March 14, 2025 - Firearm Control Advisory Board (FCAB) Meeting
February minutes and Banned Assault Style Firearms Draft
The March meeting was relatively brief, an hour long. There was more discussion on the “Banned Assault Style Firearms Roster”. The three-person subcommittee comprised of Ron Glidden (Mass Chiefs), Ryan Mingo (Mass AG’s office), and Judge Michael Fabbri (Ret.) - President of the Senate Appointee have been working on how to present the roster to the public. The draft of what they have come up with is public information and can be found in the February meeting information.
GOAL has made our position clear that there are no banned Assault Style Firearms (ASFs) in Massachusetts. There are some serious restrictions on them, but no actual “bans.” Even pre-1994 enumerated ASFs are not banned from possession, or transfer, if they were acquired by a certain date. If you look at the draft, the title is “Prohibited” which is not what the law says. Publishing a phony politically driven roster is only going to complicate legal matters with lawful gun owners, police, and the courts.
GOAL brought up the confusion on Black Powder again. This was caused by Chapter 135 removing the exemption of possessing muzzle loading ammunition components from state law. We keep hearing that federal law might cover it, but if that is the case why remove the exemption from state law. This question is further complicated by Chapter 135 adding federal language to the laws. Still no answers.
Last month the FCAB voted to not include rifles and shotguns in the firearm testing and roster requirements. The work around was that the term “firearm” did not meet the context of the handgun roster section of law. Because the FCAB is only an advisory body, the Secretary of Public Safety must make the actual decision. So far, no official decision has been made. We are told that may happen when the next guidance letter is issued.
Speaking of the “handgun” roster, no new guns were submitted by the manufacturers.
Another subject has come up regarding the handgun roster. Aside from the possible exclusion of long guns, there has been some discussion about frames and receivers. Since it is physically impossible for a frame to meet the testing standards, it is likely at some point the FCAB will recommend that they also be excluded. If this does happen, yet another question will have to be answered. If frames don’t have to meet the roster requirements, does that mean retailers can sell them? This could be further complicated by any interpretation by the Attorney General and how their separate regulations apply.
Handgun testing standards and forms came up again. At the February meeting a, so-called, smart gun was presented for roster consideration for the first time. As it was new to the roster process, GOAL had several questions regarding the testing standards. There was some discussion about reviewing the standards as they would apply to a totally different type of firearm. There is also an effort internally to standardize the testing reporting forms and perhaps an interactive online form. This would be very helpful to the labs and the FCAB.
GOAL brought up the pending registration and what is currently required and what is put off until the unfunded system is in place. This is the summation of what we were told:
February minutes and Banned Assault Style Firearms Draft
The March meeting was relatively brief, an hour long. There was more discussion on the “Banned Assault Style Firearms Roster”. The three-person subcommittee comprised of Ron Glidden (Mass Chiefs), Ryan Mingo (Mass AG’s office), and Judge Michael Fabbri (Ret.) - President of the Senate Appointee have been working on how to present the roster to the public. The draft of what they have come up with is public information and can be found in the February meeting information.
GOAL has made our position clear that there are no banned Assault Style Firearms (ASFs) in Massachusetts. There are some serious restrictions on them, but no actual “bans.” Even pre-1994 enumerated ASFs are not banned from possession, or transfer, if they were acquired by a certain date. If you look at the draft, the title is “Prohibited” which is not what the law says. Publishing a phony politically driven roster is only going to complicate legal matters with lawful gun owners, police, and the courts.
GOAL brought up the confusion on Black Powder again. This was caused by Chapter 135 removing the exemption of possessing muzzle loading ammunition components from state law. We keep hearing that federal law might cover it, but if that is the case why remove the exemption from state law. This question is further complicated by Chapter 135 adding federal language to the laws. Still no answers.
Last month the FCAB voted to not include rifles and shotguns in the firearm testing and roster requirements. The work around was that the term “firearm” did not meet the context of the handgun roster section of law. Because the FCAB is only an advisory body, the Secretary of Public Safety must make the actual decision. So far, no official decision has been made. We are told that may happen when the next guidance letter is issued.
Speaking of the “handgun” roster, no new guns were submitted by the manufacturers.
Another subject has come up regarding the handgun roster. Aside from the possible exclusion of long guns, there has been some discussion about frames and receivers. Since it is physically impossible for a frame to meet the testing standards, it is likely at some point the FCAB will recommend that they also be excluded. If this does happen, yet another question will have to be answered. If frames don’t have to meet the roster requirements, does that mean retailers can sell them? This could be further complicated by any interpretation by the Attorney General and how their separate regulations apply.
Handgun testing standards and forms came up again. At the February meeting a, so-called, smart gun was presented for roster consideration for the first time. As it was new to the roster process, GOAL had several questions regarding the testing standards. There was some discussion about reviewing the standards as they would apply to a totally different type of firearm. There is also an effort internally to standardize the testing reporting forms and perhaps an interactive online form. This would be very helpful to the labs and the FCAB.
GOAL brought up the pending registration and what is currently required and what is put off until the unfunded system is in place. This is the summation of what we were told:
- Residents are not required to have firearms, frames/receivers, unfinished or otherwise until the system is in place.
- Once the system is in place, the state is required to notify all licensed gun owners on the requirements and deadlines for compliance.
- New residents must register everything when they move into the state using the current MIRC system.
- There has been no advice regarding licensed non-residents registering their firearms when coming into the state for various activities.
- Serial numbers will not be made available until the new system is up and running.
- Retailers transferring frames, receivers, and anything else without a serial number should use a paper FA-10 form.
![[cheers]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/018.gif "Cheers [cheers]")
