Newsflash -- Precision Target Sports Bill Moves to Governor's Desk!!

[drgrant]

Yea, I've been saying this...

I don't see much changing from this...

And I WILL eat my words if I'm wrong.

I'd pretty much agree with this viewpoint, especially if GCAB or whoever
ends up taking the position that Len described.

This means that the Pardini robopistols and their ilk will be legal. While
this is great progress for a few select shooting sports enthusiasts, it does
very little for most of us.

Now, if the law went off as originally intended, and had a wide definition, something like any gun possessing ANY ofthe following features:

-Adjustable target rear sight
-Optical sights
-Weight in excess of 50 ounces
-Grip designed for target shooting
-Barrel length of 6 inches or greater
-Non semiautomatic operation (this would legalize contender and friends)

then it would be a HUGE improvement.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There has been a huge amount of guessing as to what will be acceptable, as well as declarations as to what will, and will not, qualify.

Guess what? None of it matters until the GCAB starts processing applications and making recommendations to the EOPS. Until then, we might as well be posting declarations as to the future value of the S&P500.

There is ZERO informational content in speculation and opinions. The only thing that will matter is the list, and if dealers will accept presence on this new list as satisfactory evidence that such firearms qualify under the target exemption in the AG regs.

 

[dreppucci007]

No kidding....I vote lock the thread.

Mod Hat On!

Let's stay on topic here...there will be no usurping of the thread!

 

[Moderator]

I just cleaned up this thread. Even us mods have a tendency to create a train wreck. There is a lot of important info in here, and I don't want to see it get wasted.

 

[C-pher]

Oh yea, I'm ready for some scrappin'

Daruis, that's the best Idea I've heard yet, send in our ideas. I'm trying to optimistic about this...but I'm just having a hard time. I feel that they removed a lot of verbage for a reason. And that was to keep this new list short.

But, I will start to do that...and call me stupid, but who is that board member?? And if you want to PM me that, that would be fine as well.

 

[Greg Derr]

OK I hear the grumbling- Yes the ink is still wet so to speak. For me this has been a six year fight. I realize that some folks will want this to be a cure all for any gun not on the "list"- that is going way beyond hope. Yes when I first got the bill going it was intended for the "roboguns" the Hammerli's and Pardini's- that is and was my intent. I also wanted to get other forms of competitive shooting guns on the list from other " games". Like plate guns, NRA Bullseye guns, race guns etc. Just think of the argument you would make for any gun looking to exempted. Can you make a good argument for a guns exemption? The main reason for this list is that the "target guns" would fail the testing as laid out, mainly the drop test. Some guns as you guys know would pass the drop test but the makers are unwilling to submit them for testing or are unwilling to sell them in Mass for political reasons- Don't expect that to change anything.

Some of these makers have gotten on the CA list through testing which MA would have accepted( testing results) but they just don't want to do business here. I have over the years asked them to submit the CA results- they just don't want too.

Many of the "European" target guns would fail the test and with selling relatively small numbers in the US as a hole and only a few in MA it would be a loss for them to send five units for testing. Many of the guns on the CA list are no longer in production( High Standard, Hammerli, TOZ) and are only available used.

Know let's take a Wilson Combat model 1911- Wilson could submit his guns at any time to be tested since 1998- he makes great guns. Les Baer also makes great guns- not interested in MA. Even had a retailer willing to underwrite the cost- "Not Interested" ,Springfield Armory-ditto. One company got into CA just because they saw the numbers in the market were good. The numbers in MA were much smaller.

If you have a manufacturer you like and want their guns, call them and create a demand. Get them in the market.

The process for getting an exemption has yet to be worked out, please be patient. After six years a few months is nothing. Greg

 

[dd]

Precision Target Pistol Exemption

Greg Derr initiated the bill that resulted in this change to the law. He put a ton of work into it, over six years as he stated, and other people probably too numerous to name worked hard too. It is unfortunate that the cowboy guns and the ammo component parts were deleted.

As for getting a 1911 type gun in MA, there is a way. Order a frame from <name deleted by LenS-Mod to protect those brave enough to ship to MA> to be shipped to your Friendly FFL. Under Federal law you MUST go thru the FFL as the frame is considered a firearm, BUT, it is not in MA so you can buy it. The dealer will probably do an FA-10 anyway for his own protection and that is not a detriment to you. Next, you acquire the remaining parts and build (send the frame and slide to a custom gunsmith) the precision target pistol of your dreams. This does not, of course, get you the Les Baer or Rock River Arms National Match hardball gun or their bullseye/wad gun model.

What really needs to be done, of course, is to get a decision from SCOTUS on what laws infringe upon the right of the people to bear arms.

 

[Kurtz]

It was signed today, let's see what happens...

 

[Scrivener]

Warning

EOPS is being pressed to determine what the criteria will be for this exemption; there is a GCAB meeting soon to discuss its implementation. At one end is the prime mover of this bill, promoting Bullseye and Olympic pistols as the protected class; at the other is GOAL, trying to use EVERY shooting sport's rules as criteria.

The former is far too narrow; the latter is unworkably large.

Olympic free pistol is far too abstract and arcane a set of standards to do more than a dozen shooters in this state any good. Bullseye is better, but still rather restricted.

A universal standard (GOAL's all shooting organizations) is, essentially, NO standard; it is both unwieldy and abstract. That renders its chances of adoption virtually nil.

GOAL wants to include IDPA on the theory that it is a body with rules and sanctioned matches. It is also a body premised on "DEFENSIVE PISTOL SHOOTING;" the antithesis of what the "Precision Target Shooting" bill was enacted to protect: TARGET shooting.

Remember that the AG told Ruger its Mk. II pistol, used by thousands of target shooters across the country, did not qualify merely because Ruger's ads included plinking and hunting as uses for that gun. A Kahr pocket pistol, an S&W Chief's Special or Para Warthog would clearly meet IDPA criteria, but not be considered as "target" pistols under any objective criteria, still less those already applied.

I suggest we all contact GOAL and urge it NOT to include any organizations using words like "defensive," "combat" or "tactical" in their name or objectives, as such is likely to kill implementation of what little is left of the original bill.

If GOAL wants organizations to suggest as reference points for "target pistols," I would suggest NRA for its Bullseye events and USPSA, particularly the Limited and Open division guns. Each is a national organization with a track record of sanctioned matches using explicit firearm criteria.

For each, the guns emphasize high accuracy over low weight, capacity over concealability, and sights with precise adjustment over merely not snagging on the draw. As such, those standards are far more likely to be adopted - and thus BENEFIT - the majority of shooters.

A universal standard that GCAB rejects means no implementation or the adoption of a very rigid, limited criteria that benefits few, if any.

 

[JonJ]

Thanks for your outlook on this and the heads up!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Scrivener's points are very valid. The issue of "target certification" will probably play itself out over the next few months, and second chances, if any, will be few and far between.

If GOAL approaches the new law with the attitude of supporting the intent of the law and providing a reasonable criteria to certify guns intended exclusively for formal target shooting competition, there is a good chance we'll see some improvements in the guns available for sporting games. Getting listened to by those making decisions is about credibility and honesty. The Scrivener approach offers both.

Before I start, I wish to mention that I do not intend any disrespect to IDPA or the practictioners of that sport.

To those of you not familiar with USPSA/IPSC, we have the following to offer GOAL in their quest for target certification:

1. We have 5 precisely defined divisions (65 counting the provisional "single stack" division), ranging from "production" (not a chance in the world this would be considered "target only") to "Open" (large, heavy compensated guns in obscure calibers with heads up optic sights) which don't have any purpose other than formal target shooting. One step from Open is Limited which, although it does not include compensators or optics, fields many guns which are not suitable for any purpose other than formal target shooting Many of these guns are larger than typical defense guns, use sharp edged adjustable sights and have 2lb trigger jobs - ideal for "formal target shooting" and worse than useless for carry or defense.

2. USPSA can document over 350 clubs offering such competitions under a formal program, and has a full-color bi-monthly magazine which deals exclusively with match information, competiton rules, our nationals, equipment for formal competition shooting, etc. You won't find a single article in the USPSA Magazine "Front Sight" dealing with tactics, defenses, stopping power, etc. Would you rather have this introduced in support of the concept of "formal target shooting" or an on-line printout of something called the "Tactical Journal"?

3. USPSA can also show an affiliation with over 60 nations offering competitions under the same umbrella organization (IPSC), as well as a history of past and future planned "World Shoots".

4. USPSA's headquarters are in Sedro-Woolley, WA - but that's only a day away by Fedex. If necessary, they will have magazines, membership fliers, materials from our National Championships, promotional videos and related materials to GOAL within one business day free of charge.

5. USPSA maintains a full time staff of about 8 people to support the competition program, and can provide an officer of the corporation (not just someone who "shoots matches but has no official standing to speak for the organization") to meet with GOAL, or join GOAL in meeting with any MA agency or bureaucrat, with relatively short notice.

I have submitted this information to GOAL, and sincerely hope they understand that submitting the criteria from an organization which has stated that they hold competions only with guns "suitable for defense", has "defensive" in the name and calls their house organ the "Tactical Journal" is not the best strategy to make a truthful, honest and well-reasoned presentation of the criteria to define guns used in a multitude of formal target shooting sports.

 

[Scrivener]

GOAL - are you listening?

 

[Len-2A Training]

GOAL - are you listening?

GOAL doesn't live here!

They don't even read what's posted here, so this is not an avenue to communicate with GOAL.

Have you tried smoke signals?

 

[Scrivener]

GOAL doesn't live here!

They don't even read what's posted here, so this is not an avenue to communicate with GOAL.

Have you tried smoke signals?

I suspect GOAL staff check in now and again - especially if they learn they are under discussion.

And I have a more direct line to GOAL than you suggest!

 

[Cross-X]

I suspect GOAL staff check in now and again - especially if they learn they are under discussion.

And I have a more direct line to GOAL than you suggest!

Ladies and gentlemen, I have emailed this link to the senior staff of GOAL and have asked them to pay particular attention to message 129 and messages thereafter.

I know they value the input from the NES membership. If you have comments that you'd like to share with GOAL directly, send email to staff@goal.org and direct your comments to either Jim Wallace, Executive Director, or Nancy Snow, Chief of Staff.

Darius Arbabi

 

[Adam_MA]

Darius... You're my HERO!

 

[Scrivener]

Darius... You're my HERO!

 

[Cross-X]

Scrivener, I like it!