Suppressors legal in Kansas, Why not Massachusetts

[seanc]

Have to chime in here.
Incrementalism and the divide and conquer strategy have got us to where we are now.
while we push to repeal something, they are passing laws on multiple fronts.

I think silencers are a great battle to fight as the whole classification really does not make sense. It is NOT a firearm. By definition, a silencer is not able to fire a shot (thus not a firearm) yet it is treated, classified, regulated and taxed as one. If I own a muffler pipe and a box of cup washers, am I in violation of the law?

there are a number of other nfa items in the same line that make no sense and have alreay set a precedent of stupid being regulated. Wallet holsters??? K-grips?? pen guns..
If they can make these gca/ nfa items.. why not attack on that front? How about the following; mags over 10 rds? telescoping stocks (yes the stock itself being a nfa item), red dots scopes, any type of muzzle device? the options are endless!

And since lead shot is pretty much being banned all over.. What is going to happen when they go for banning lead in all ammo?

The point here is they divide and conquer attacking on numerous fronts. The strategy of picking one battle at a time is like sticking the finger in the dike..

 

[Jose]

And since lead shot is pretty much being banned all over...

No, it is not.

 

[seanc]

Jose..
Maybe the EPA just has not made it to your neck of the woods yet. In Mass. EPA is clamping down hard on gun clubs.

I don't know all the ins and outs and would ask one more versed on it than myself to jump in. But my limited understanding is that the EPA is coming into many/ most of the clubs and putting an end to lead shot due to the lead being consider a toxin/ pollutant, with hefty fines to go along with it.

Most of the Skeet/ trap clubs in Mass have been, or are in the process of being forced to stop use of all lead shot (steel shot only).

 

[the_doctor]

Jose..
Maybe the EPA just has not made it to your neck of the woods yet. In Mass. EPA is clamping down hard on gun clubs.

I don't know all the ins and outs and would ask one more versed on it than myself to jump in. But my limited understanding is that the EPA is coming into many/ most of the clubs and putting an end to lead shot due to the lead being consider a toxin/ pollutant, with hefty fines to go along with it.

Most of the Skeet/ trap clubs in Mass have been, or are in the process of being forced to stop use of all lead shot (steel shot only).

I believe that you are referring to the DEP. You can use lead, but you need to have a barrier.

Bill

 

[Jose]

Jose..
Maybe the EPA just has not made it to your neck of the woods yet. In Mass. EPA is clamping down hard on gun clubs.

I don't know all the ins and outs and would ask one more versed on it than myself to jump in. But my limited understanding is that the EPA is coming into many/ most of the clubs and putting an end to lead shot due to the lead being consider a toxin/ pollutant, with hefty fines to go along with it.

Most of the Skeet/ trap clubs in Mass have been, or are in the process of being forced to stop use of all lead shot (steel shot only).

Your understanding is indeed VERY limited.

If you think for a minute the US EPA does not know where Ohio is, has no offices in Ohio, or does not know that shooting lead bullets and shot goes on in Ohio, you need to wake up. Google Cuyahoga River one of these days.

There's a f***ing reef made of bullets in Lake Erie just off the beach of Camp Perry from 105 years of military and civilian shooting there.

And outside of waterfowl, we still get to shoot lead at whatever we want, wherever we want.

 

[namedpipes]

...

There's a f***ing reef made of bullets in Lake Erie just off the beach of Camp Perry from 105 years of military and civilian shooting there.

...

Now there is a dillemma I'd love to see the lefties fight over!

Whats worse? Permitting future generations of cognitively challenged fish or destroying their habitat in the cleanup effort?!

I just know somebody isn't going to think that wasn't very funny...

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

Suppressors legal in Kansas, Why not Massachusetts

That was a trick question, right?

To those who don't have a problem with licensing and training requirements, which other rights should we be allowed to exercise only at the whim of the government, and at considerable out-of-pocket expense?

$100 free speech licenses?
Accompanied by a mandatory $150 grammar and English usage class?

$100 voter registration fee?
Accompanied by a $150 US Civics course?

I mean, as long as they're issued "fairly", right?

As to Massachusetts current gun licensing scheme (even if LTC's were "shall issue"), sorry, but I have a BIG f***ING PROBLEM with any law that takes away the rights of poor, inner-city residents, while allowing their wealthy neighbors in the suburbs to exercise the same.

To hold the belief that someone like John Kerry (for whom $250 is sofa cushion change) should be allowed to own and carry a gun, while a working mother of three living a couple miles away in Mattapan (for whom $250 is a month's groceries) should be systematically deprived of that "right" is so morally perverted it cannot be quantified by human means.

 

[drumenigma]

That was a trick question, right?

To those who don't have a problem with licensing and training requirements, which other rights should we be allowed to exercise only at the whim of the government, and at considerable out-of-pocket expense?

$100 free speech licenses?
Accompanied by a mandatory $150 grammar and English usage class?

$100 voter registration fee?
Accompanied by a $150 US Civics course?

I mean, as long as they're issued "fairly", right?

As to Massachusetts current gun licensing scheme (even if LTC's were "shall issue"), sorry, but I have a BIG f***ING PROBLEM with any law that takes away the rights of poor, inner-city residents, while allowing their wealthy neighbors in the suburbs to exercise the same.

To hold the belief that someone like John Kerry (for whom $250 is sofa cushion change) should be allowed to own and carry a gun, while a working mother of three living a couple miles away in Mattapan (for whom $250 is a month's groceries) should be systematically deprived of that "right" is so morally perverted it cannot be quantified by human means.

Maybe that's how the issue should be brought forth. Don't push it as, "It's my right to own a gun because it's in the constitution." Push the issue as, "The fees imposed by the government to exercise the right are discriminatory to certain races and classes of the US." That's how everyone else pushes their views. Whatever law a person wants passed they just have to show how the current situation is detrimental to some section of people, animal, or environment.

 

[PatMcD]

I have NEVER been subject to a 5 day wait or a safety class to buy a gun.

Clueless.....

I believe you were for a few years along with everybody else. Brady was a Federal law.

 

[Scrivener]

I believe you were for a few years along with everybody else. Brady was a Federal law.

Yet it did not affect MA residents because of the nature of our handgun licenses.

 

[Nickle]

Really? Got a statute, regulation or case law to that effect?

Matter of fact, I do, Counselor.

The source document is the BATFE Federral Regulations, the info is US Code, and it was passed as part of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Pretty much common knowledge for the gun industry.

(3) The term "firearm" means (A)
any weapon (including a starter gun)
which will or is designed to or may
readily be converted to expel a projectile
by the action of an explosive; (B)
the frame or receiver of any such
weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm
silencer; or (D) any destructive device.
Such term does not include an
antique firearm.

TITLE 18, UNITED STATE CODE, CHAPTER 44 § 921 Definitions.

http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2005/p53004/p53004.pdf

I'll also go on the record as saying it's STILL "the cart before the horse".

My message to those trying to get this through:

Trying to make silencers legal in VT is OK (and in process right now), but for Mass, maybe you ought to fix the more important items first.

So, Scrivener may be wrong on his facts, but he's right with his priorities.

 

[Scrivener]

Yet another example of the dichotomy between Federal and Massachusetts law.

Federal law, ignoring that of physics, declares a silencer to be a "firearm" despite its utter inability to meet the core criterion: The ability to discharge a projectile. Indeed, the classic silencer has no moving parts, still less any means to chamber or fire a cartridge or charge.

Massachusetts law, for all its other arbitrary vagaries, at least requires that minimal function to classify an item as a "firearm."

 

[Nickle]

Hey, Scriv, I'm not saying I AGREE with the Fed's on this, just stating what the appropriate Federal Regulation says.

Mass law undoubtedly makes more sense on the matter in this case. Other times they don't.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

The feds just want the transfer tax. If they can collect it on something that doesn't even go bang, all the better. As we know, in 1934, they grouped suppressors and AOW's with machine guns so as to be able to get the gangsters for tax evasion. That's no longer an issue, but the PSH keeps this stuff in place. Jack.

 

[Scrivener]

Hey, Scriv, I'm not saying I AGREE with the Fed's on this, just stating what the appropriate Federal Regulation says.

Mass law undoubtedly makes more sense on the matter in this case. Other times they don't.

Understood.

However, as the OP was a direct contrast between Kansas and Massachusetts (as if that were somehow remotely relevant), I confined my remarks to MA law.

As you noted, suppressors have been under Federal law for almost 3/4 of a century (think of all the lives saved!).

 

[Nickle]

Yup, and you would think folks would start with fixing the basics, too.

Not much sense getting a silencer, when you can't get the gun to attach it too.

Not much sense trying to get them legalized, when the local Chief can simply deny you just because he wants to.

Look, folks, you lost your rights a small chunk at a time. You've got to get them back the SAME way. Most of you are too young to realize this, as some of your rights were taken before you were born (not NFA '34, but GCA '68).

 

[drgrant]

The feds just want the transfer tax. If they can collect it on something that doesn't even go bang, all the better. As we know, in 1934, they grouped suppressors and AOW's with machine guns so as to be able to get the gangsters for tax evasion. That's no longer an issue, but the PSH keeps this stuff in place. Jack.

Well, that's what they wanted people to think when they drafted the law, but the laws are far more devious than that.

Have you EVER heard of anyone being sent to prison for 10 years and hit with a 250K fine for failing to pay a $200 tax? Even the IRS isn't that bad- at least you'll get some nasty letters in the mail and some means of being able to repay whatever your tax debt is with some sort of penalty. On the other hand a BATFE agent will arrest and prosecute someone at the drop of a hat. The other crap, like the CLEO signoff, and a BG check, etc, also preclude it from really being "just about the tax". If it was "just about the tax" then the government could have facilitated a method whereby an NFA dealer could simply collect those taxes at the point of purchase/transfer.

Rather, IMHO, the "tax" approach of the NFA was a ruse to prevent it being labeled what it actually is- a de-facto ban/heavy regulation on the devices covered by its scope.

-Mike

 

[Scrivener]

If it was "just about the tax" then the government could have facilitated a method whereby an NFA dealer could simply collect those taxes at the point of purchase/transfer.

Rather, IMHO, the "tax" approach of the NFA was a ruse to prevent it being labeled what it actually is- a de-facto ban/heavy regulation on the devices covered by its scope.

Precisely.


The Federal government has no police powers over the states or citizens, absent civil rights and interstate commerce. This is why interstate commerce is used as the basis for most Federal laws, including the "war on drugs" and the "gun free school zone."

It is also why revenue is used; either as a tax (why do you think the original agency was Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and placed under the Treasury Dept.?) or subsidies (the use of highway funds to require seat belt laws, 55 mph limits, etc.).

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Just a little history to bore you with. In 1989 a change was made in the Mass laws to allow "Federally Licensed Firearms Manufacturers" to make and deal in suppressors. Being among the first, or maybe the first to become aware of this, I contacted Ham Perkins, the state "Firearms Specialist" at the time to confirm this to me in writing. In 1990, he sent me a letter confirming amended chapter 269, section 10A. I sent this letter to Dan Shea who published it in the long defunct "Shotgun News". This is when the 07's here in Mass started to bring in and make suppressors. Jack.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Just a little history to bore you with. In 1989 a change was made in the Mass laws to allow "Federally Licensed Firearms Manufacturers" to make and deal in suppressors. Being among the first, or maybe the first to become aware of this, I contacted Ham Perkins, the state "Firearms Specialist" at the time to confirm this to me in writing. In 1990, he sent me a letter confirming amended chapter 269, section 10A. I sent this letter to Dan Shea who published it in the long defunct "Shotgun News". This is when the 07's here in Mass started to bring in and make suppressors. Jack.

Sorry about that. Should have said: long defunct "Machine Gun News". Jack.

 

[seanc]

and good old mr. Overalls.. has long since migrated from maine to the sunny south west..

And where is the rest of my MGN subscirption?? I still am waiting for @ 8 issues!!!

 

[one-eyed Jack]

and good old mr. Overalls.. has long since migrated from maine to the sunny south west..

And where is the rest of my MGN subscirption?? I still am waiting for @ 8 issues!!!

Machine Gun News is long gone. I now subscribe to Small Arms Review. Great mag. I've recently sent them articles with pics on my suppressed shotgun and modified Reising. Hope they publish them. Check their site. Dan is still very much involved. Jack.

 

[seanc]

I was being facetious about that. I was a subscriber to SAR for a long time. I do know Dan. I talked to him many times and have had dealings with him.

 

[Jose]

I believe you were for a few years along with everybody else. Brady was a Federal law.

I bought my first firearm (a Mossberg 9200 shotgun) in Kansas in 1999. I do not recall waiting. Just call in NICS and take it home.