I've heard some hearsay regarding the Ruger LCP and it being on it's way to Mass compliance. Is there any credence to this story? Does anybody else have any insight on this? I heard something about GOAL submitting a rather large report to the AG recently concerning either the LCP or guns of it's type. Truth or fiction?
-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Ruger LCP on it's way to Mass compliance?
- Thread starter Him
- Start date
Titan
Banned
I don't know about the LCP getting approved.
Not sure if it's got a visible chamber indicator or not, but it would seem that Ruger would at least need a model with a 10lb trigger pull to get a MA okay.
Not sure if it's got a visible chamber indicator or not, but it would seem that Ruger would at least need a model with a 10lb trigger pull to get a MA okay.
While that is true, manufacturers would no longer be concerned about the subjective "black box" of CMR940. If CMR940 was gone, it would be a lot easier to convince a manufacturer to certify their handguns for sale here.
-Mike
seanc
NES Member
If nothing else. You'd think they would move to some sort of revenue generating model. Submit guns with a check, get it certified.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,060
- Likes
- 21,238
Works for CA!
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
IIRC, they charge $50/year to keep it on their list . . . and since ALL handgun transfers in CA MUST go thru a CA FFL, if it ever gets dropped from the list (non-payment by mfr) the gun is no longer transferable to another subject of CA, period!
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,060
- Likes
- 21,238
Indeed, the test criteria to meet MGLs is almost identical to CA's test criteria and most labs can do both sets of tests for short money (differential cost) at the same time. CA has >3x as many guns on their list as MA does. The sole reason is the damn CMR "black box" issues.
I suspect that the size of the market may be an issue as well. CA is a very large market; MA isn't.
The 238 would be MA-OK as it is now. It is SAO and has a LCI.
The LCP is MA-OK as well.
The only thing holding them back is the AG. And that is not likely to change.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
With all due respect... when's the last time Sig actually certified anything? They did the mosquito, and that was it. And they only did that one, because it has so much safety crap on it, that the AG couldn't really say no. -Mike
seanc
NES Member
-Mike
I'd suspect that once sales of any particular model tanks and they are sitting on a warehouse full of them, then they will get around to doing a Mass Ok version.
Umm technically it's the EOPS testing that is keeping them back since they aren't on the roster. The AG regs apply to guns on that roster. MA compliant and MA AG compliant are 2 totally different things.
http://www.mass.gov/Eeops/docs/chsb/firearms/approved_firearms_roster.pdf
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,060
- Likes
- 21,238
I guess you don't understand why guns aren't on the EOPS List!!! Since the testing requirements are essentially almost identical, CA has THREE TIMES as many guns listed. Do you have a theory why?
I do . . . they don't bother with MA because they know it won't buy them anything due to the AG BS and being unable to determine what the AG might object to (that costs a fortune to recover all the guns, etc.).
seanc
NES Member
The AG office will be as vague as possible and never approve or deny anything officially (in writing and set precedents and guide lines). As long as they can move the goal posts at will, threaten lawsuits, and confuse the manufacturers nothing will change. And the the MFRs will just give up and avoid Mass. Which, of course, is the goal here.
The P250s been out for what.. over a year now (could be years, I forget... lose track of time easily... ) ... selling like a dog... still not available in MA.... IMHO SIG is just not interested in certifying more models here. I can't say that I blame them.
-Mike
Titan
Banned
I doubt will ever see approval for the Sig P250 in MA.
I can't imagine the AG ever being happy about a serialized frame designed for interchangeability with multiple barrels.
Prosecutor: We've traced the rounds to a 40 cal, Sig P250 owned by Mr. Smith
Defense: I object...the Sig P250 owned by Mr. Smith is a 9 mm.
That argument is bunk, because there are a bunch of "approved" guns you can already do that with. Further, that isn't even part of either of the two tiers of compliance. The real problem is that Sig has no interest in getting it certified.
-Mike
So how exactly does it make it to the EOPS list? Granted, I would love to see it on both, but I know there are plenty of LEO's out here that are dying for it to make it to the EOPS list so we can use it for a BUG.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,060
- Likes
- 21,238
MGL Ch 140 S 123 eighteenth ff gives the criteria. and more detail can be found in 501 CMR 7.00
Short answer is testing done in one of a handful of approved labs to the above criteria ordered by the mfr. Test results submitted to GCAB who makes a recommendation to the Secretary of Public Safety. Said Secretary of Public Safety is free to accept, reject or ignore GCAB recommendations. If Secretary of Public Safety signs off on a particular gun, it is then put on the next published list . . . but can not be transferred by a MA Dealer until that list is published.
Wrt AG Regs: Mfr self-certifies that the gun meets the AG Regs. AG will NOT provide any guidance. If AG gets hair across ass, mfr and all dealers get a "cease and desist order" to stop sales and retrieve all guns transferred in MA by MA Dealers (private transfers are NOT affected) "or else" $5K fine/gun not retrieved is levied against mfr and MA Dealer (again, buyer is in the clear with NO legal obligation to return the gun).
seanc
NES Member
Have any dealers been slapped with this and taken it to court? Assuming a glock xx (on the eops, not on AG) has anybody tried to fight it?
I would suspect that if pushed Glock would request the FFL take the guns back (to keep in good with the LEO contracts).
Obviously the prospect of an FFL taking on a fight against the AG's limitless funds is daunting. The prospect is that in all likelihood could would bankrupt the FFL. But do we know if anybody has tried?
M
MACGYVR
BassPro in Foxboro did when they first opened for selling Glocks. They called all purchasers/notified them to bring them back. I think a few kept them. So BassPro would have had to pay $5k for each of those not returned.
I think dearler in southern mass got hit for selling SW 22a with target grips. The 22a is approved but not the version with target grips.
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
seanc
NES Member
BassPro in Foxboro did when they first opened for selling Glocks. They called all purchasers/notified them to bring them back. I think a few kept them. So BassPro would have had to pay $5k for each of those not returned.
I think dearler in southern mass got hit for selling SW 22a with target grips. The 22a is approved but not the version with target grips.
The question is has anybody fought this, in court.
It seems to me that if the AG has the ability to ban sales of one product, then they can quite easily ban the sale of any products.
My memory might be fuzzy, but IIRC, BPS was also selling, or offering for sale, various off list guns. (eg, like Springfield XDs, etc). I am unsure how this played into the case at hand. If this was the case, then BPS was dealing with a lot more than just a CMR940 violation. (A CMR940 violation is civil, the roster is criminal... two different ballgames. )
I think dearler in southern mass got hit for selling SW 22a with target grips. The 22a is approved but not the version with target grips.
You mean, without target grips. I'm not familiar with the case in question, but the 22A in MA is only "okay" for dealer sales with the ugly wooden target grips on it. Of course, since they all have the same model number, to some degree or another this distinction is often ignored. Most dealers, however, only sell what their distributors mark as being "MA OK".... which for the 22A is I believe one or two models with the round barrel and target grips.
-Mike
Last edited:
Years ago there was an MA dealer org which took up a case and dropped the ball on it, from what I remember. Not sure if this caused problems with regards to case law, etc. Supposedly some paperwork was supposed to be filed with the court and they didn't do it, and the whole thing died in the water.
The problem is now it is hard to get dealers to do anything- since most of the major players suffer under the same rules, they probably view the playing field as being leveled.....
. Not to mention the costs are pretty high for legal fees and the like. Part of the problem is there may currently be no viable avenues for attack. This might change, of course, if Heller/Macdonald ends up being incorporated at the federal level, then it may open up more avenues for other cases to be brought. (EG, an argument could be made that the AG's regulations, at least, end up being a de-facto "ban" and restrict the purchase of guns otherwise in common use, among other arguments. ). Even then, it's still going to take a LOT of money and time. -Mike
seanc
NES Member
It seems to me that a stand alone ffl does not have the resources to fight this. As the limitless funds of the Mass AG are in play. Couple this with the spectacular "AG vs. NRA" headlines and Glob spin would pretty much would be great for re-election prospects in this state.
But, other than trying to bleed the defendant dry filiing motions, disclosures and whatnot to drag out the headlines and rack up the FFL's legal bills.. Would this actually stand up if it got in front of a court? If they can arbitrarily have say an S&W 1911 be AG ok, and an identical Springfield 1911 not be ok would this be likely to stand up?
if they can do this, why not anything: alcohol over 20 proof? Stoli Vodka ok, absolut banned? Snap-On hammers ok Stanley not ok?
