U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support more restrictions on firearms?
Yes 64 52.89%
No 57 47.11%
Voters: 121. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-03-2016, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Prosper
6,268 posts, read 12,837,427 times
Reputation: 9367

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Whats pathetic is putting words in my mouth, where have I stated anything what you say above?

Are you talking about where I make them have a CCP before I trade with them ......HAHAHAHAHAHAAA

You do the same thing, but how is that any different than asking for a STANDARD back ground check?

Go ahead...I'll wait...
Keep waiting. My guess is it'll be years before you're wise enough to see past your own responses and hypocrisy. As usual, you already hung yourself with your own words.

 
Old 01-03-2016, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Prosper
6,268 posts, read 12,837,427 times
Reputation: 9367
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpm1 View Post
It is a combination of state and federal laws that impact the fundamental exercising of ones rights if it takes both to cause it they are both still unconstitutional if in congruence they violate rights.

MA can argue that it is available in the private market at this point, under the law you propose it no longer can. These are the laws we face in antigun states. You wonder why people oppose these things so vigorously? Too many garbage laws already.
My question to you is, why is it targeted specifically toward Glocks? Why not other manufacturers? I'm not familiar with MA law, but what you're saying doesn't much sense. It sounds more like some sort of protectionist policy for a MA headquartered gun maker who got the legislature to squeeze out a main competitor.
 
Old 01-03-2016, 07:25 PM
 
3,041 posts, read 1,815,207 times
Reputation: 3737
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr View Post
My question to you is, why is it targeted specifically toward Glocks? Why not other manufacturers? I'm not familiar with MA law, but what you're saying doesn't much sense. It sounds more like some sort of protectionist policy for a MA headquartered gun maker who got the legislature to squeeze out a main competitor.
It is not targeted specifically towards Glocks but a very wide variety of firearms here in the state included in state made Smith & Wessons. Glocks however are on one approved list, based on drop safety but not the secret list (below) controlled by the AG.

There are 2 lists to sell guns in MA, one is a secret one controlled by the AG the other a public one, Glock is on the public one but not the secret one hence new Glocks cannot be sold in MA. The AG's position is that they are illegal because they do not have a loaded chamber indicator, they DO have a LCI but the AGI says it is not an adequate one. LCI has never been defined by law or regulation here in MA.

MA laws are atrocious (in case you did not figure that out already).

Edit: To further expound on the issue Glocks are very popular here in MA because preban mags are readily available unlike other modern firearms.
 
Old 01-03-2016, 07:26 PM
 
3,041 posts, read 1,815,207 times
Reputation: 3737
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr View Post
My question to you is, why is it targeted specifically toward Glocks? Why not other manufacturers? I'm not familiar with MA law, but what you're saying doesn't much sense. It sounds more like some sort of protectionist policy for a MA headquartered gun maker who got the legislature to squeeze out a main competitor.
Your Freedoms and the Law: Are You on the List? What Makes a Handgun "Mass Compliant?"

The First List: the EOPPS Roster:

The “Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security Approved Firearms Roster”, often referred to as “the EOPSS Roster” or the “Approved Firearms Roster” is a list of handguns which have met certain statutory criteria governing the manufacture and sale of handguns to be sold in Massachusetts. The criteria are tested by Massachusetts approved independent testing laboratories to have satisfactorily completed the testing requirements set forth in M.G.L. c. 140, § 123. The reports resulting from those tests are then reviewed by the Massachusetts Gun Control Advisory Board.

In cases where the Gun Control Advisory Board determined that the firearms “passed” the requirements set forth in Section 123, the tested handgun was subsequently approved by the Secretary of Public Safety and Security as having complied with the statutory handgun testing provisions of M.G.L. c. 140, § 123.

The EOPSS Roster, therefore, is a list of all firearms which have completed and passed the testing requirements set forth in M.G.L. c. 140 s. 123.

The Second (Secret) List: the Attorney General's Roster:

The EOPSS Roster does not take into consideration the similar-but-not-identical requirements set forth in 940 C.M.R. 16.00, often referred to as the “Attorney General Regulations”.

I don’t know anyone who has ever seen the Attorney General “list” of approved firearms, and many (including myself) believe that no list actually exists. Rather, firearms manufacturers in Massachusetts are required to “certify their own compliance” with the regulations, and are likely at risk for prosecution by the Attorney General’s office under the guise of a consumer protection action if they don't comply.

The EOPSS Roster and the Attorney General’s Regulations have significant implications for Massachusetts licensed firearms dealers and firearms manufactures, as both sets of rules govern (subject to certain exceptions) what handguns may be sold or transferred by a Massachusetts licensed dealer to a Massachusetts resident.
 
Old 01-03-2016, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Prosper
6,268 posts, read 12,837,427 times
Reputation: 9367
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpm1 View Post
I don’t know anyone who has ever seen the Attorney General “list” of approved firearms, and many (including myself) believe that no list actually exists. Rather, firearms manufacturers in Massachusetts are required to “certify their own compliance” with the regulations, and are likely at risk for prosecution by the Attorney General’s office under the guise of a consumer protection action if they don't comply.

The EOPSS Roster and the Attorney General’s Regulations have significant implications for Massachusetts licensed firearms dealers and firearms manufactures, as both sets of rules govern (subject to certain exceptions) what handguns may be sold or transferred by a Massachusetts licensed dealer to a Massachusetts resident.
Then I am surprised the AG hasn't been sued by any gun manufacturers if what you say is true. Seems to me anyone on this "unapproved" list would be able to win in court.

As I read this, it also says that it applies to MA dealers to a MA resident... It wouldn't be that hard to drive to NH or CT to buy a Glock, it's a small state.
 
Old 01-03-2016, 07:46 PM
 
3,041 posts, read 1,815,207 times
Reputation: 3737
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr View Post
Then I am surprised the AG hasn't been sued by any gun manufacturers if what you say is true. Seems to me anyone on this "unapproved" list would be able to win in court.

As I read this, it also says that it applies to MA dealers to a MA resident... It wouldn't be that hard to drive to NH or CT to buy a Glock, it's a small state.
Clearly you need to read up on current laws before you advocate for new ones. If a MA resident did so they would be committing a federal felony.

In my original post to you I linked the ongoing lawsuit around this. Gun manufacturers are not going to go to bat for such a relatively small market (nor would a company like Glock want to risk agency sales via suing a state they sell a ton of guns to), we need to do it on our own and Comm2A is a great group that is working to change things via the courts.

And you wonder why new gun laws get such vociferous opposition? This is the S*** we already deal with.
 
Old 01-03-2016, 07:51 PM
 
3,041 posts, read 1,815,207 times
Reputation: 3737
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr View Post
Then I am surprised the AG hasn't been sued by any gun manufacturers if what you say is true. Seems to me anyone on this "unapproved" list would be able to win in court.

As I read this, it also says that it applies to MA dealers to a MA resident... It wouldn't be that hard to drive to NH or CT to buy a Glock, it's a small state.
Outside State of Residency - A person may not receive a HG from a non-licensee who resides in another State, except by:

1) Will or intestate succession, § 922 (a)(5)(A) giver, § 922 (a)(3)(A) receiver, or

2) Temporary loan or rental for lawful sporting purposes, § 922 (a)(5)(B), or

3) The non-resident may send or deliver the HG (see § 1715, HGs non-mailable) to an FFL in the receiver’s State for purchase from the FFL, § 922 (a)(2)(A).(unless the recipient State bans that type hand gun)

f. It is a felony violation to willfully violate the residency laws: § 922 (a)(5) transferor’s violation, § 922 (a)(3) receiver’s violation, up to 5 years in prison.
 
Old 01-03-2016, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Prosper
6,268 posts, read 12,837,427 times
Reputation: 9367
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpm1 View Post
Outside State of Residency - A person may not receive a HG from a non-licensee who resides in another State, except by:

1) Will or intestate succession, § 922 (a)(5)(A) giver, § 922 (a)(3)(A) receiver, or

2) Temporary loan or rental for lawful sporting purposes, § 922 (a)(5)(B), or

3) The non-resident may send or deliver the HG (see § 1715, HGs non-mailable) to an FFL in the receiver’s State for purchase from the FFL, § 922 (a)(2)(A).(unless the recipient State bans that type hand gun)

f. It is a felony violation to willfully violate the residency laws: § 922 (a)(5) transferor’s violation, § 922 (a)(3) receiver’s violation, up to 5 years in prison.
See the bolded above. You are certainly able to go to a licensed gun dealer in another state to buy a Glock.

I'll concede you have a legitimate gripe to not want the existing laws changed. However, you're one state out of 50. I've never lived in a state that has a "super secret approval list" by the AG and I've never heard of one where this would be an issue, so in terms of the total number of gun transactions, MA would be pretty small potatoes.
 
Old 01-03-2016, 10:03 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 21,944,895 times
Reputation: 8962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Hasn't been announced yet....not even a date when it might be announced.

It could be something extremely minor just to point to legacy.

Heck, it could be a nice slap at Hillary leaving her swinging in the breeze in her presidential run having to try to oppose\defend it out of both sides of her mouth depending on the state she's in.

There's a weekly talk radio show where someone suggested a 'trial balloon' will be floated - something seemingly minor - and the hammer will come down after the election as a lame duck.
 
Old 01-03-2016, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,623 posts, read 6,222,427 times
Reputation: 8318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
Gee--imagine Obama doing something that the majority of the country has wanted done for quite some time. Don't worry, the NRA will sue, no doubt.

What majority? Are you thinking of a conversation you had over the holidays?

Gee...Obama can't legislate and trying to change the 2A is due process only congress can touch. SCOTUS will shoot him down quickly. He is epic FAIL at this time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:50 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top