target bill

Legally it doesn't go into effect for 90 days. THEN, the GCAB must set requirements, propose them to Sec. of Public Safety (EOPS). THEN whatever testing/other BS is required gets submitted, approved by GCAB then sits on the Sec. of Public Safety's desk awaiting his action (or inaction)!

LONG ROAD to hoe before you see any results from this in the market place.
 
Legally it doesn't go into effect for 90 days. THEN, the GCAB must set requirements, propose them to Sec. of Public Safety (EOPS). THEN whatever testing/other BS is required gets submitted, approved by GCAB then sits on the Sec. of Public Safety's desk awaiting his action (or inaction)!

LONG ROAD to hoe before you see any results from this in the market place.


In point of fact, CHSB was working to establish the target criteria as far back as September, if not August. The proposed standards were drafted and submitted to CHSB senior staff a month ago and are scheduled for review by GCAB on Friday.

It is entirely possible that the statute could be effectuated by the start of the new year.
 
In point of fact, CHSB was working to establish the target criteria as far back as September, if not August. The proposed standards were drafted and submitted to CHSB senior staff a month ago and are scheduled for review by GCAB on Friday.

It is entirely possible that the statute could be effectuated by the start of the new year.

Any bets that anything larger than .22 rimfire and/or anything that could also be used as a defense handgun wil not meet the standards? Forget about those $2,500 IPSC 1911s or anything silmilar.
 
Any bets that anything larger than .22 rimfire and/or anything that could also be used as a defense handgun wil[l] not meet the standards? Forget about those $2,500 IPSC 1911s or anything silmilar [sic].

You're on. How much?

And that includes "those $2,500 IPSC 1911s."
 
Insider information? [grin]
A $50.00 donation to GOAL would be appropriate.
At least if either one of us loses, everyone else will benefit from it.

My information was posted immediately above your post, responding to it. Knowing that, you issued the challenge.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. A $ 50.00 donation to GOAL it is.
 
I would still like to see something other than .22 Olympic style target pistols on this list...

So I'm going to agree with the idea that not much more is going to be on this list. But, with the hope and optimistic thoughts, I wouldn't bet that they won't show up.
 
My information was posted immediately above your post, responding to it. Knowing that, you issued the challenge.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED. A $ 50.00 donation to GOAL it is.

I understood that, but what is submitted/proposed/drafted is one thing.
What is actually finalized and gets the nod of approval from the GCAB is another thing.

Of course what ever the final outcome is, the next hurdle is convincing the relevant/affected manufacturers to ship to MA FFLs (wasn't it Les Bauer that
has zero interest in selling their products here?).

Maybe I'm being too much of a pessimist? ...

magun.JPG
[thinking]
 
(wasn't it Les Bauer [sic] that
has zero interest in selling their [sic] products here?).

It was indeed, Despite a certain calendar-themed dealer imploring them to do so and offering to pay the testing costs.

Note that said dealer IGNORED the only manufacturer to actually TEST its products, get them on the AFR AND get them certified as target guns while groveling to Baer. [rolleyes]
 
I'm rooting for Scrivner!!

That would be an NES first. [smile]

Hey, I hope he's right too. Losing $50.00 to a worthy cause and in the process making a small step forward to actually improving MA gun laws is a desirable outcome... even though I have little to no interest in owning the type of firearms that would be covered (I couldn't afford them anyways).
 
That would be an NES first. [smile]

Hey, I hope he's right too. Losing $50.00 to a worthy cause and in the process making a small step forward to actually improving MA gun laws is a desirable outcome... even though I have little to no interest in owning the type of firearms that would be covered (I couldn't afford them anyways).

The funny thing is, until the dust settles, we have no idea of "the type of
firearms". Yeah, its ostensibly for "formal target shooting" guns, but
the devil is in the details here. The problem with that term is its open
to a fairly wide level of interpretation. Whenever I see "formal target
shooting" I start thinking- "whatever the hell that means." I guess we'll
find out in a short while.

-Mike
 
... even though I have little to no interest in owning the type of firearms that would be covered (I couldn't afford them anyways).

The funny thing is, until the dust settles, we have no idea of "the type of
firearms". Yeah, its ostensibly for "formal target shooting" guns, but
the devil is in the details here. The problem with that term is its open
to a fairly wide level of interpretation. Whenever I see "formal target
shooting" I start thinking- "whatever the hell that means." I guess we'll
find out in a short while.

-Mike

This is what I was going to say. It might be cowboy guns, it might be something else... You never know.
 
This is what I was going to say. It might be cowboy guns, it might be something else... You never know.

It most specifically will NOT be "cowboy guns" as they failed to be included when the bill was enacted - along with removing components from the definition of "ammunition."

As was discussed at length on this forum this summer. Do try to keep up.
 
The funny thing is, until the dust settles, we have no idea of "the type of
firearms". Yeah, its ostensibly for "formal target shooting" guns, but
the devil is in the details here. The problem with that term is its open
to a fairly wide level of interpretation. Whenever I see "formal target
shooting" I start thinking- "whatever the hell that means." I guess we'll
find out in a short while.

-Mike

Participants must be dressed in formal wear... [smile]


formal.JPG
 
It most specifically will NOT be "cowboy guns" as they failed to be included when the bill was enacted - along with removing components from the definition of "ammunition."

As was discussed at length on this forum this summer. Do try to keep up.

Hey, I'm just saying that we don't know what it might be. (well you do as you seem to be the lord of all things guns) Yes, I know that there's a slim chance in hell that it won't be...

But I can hope that all those letters and suggestions for firearms that I would like to see on the list would come to something....

But that's just me...

Now, carry on with your rudeness your Majesty.
 
C-pher, since the Legistraitors went to the effort of INTENTIONALLY removing cowboy guns from the bill, EOPS would never fly in the face of that.

No matter what GCAB comes up with for SUGGESTED policy/procedure, the final say is the SEC. OF PUBLIC SAFETY . . . an appointee of the GOVERNOR!

Depends on who the Devil appoints on what happens here. There may be a desire to move quickly before the Devil's appointee sabotages the law, but politicians do try to cover each other's asses and I won't take any bets. Most likely the current Sec. of Public Safety is on a "very short work contract" and will be replaced come January.

The Devil now owes Harshbarger, Reilly, Cheryl Jacques, etc. positions in his new administration. Time will tell . . .
 
Back
Top Bottom