target bill

That doesn't sound legal to me (IANAL)..

By MA law a frame/receiver is not a firearm.

I would assume that most (if not all), gunsmiths are FFLs (by federal law and state law).

The gunsmith takes posession of the frame and with that custom builds a functional firearm. Since the smith is an FFL, and is now in full posession of a completed firearm, can he legally transfer a firearm that is not on the EOPS list, back to the original owner? I'm guessing that he can't.

Except that he isn't transferring a firearm, which implies a change in ownership; hes simply returning it to it's original owner. While that might not be legal for a Massachusetts licensed firearms dealer, it's perfectly legal for a gunsmith.

Which brings up another question...

At what point/stage of construction, does a frame become a firearm according to MA law?

When it's capable of discharging a shot or bullet. (MGL Chapter 140, Section 141)

And just in case someone suggests it... I kind'a doubt it would be legal for the smith to build the gun, then strip it down and send the parts/frame seperatly.

Doesn't seem to be any law prohibiting it, so I guess that means that it is.

Ken
 
UPDATE: The GCAB met 12/13 and adopted the proposed language for the CMR, which will implement the actual statute. It has been sent to EOPS, which must make the language available and formally open the public comments period.

As I understand it, "optics" are included as target sights IF they are "non-projecting;" i.e., NOT LASERS. Additionally, the rules of national organizations conducting competitions which govern the type of guns used therein are also criteria for the exception.

I did not ask, but fully expect that the language regarding core criteria; barrel length and target sights, barrels and triggers, etc., was retained.

Note that, as with the basic test criteria, it is up to the manufacturer to certify the gun is compliant. Petitions to EOPS, GCAB, the AG or legislature to include a particular gun are completely worthless.

Look for the proposed regs to be published early next year and enacted after the public comment period.
 
Last edited:
...Note that, as with the basic test criteria, it is up to the manufacturer to certify the gun is compliant. Petitions to EOPS, GCAB, the AG or legislature to include a particular gun are completely worthless.
...

Which means what exactly? According to some comments seen on NES, it seems that a dealer actually has to offer something for it to be accepted or not.

This seems to render this legislation worthless if that is the case, no?
 
Note that, as with the basic test criteria, it is up to the manufacturer to certify the gun is compliant. Petitions to EOPS, GCAB, the AG or legislature to include a particular gun are completely worthless.


So this would seem to rule out the possibility of getting a target gun certified if the manufacturer of it is no longer in business (Hammerli, High Point, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Which means what exactly? According to some comments seen on NES, it seems that a dealer actually has to offer something for it to be accepted or not.

This seems to render this legislation worthless if that is the case, no?

It is the comments you cite which are worthless; not the law.[rolleyes]
 
It is the comments you cite which are worthless; not the law.[rolleyes]

Tell me do. From what I've read, maybe you included, the list of approved guns doesn't matter unless one is actually sold and not shot down by the AG, right?

So, what makes this new improved type of list any more useful?
 
Tell me do. From what I've read, maybe you included, the list of approved guns doesn't matter unless one is actually sold and not shot down by the AG, right?

So, what makes this new improved type of list any more useful?
One of the current provisions of the AG regulations is an exemption for guns designed and manufactured solely for formal target shooting competition.

Since the AG will not issue opinions except when bringing a prosecution, there is no way a dealer may obtain a state certified opinion as to the "target status" of a gun. This leaves each dealer to decide if (s)he feels comfortable with the declaration from the gun manufacturer.

Once the new procedures are in place, the EOPS will be in the business of (with input form the GCAB) of issuing a formal ruling that a firearm has been designed and manufactured solely for formal target shooting competition. It is quite possible that more dealers will feel comfortable with a "EOPS certification of formal target shooting status" than with that from a manufacturer or distributor.

Plus, the manufactuers no longer have to pay a lab to drop 10 guns.
 
As of yesterday afternoon, there was no news and no imminent expectation of news.

GOAL is trying to get some legislative assistance to "kick out the jams."
 
Geez, this bill was SO useful. [rolleyes] Even if it does ever see fruition, what does it get us? Not a heck of a lot. Maybe a Browning Buckmark, but the target variety which is of limited use to most. Maybe GOAL should spend more time at Fish and Game functions. [rofl] [crying]
 
UPDATE: Per an EOPS attorney working on the implementation language sent by GCAB, a public hearing on the proposed regulation should - SHOULD - be held in the next month or so.

Special operators are standing by.........
 
Just out of curiosity... I'm wondering how many NES'ers have moved out of this shit-hole (MA), since this thread was first posted (let alone when the bill was enacted). [thinking]
 
I'll be gone in May.

Which is when the public hearing is expected to be scheduled.

The proposed language was sent to EOPS, is in Administration and Budget and will likely have the language submitted for public hearing in May. Enactment could be by the anniversary date of the bill passing; July.

Note that this was NOT under any emergency preamble, so did not become effective until October. Hence the Fall hearings by GCAB.
 
Is this typical? Meaning, does it usually take almost a year for a bill to "become effective"? Or are they just playing around like a cat with a toy?
 
Is this typical? Meaning, does it usually take almost a year for a bill to "become effective"? Or are they just playing around like a cat with a toy?

Anytime you don't set something in stone, this type of crap is
typical. This "problem" wouldn't exist if the bill simply spelled out
what defines a so called "target gun" in general terms. Of course the antis in our legislature would have never let it pass if it was set up that way.

-Mike
 
Doug, you ain't seen nothing yet!

After GCAB gets thru playing with it, it goes to the Sec. of Public Safety as GCAB "recommendations". He can sit on it forever, modify as he sees fit, etc.

What Scriv is referring to is a NEW BILL filed to get this moving and take it away from GCAB/EOPS (IIRC - I haven't read the proposed Bill yet). That will have a much longer row to hoe . . . could take 1.5 years and still go nowhere! Sen. Barrios is Chair of the Jt Comm. on Public Safety and Homeland Insecurity, so he can keep it from every coming to a vote. Likewise, the Speaker of the House and/or Senate President (if it ever gets that far) can do the same. You have to go and see how these sausages are made . . . you'll never look at a pig the same way again after that experience! [rolleyes]

We can only keep our fingers crossed that something positive happens.
 
What Scriv is referring to is a NEW BILL filed to get this moving and take it away from GCAB/EOPS (IIRC - I haven't read the proposed Bill yet).

NO, it is NOT! As my post expressly referred to the target bill enacted last July, with an effective date last October, there is absolutely no basis for that assumption.

Further, it has already gone to the Sec. of Public Safety, which is precisely the department EOPS is under. That is because GCAB has ALREADY submitted the language, AFTER its meetings on same last Fall.

Once again, THE target bill's regulatory language implementing the law is scheduled for a public hearing in 2 months. Further facts as I obtain them.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I stand CORRECTED!

IIRC, GOAL has filed a new bill (which should be heard in a couple of months) that would be an end-run around the target bill. That was GOAL's response (in disgust) at the lack of movement by EOPS. Thus my confusion of which hearings Scrivener was referring to. Mea Culpa!
 
Hearing held

Ass't. Gen. Counsel Bailey conducted the public hearing on the language enacting the target bill this morning. Jim Wallace from GOAL was there, as were two ass't. attorney generals, a director from CHSB, representatives from two manufacturers, one competition shooter and a representative from the USPSA. I understand a distributor came in later.

The AAG's were pushing for retention of/addition to the very requirements that this law was enacted to supplant. The AG's arguments were, shall we say, challenged. [wink]

AGC Bailey held the comment period open another 24 hours. With the possible exception of GCAB responding to the objection to manufacturer certification by affidavit and/or the AG trying to gain back any ground lost today, I doubt there will be any such further input.
 
I spoke with AGC Bailey today. The regulations were sent to the Secretary of the Commonwealth and will become effective on 7/20/07.

I am further told there were no substantive changes from the proposed regs for which the public hearing was held. This means the manufacturer, not GCAB, is supposed to certify compliance.

Additionally, the drivel about 3 years' worth of advertising being required to document the "formal target shooting competition" purpose of the firearm is also a requirement.

Note that we now have to wait for GCAB to actually develop a policy and application for this certification. As it should closely follow that procedure already in place for "consumer safety" standards, this should not take anywhere near as long.

We'll see............
 
The regulations have been published and will become effective one week later than I was previously told; July 27th.

Whether submissions can be made to GCAB directly at that point or not until GCAB develops a procedure has not been specified. The bottom line is that, about a year after we got the bill passed into law, it is now on the books.

Let's see which manufacturers actually avail themselves of it.
 
Any bets that anything larger than .22 rimfire and/or anything that could also be used as a defense handgun wil not meet the standards? Forget about those $2,500 IPSC 1911s or anything silmilar [sic].

There is, in fact, NOTHING that specifies a caliber, or even rimfire/centerfire. And the express inclusion of compensators and optics proves the regulations were intended to apply to "those $2,500 IPSC 1911s or anything silmilar [sic]."

A $50.00 donation to GOAL would be appropriate.
At least if either one of us loses, everyone else will benefit from it.

Pay up!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom