This might be a Stupid Question....

[Darksideblues42]

If we do not have "registration" of firearms here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, why does almost every FFL website I see say something about only being able to transfer off-roster handguns if they were registered before Oct 20th 1998. If we do not have "registration" (and unless I am mistaken, that is still the official party line) why is this term tossed about as gospel?

Am I missing something? Or is it simply a matter of "There is no registration, wink wink" on the part of the officials who enforce the laws?

 

[Palladin]

It's manufactured, not registered

 

[Darksideblues42]

It's manufactured, not registered

I have been to about a dozen FFL websites today alone, and almost all of them have something like the following:

If a Handgun does not appear on the EOPS roster, that handgun must have proof of registration in Massachusetts before October 28th 1998, otherwise, we cannot legally transfer the firearm.

 

[MisterHappy]

I think that the use of "registration" is a shorthand. If the gun was not lawfully possessed prior to the cut-off date, then it's not lawful for the dealer to transfer it. There are many off-list guns floating about, both ones that were here from back in the day, and others that have been brought in by people moving here.

Most dealers want to act lawfully (or, cover their ass) and the money made on a single questionable sale is not worth it.

 

[Glockster30]

I have been to about a dozen FFL websites today alone, and almost all of them have something like the following:

If a Handgun does not appear on the EOPS roster, that handgun must have proof of registration in Massachusetts before October 28th 1998, otherwise, we cannot legally transfer the firearm.

I'm somewhat confused as to your actual question, but I'll use a Glock for an example. Glock is on the EOPS list, but an FFL will not transfer one to you unless it was in state (meaning manufactured) prior to 10/21/98. Some FFLs may also interpret that to mean it had to be "registered in state" prior to that date, so some FFLs may require paperwork to show that you owned it in state prior to the magic date before they will transfer it to another person.

However, none of this prevents you from buying a post-10/21/98 Glock in MA as many Gen3 & Gen4 Glocks are sold by individuals, as noted in the NES classifieds. These issues have been covered in multiple NES threads. In general, ignore the EOPS list and buy whatever you want from non-FFL people.

 

[wolfenkraft]

I'm somewhat confused as to your actual question, but I'll use a Glock for an example. Glock is on the EOPS list, but an FFL will not transfer one to you unless it was in state (meaning manufactured) prior to 10/21/98. Some FFLs may also interpret that to mean it had to be "registered in state" prior to that date, so some FFLs may require paperwork to show that you owned it in state prior to the magic date before they will transfer it to another person.

However, none of this prevents you from buying a post-10/21/98 Glock in MA as many Gen3 & Gen4 Glocks are sold by individuals, as noted in the NES classifieds. These issues have been covered in multiple NES threads. In general, ignore the EOPS list and buy whatever you want from non-FFL people.

It's my understanding that as long as a glock is made before a certain date, it's good. There's no "in the state before" date or "registered" date since there is no registration.

 

[Glockster30]

It's my understanding that as long as a glock is made before a certain date, it's good. There's no "in the state before" date or "registered" date since there is no registration.

I understand that, which is why I used the term "(meaning manufactured)" prior to the magic date.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Thanks all.

My question revolved around an old model 28 S&W Revolver that my grandfather wants to send me. It was made in the late 60's but is NOT on the EOPS roster.

He never registered it in Mass (since he lived in NH and Oregon his whole life, outside of his Military Service)

I called a shop earlier this week and was told no roster list, cannot transfer without proof of prior registration.

I was under the impression we did not use registration here, hence my ongoing confusion.

 

[Glockster30]

Interesting and unfortunate as the Model 28 is identical to the Model 27 that is on the roster. S&W just removed some features on the 28 to make it more affordable (no top strap checkering, non-polished bluing, etc.).

 

[Len-2A Training]

There is so much convoluted info in this thread that I'm going to recommend that the OP spend some time reading the following thread and only pay attention to those responses from people who actually know what they are talking about.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/37553-MA-Handgun-Compliance-Q-A-Thread-(new)

 

[jasons]

Of course we have registration. Call it what you want - it's registration.

 

[30Mauser]

There is so much convoluted info in this thread that I'm going to recommend that the OP spend some time reading the following thread and only pay attention to those responses from people who actually know what they are talking about.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/37553-MA-Handgun-Compliance-Q-A-Thread-(new)

For god's sake, THIS. ^^^^

 

[Darksideblues42]

For god's sake, THIS. ^^^^

Read it. Guess I need to wait until I lawfully inherit the revolver. Such a clear as mud cluster-eff.

Thanks for all the help.

 

[Coyote33]

Registration | Define Registration at Dictionary.com

registration
[rej-uh-strey-shuh n]

Examples
Word Origin

noun
1.
the act of registering.
2.
an instance of this.
3.
an entry in a register.
4.
the group or number registered.
5.
an official act of registering one's name in the list of qualified voters.
6.
a certificate attesting to the fact that someone or something has been registered:
a boat registration.
7.
Music.

the act or technique of registrating.
the selection of stops made by an organist for a particular piece.

 

[jasons]

Read it. Guess I need to wait until I lawfully inherit the revolver. Such a clear as mud cluster-eff.

Thanks for all the help.

In a nutshell, MGL Chapter 140, Section 123 says that a gun needs to meet a set of "safety" criteria in order for a dealer to legally transfer it. There's an exception for "any firearm lawfully owned or possessed under a license issued under this chapter on or before October 21, 1998."

Basically what that's saying is that if someone with a MA licence owned (or even merely possessed) the gun before the magic cutoff date it can be transferred by a dealer even if it doesn't meet or hasn't been tested against the "safety" criteria in clauses 18-21 of section 123.

So, how do you prove that a gun was "lawfully owned or possessed under a license issued under this chapter on or before October 21, 1998?" One possible way is to look at registrations. If someone transferred a particular gun prior to that date and there's a corresponding entry in the registration database, it's pretty clear proof that it meets the exception.

With that said, there are many ways that a gun could be legally owned / possessed by someone with a MA license and never be registered so registrations are not a foolproof method. (That's a whole different topic really.)

Bottom line, yes we have registration and yes that's one way to prove that a gun qualifies for the exception in section 123. (It's not the only way of course, and frankly it shouldn't be up to you as the citizen to prove that the gun qualifies for the exception but rather for the Commonwealth to prove that it doesn't. Doesn't really work that way in real life though.)

It's a terribly written law even by MA standards:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section123

If a Handgun does not appear on the EOPS roster, that handgun must have proof of registration in Massachusetts before October 28th 1998, otherwise, we cannot legally transfer the firearm.

This is not 100% accurate but there are dealers who use this standard out of an abundance (arguably over-abundance) of caution.

I'm somewhat confused as to your actual question, but I'll use a Glock for an example.

Glocks in general are irrelevant to the question at hand since most of them comply with the "safety" standards in section 123, making any exception to those standards irrelevant. (They meet the standard therefore they don't need the exception.)

 

[Darksideblues42]

Thanks again for the explanations.

I guess my confusion stems from the adamant position of the officials of the FRB that we do NOT have registration here, yet the laws (and many dealers) reference registration. This seems to be contradictory.

The real crux of the matter for me is that we have 2 handguns, both functionally identical, both designed and manufactured to the same standards, same caliber, same barrel, and in fact, several interchangeable parts. One of these is the "pretty" model (the Model 27) One is the "Workhorse" (the Model 28) The 27 is on the roster, the 28, despite being functionally identical, is not.

This just smacks of arbitrary bureaucratic BS under a thin veil of preservation of public safety.

 

[jasons]

Thanks again for the explanations.

I guess my confusion stems from the adamant position of the officials of the FRB that we do NOT have registration here, yet the laws (and many dealers) reference registration. This seems to be contradictory.

The typical explanation (such as it is) is that we register transactions not guns. Doesn't really matter in the long run, the end result is a database full of guns and gun owners.

The real crux of the matter for me is that we have 2 handguns, both functionally identical, both designed and manufactured to the same standards, same caliber, same barrel, and in fact, several interchangeable parts. One of these is the "pretty" model (the Model 27) One is the "Workhorse" (the Model 28) The 27 is on the roster, the 28, despite being functionally identical, is not.

The roster is a bunch of bullshit. The way the actual MGL is written something could be compliant but not be on the roster, of course the bureaucrats who wrote the CMR went way beyond what the MGL actually says. Yet another case of gun laws being dictated by bureaucrats who can't or won't read the actual law they're supposed to be interpreting.

This just smacks of arbitrary bureaucratic BS under a thin veil of preservation of public safety.

Welcome to the party, pull up a chair. (That is the entire purpose of EOPSS and everyone involved in it.)

 

[jasons]

FYI, here's the head of EOPSS in action. Very telling.

 

[drgrant]

Of course we have registration. Call it what you want - it's registration.

Yes, it is, but it's worth noting that it's not compulsory in the strictest sense. Simply having an "unregistered" firearm in MA of any kind is not prima facie evidence of some kind of a crime. This is pretty important to remember.

-Mike

 

[Chevy 2 65]

FYI, here's the head of EOPSS in action. Very telling.