a person can buy or possess.
A CLEO can decide that guys named 45collector are unsuitable because he doesn't like the name. So yes, I could see some CLEOs do that. I could also see some CLEOs tell the AG to go pound sand.But what if a CLEO who was issuing your renewal knew about such a transaction, and decided to deny you your license because you were engaged in a "questionable transaction".
This isn't legal advice and it is worth just what you paid for it.
And HOW would the CLEO KNOW about said transaction?
The PDs don't get copies of FA-10s or 4473s (note the proper form number), so they'd have no way to know. You could buy it from someone FTF in MA and it would show up in a list of owned firearms the same way as if you bought it from Joe-Dealer who violated the law on the EOPS List.
e.g. MANY people bought guns from a questionable former dealer in Norton . . . even after his FFL expired. I am not aware of any individual that had to give up their guns or got in any trouble (LTC or otherwise) from buying from this person. Last I knew he was doing time in Danbury complements of the Feds. So all his transactions weren't secret.
The PDs don't get copies of FA-10s or 4473s (note the proper form number), so they'd have no way to know. You could buy it from someone FTF in MA and it would show up in a list of owned firearms the same way as if you bought it from Joe-Dealer who violated the law on the EOPS List.
e.g. MANY people bought guns from a questionable former dealer in Norton . . . even after his FFL expired. I am not aware of any individual that had to give up their guns or got in any trouble (LTC or otherwise) from buying from this person. Last I knew he was doing time in Danbury complements of the Feds. So all his transactions weren't secret.
There is a very slim chance that the AG could require you to give up the gun and try and get your money back from the dealer, based on the idea that the sale was void (you cannot have a valid contract that requires one of the parties to break the law). However, this is pretty much the worst that could happen, and it has not happened in the few cases where it was applicable. The AG instead had the dealers 'ask nicely' for the gun back, rather than demand its return. This would lead one to believe that the AG doesn't really feel they have the power, or it's not worth the effort, to demand it back.
You can OWN any handgun you want in MA as long as the gun (and its attendant magazines) don't run afoul of the MA AWB and you have the correct LTC.
The AG/EOPS regs only apply to dealer sales and transfers, and only in the context of an MA resident/consumer.
-Mike
The speculation was that the AG might tell the CLEO that you refused to return the gun to the dealer, and then the CLEO might deem you unsuitable. I think that is unlikely, but that is just my completely unsupported opinion.
