Approved Firearm list for MA

[C-pher]

I was wondering if there is a place that has a more up to date list?

I went on the AG's website and it hasn't been updated in over a month.

Maybe someone is wrong, but someone said that some of the new Uberti's are approved in MA. I have been looking around and can't find any information to see if this is true or not.

 

[Republic of Mass]

I was wondering if there is a place that has a more up to date list?

I went on the AG's website and it hasn't been updated in over a month.

Maybe someone is wrong, but someone said that some of the new Uberti's are approved in MA. I have been looking around and can't find any information to see if this is true or not.

The list is only updated 3 times per year. They may have guns that already passed the test and are being prepared to be added to the list, but until its on the published list, its not on the list. Get it?

 

[C-pher]

So, does that mean that you can get them? Or do you have to wait for the list to be published?

That is if it's true that they were approved. Which I'm still trying to find out.

 

[Len-2A Training]

First off the AG does NOT publish any lists! All he does is prosecute anyone he accuses of selling things that HE disapproves of, but he won't tell anyone what he approves of! Read "Catch-22" and you'll understand it!

The "List" is maintained by EOPS and published on CHSB's website. It only is published 2x a year IIRC.

Until it is published, it can NOT legally be sold in MA by an FFL. Doesn't matter if it passed everything and was approved by the Sec. of Public Safety (he has the final say and can reject anything even if it tests OK).

 

[C-pher]

OK, so even if it something gets approved. Then I will have to wait six months to get it...Don't you just love this state?

 

[Len-2A Training]

Yup!

When they had the original hearings, I suggested an alternative (make the website the legal, definitive list plus some other stuff) that would have allowed guns to be sold immediately after EOPS accepted GCAB recommendation based on passing the test data. The EOPS attorney was very interested in this concept, asked me to document it . . . which I was forbidden to do by BR&P's BOD and I am unsure if it was ever implemented. My testimony was recorded, so they had the info even without my writing it down.

Current Sec. of Public Safety is free to do as he pleases, change their internal rules of operation, reject any guns that comply and are "recommended" by GCAB, delay publishing lists, etc. The only recourse is putting pressure on the Gov. but that only works with a REAL pro-RKBA gov, which we haven't had in many years.

 

[masochusetts]

Since the normal and above-board methods of dealing with the idiocy in this state seem to have little effect (i.e,, calls to legislators, petitions, etc.), I've wondered if some creative tactics might be useful.

For instance, since the Attorney General, in his deeply humane and passionate concern for the firearms owners in the Commonwealth, has seen fit to protect us from new Glocks and most other manufacturers' products, what would happen if we -- in an extension of his concern and compassion -- demanded that he further protect the LEOs in the same manner. In other words, if these weapons are so damn dangerous, should we not demand that he extend the same safety ban to police agencies to protect our law enforcement officers?

The point would NOT be to make life more difficult than it already is for police, but to highlight the stupidity of these policies by enforcing them across the board. Maybe people would pay more attention?

Thoughts?

 

[Len-2A Training]

The AG Regs already EXEMPT ALL LEO guns from his "consumer protection" regs!

It is the state law that has NO exemption for LEO guns.

However, LE agencies can purchase from ANYWHERE in US, thus the typical agency buys from out of state and is NOT affected by MGLs!

 

[masochusetts]

The AG Regs already EXEMPT ALL LEO guns from his "consumer protection" regs!

That's my point, Len. Rather than fighting the AG with logic, would there be any value in a faux campaign to actually EXTEND his policies to their illogical conclusion? "Why doesn't the Attorney General extend his protection to our law enforcement officers?" "AG Reilly doesn't care about the safety of police officers because he doesn't protect them from the unsafe guns." etc.

Then again, as I write this, it doesn't sound a hell of a lot different than the real campaigns run by the Brady Bunch et al. In this looney state, a campaign like this could get taken seriously and actually get enacted into law.

Cripes.

 

[Len-2A Training]

. . . and it would be irrelevant.

LE agencies still have to buy from out of state sources! Fed Law allows them to buy whatever they need from anywhere in the US, so new regs/laws are pointless and meaningless.

 

[KMaurer]

I suspect that the only time that this state's "safe gun" list (and double secret list) will get a real reaming will if there's a major law suit involving an officer involved shooting and one of the attorneys subpoenas the AG and the Director of Public Safety to testify that the officer was using a known "unsafe" firearm. Watching the sumbitches trying to duck the subpoenas and then squirming on the stand might almost be worth it.

Ken

 

[Chris]

I find it interesting that if you read the law, the Dept of Public Safety needs to publish their 'list' of firearms in a "publication of general distribution". Currently they violate this law and only publish on their web site. Penalty? NONE. Gotta love the way they can do their own thing, but if we peons were to do something like that (ie E-mail our change of address letters) we'd be sure to be punished for it.

 

[Hawgleg44]

I wrote to the AG about the issue of the LE exemption. I explained that, in W. Mass alone, I knew of 5 negligent discharges, one which resulted in the cops partner getting shot in the leg. Even in that one, the Cheif and the officer (who was acting as a training officer at the time and shot his rookie) blamed the "unsafe" design of the Glock with no safety on it. Does personal responsibility pop into anyone's mind here, or is it just me?

Anyway, I went to to say, in a very nice way, that for the most part, cops are not "gun people" and only shoot when the department mandates them to. On the other hand, all the gun owners I know are very responsible and are knowledgable regarding safe and proper gun handling. I cannot see why the basically untrained and inexperienced officers should be allowed to carry a firearm which is not considered safe enough for experienced non-LE gun owners to own in this state.

Even being LE, I asked the AG's office to consider that the LE exemption be removed from the law. I also asked for a clarification to the 10-21-98 rule, and that was the only answer I got. The LE exemption was ignored in their response.

I would love to see every department in the state not be able to get a Glock, HK, or non-Ma**h*** Sig and see how many Chiefs would be in favor of these laws after that.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Chris, you are wrong. EOPS publishes the list once or twice a year in the Boston Globe. I understand that they get charged something like $10K for the full page ad. The website is ONLY updated when they publish in the newspaper. My suggestion to them was to use the web as the "official publication" and keep it updated as guns are added, then publish in the newspaper 2x/year with latest list.

Hawgleg, AG and state law are irrelevant. PDs can order from anywhere in the US per Fed Law. The only control that the state has is whether or not they will allow MA dealers to profit by the purchases . . . and the answer is NO! Thus, most of the money floats outside the borders of MA.

 

[Hawgleg44]

Well, if that's the case, If the AG is going to screw us citizens over, then pass a state law saying that PD's can only buy from dealers within this state, and make them follow the same rules we have to.

The state law would definately supercede the federal law. Just look at the AWB that most of the rest of the country doesn't have anymore and we still do.

 

[Chris]

Len.

Are you sure they still publish? It's been MANY moons since I've seen the list in the Globe. When it first started being printed it was in the Food Section, but I have not seen it at all for several years. Then again, it is the New York Times - um - I mean Boston Globe, so its unlikely that anyone looks at every page. I wonder how many people actually do 'see' it.

If they are printing it, what a waste of taxpayers $$.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Chris, pub in a major newspaper is required by the 1998 law. Maybe they switched to the Herald? I don't know as I do not buy or read either one. Last pub date would have been in March.

Here's the latest list:
http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/approved_firearms_roster.pdf

I'm sure that nobody reads it. Yes, it is a waste of taxpayer money. Thank Cheryl Jacques and friends for that one. Web publication should be adequate in today's world, but it will probably take another century before the MA legislature figures that out.