Not effectively, no. Right now anything the AG says is a no-go is effectively non-compliant. The way Section 32 is worded basically gives the AG the power to tell EOPS to remove guns from their list as well. So, as an example, Glocks are on the EOPS list, but the AG says "no" to those, so dealers can't sell them. When the law goes into effect, EOPS will have to remove them from the list, but as far as your average gun buyer is concerned it doesn't change anything.
-
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.
Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo
- Thread starter Satcom
- Start date
- Status
Not effectively, no. Right now anything the AG says is a no-go is effectively non-compliant. The way Section 32 is worded basically gives the AG the power to tell EOPS to remove guns from their list as well. So, as an example, Glocks are on the EOPS list, but the AG says "no" to those, so dealers can't sell them. When the law goes into effect, EOPS will have to remove them from the list, but as far as your average gun buyer is concerned it doesn't change anything.
Hah, exactly! And we thought $800 was bad for a G19...
HARRYM
NES Member
Thanks
Yeah, my interpretation of Section 18 is that transfers of non-compliant handguns would still be okay, but then again I'm not in charge of implementing it. Also, I can definitely see a lot of FFLs refusing to allow private transfers of non-compliant handguns on their premises, even if they are legal.
That totally changes the landscape for those FFLs who sell EOPS-approved but not Martha-approved guns. IIRC selling a gun that is on the EOPS roster but not AG-approved is a civil matter, but selling a gun that isn't on the EOPS roster is criminal.
Yes, exactly....!!! The rest of this bill is mostly terrible but this particular part is liable to be hilarious and a source of endless entertainment and possibly unintentional benefit for gun owners.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, its not. Getting all upset based on what might be in the bill before we saw it was one thing, but come on guys, the complete bill is out now - just read it.
Doesn't look like it.
I'm sure as lawful gun owners beaCON hill is thinking that we should be thankful that they could've done far worse like what the NY Legislature did last year.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
Good Point
I have a Colt Gold Cup 1911 that I am willing to sell for $3,500 - first offer gets it!
Some may balk, others won't... lots of others. The way I view this change is this isn't any different than doing an FTF with someone at an FFL's store and all the FFL is doing is the (virtual) act of "mailing out the FA-10" .
My guess is if this goes into law EOPS/CJIS will basically just change the E-FA-10 system to be accessible by dealers only somehow.
-Mike
goodzilla
NES Member
Section 18: Needs to be clarified or clearly interpreted, otherwise there will be more jackassery. Then again maybe that's the goal here. But I'm encouraged by the wording. GOAL, li'l help?
Section 32: This, to to me, is the biggest middle finger in the whole thing. Basically clarifying that the AG is going to hold our nutsacks and restrict our firearms options based on some bullsh*t sense of unfair/deceptive trade practicies.
Oh, and lots of sections amended to frequently remind people, both young and old, that suicide is always an option....or that suicide should never be an option. I dunno they seem to want to just keep reminding you about suicide.
Any intel about when the meetings are on this bill?
- - - Updated - - -
Exactly what I was thinking earlier, only that will barely build the beurocracy, it's way to simple.
Section 32: This, to to me, is the biggest middle finger in the whole thing. Basically clarifying that the AG is going to hold our nutsacks and restrict our firearms options based on some bullsh*t sense of unfair/deceptive trade practicies.
Oh, and lots of sections amended to frequently remind people, both young and old, that suicide is always an option....or that suicide should never be an option. I dunno they seem to want to just keep reminding you about suicide.
Any intel about when the meetings are on this bill?
- - - Updated - - -
Exactly what I was thinking earlier, only that will barely build the beurocracy, it's way to simple.
It wouldn't be too difficult for the state to modify the "Confirm license" link on the E-FA 10 page to allow a seller to confirm that the buyer's license is still valid. There is already a requirement for the seller to fill out and submit the FA 10 form giving the state their record of transfer. There's some other intention here.
At best, it's just an additional cost and burden on the part of buyer and seller to have a firearm transfered. On the other hand, it could be a ploy to add liability to FFLs, eliminate the lawful transfer of "non-complient" handguns, or any other nefarious intentions they may have.
What is the legality of an FFL having anything to do with a firearm transfer without conducting a NICS check (which doesn't appear to be mentioned in the bill)?
Yeah, our focus now should be on contacting legislators to make sure they know we're opposed to the bill, and finding out when the hearing is so we can show up to voice our opinions in person.
daveshrews
NES Member
Ok, so how do we get involved? We all need to start making phone calls to our reps. What's the most effective thing we can say when we call them?
At the time of sale, does the FFL have the ability to verify that the purchaser's LTC is still valid? If so, could we just be looking at a process where the FFL has to verify that the parties' LTCs are valid and then submit the FA-10 for the transfer?
The flaw in that is how would someone go about filing an E-FA-10 for C&R and out of state longarm purchases if the system was open to FFL's only?
45collector
NES Member
I'm not the best at breaking down and interpreting the legal jargon, so can someone shed a little light on whether or not the FFL-only transfer part would effectively make the C&R license useless for the purpose of purchasing C&R eligible guns from out-of-state? My guess is no, it won't change that, since it's not a MA FTF transfer between two licensed individuals.
ETA: Ah, LoginName beat me to it pretty much...
ETA: Ah, LoginName beat me to it pretty much...
It reads like EOPS requires the input of the AG in order to compile the new list? If the Ag's office chooses to be dicks about it and not cooperate and EOPS can't meet the statutory requirements for producing the list, are we left with a list with no firearms on it?
It would be a interesting to see EOPS put in the position of having to force the AG's office to comply with the law.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
don't remember sales to out of state dealers that are legal under the law, you have to file a paper FA10 with the dealer's FFL info on it.
This thread makes my brain hurt.
- - - Updated - - -
Why anyone would follow any of these asinine laws is beyond my comprehension.
Sure, be my guest. Register everything.
- - - Updated - - -
Why anyone would follow any of these asinine laws is beyond my comprehension.
Sure, be my guest. Register everything.
Last edited:
I thought that was the purpose (or one of the purposes), for having a PIN number?
To verify that the LTC/FID holder hasn't been revoked, or facing pending criminal charges that could result in his/her license being revoked
Keeping in mind that you will probably be speaking to some random intern, here's what I plan to say:
Hello, I am [Name] from [City/Town]. I am calling to say that I am opposed to An Act Relative to the Reduction of Gun Violence, docket number HD4253, as filed by Speaker DeLeo. I would love the opportunity to speak with [representative] in further detail about my opposition if [he/she] is available.
And that's basically it. There's no need for long diatribes, just make sure you're included in the count of people who are opposed.
My recollection was that the pin was for when the fingerprint reader didn't work or that system was down.
daveshrews
NES Member
Thanks mlaboss, that's perfect.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The fingerprint readers are defunct and no longer supported, so it's all done with PINs now.
Section 26 bars firearm ownership by an "alien" in part "v"
Thought there was a recent case that decided that it was not constitutionally permissible to deny firearms ownership to lawful permanent resident aliens....
(I know....small point, but the first thing I have picked up on that has not already been stated)
Thought there was a recent case that decided that it was not constitutionally permissible to deny firearms ownership to lawful permanent resident aliens....
(I know....small point, but the first thing I have picked up on that has not already been stated)
Yes, an obvious sticky point... If I was going to make a WAG EOPS is going to make a concession on this for registrations, since these, in many cases, technically aren't private sales or transfers between two LTC holders. If they don't, "these people" may have to bring their crap to an FFL (MA Dealer) and pay the dealer to process a registration for them.
-Mike
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
HARRYM
NES Member
http://www.comm2a.org/index.php/con...urt-strikes-down-handgun-ban-for-legal-aliens
2012 but perhaps something has changed??
i just said that exact thing. i'm trying to understand this as both a gun owner and a gun shop employee, and i feel like i'm gonna have an aneurysm.
- Status
