Firearms Section

[Dizzy82]

Originally Posted by PHXLT1

Ditto. They are taking our way of protecting ourselves. Good news for is, i still have friends in the hood who can hook me up!
















Not.

It's easier to get a GLOCK than a book or computer, right?

[Royal Tiger]

Originally Posted by Dizzy82

It's easier to get a GLOCK than a book or computer, right?

More lies from the great divider.

[Royal Tiger]

Chris, you are welcome to move to the "greater" Commonwealth.

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by Royal Tiger

Chris, you are welcome to move to the "greater" Commonwealth.

Job. Family. The usual problems.

[DenverTaco07]

politics...really????

[Tenring]

Seems to fit in here:

[Dizzy82]

Originally Posted by DenverTaco07

politics...really????

Unfortunately in todays society they do end up going hand in hand when discussions abound. Of course trying to keep it civil and within the boundaries of the forum rules skirts the line at times.

[PHXLT1]

Originally Posted by Dizzy82

It's easier to get a GLOCK than a book or computer, right?

Cheaper too.

[Dizzy82]

Originally Posted by PHXLT1

Cheaper too.

A computer yes, but who reads books nowadays when you have smartphones.

[drivingagain]

This is why I live in Florida still. Other than texas we still have liberal laws and too many republicans to mess with our gun rights. Our Auto laws are lax on smog tests too. For the time being!

No offense to woman but why is it always the pansy men and women who try to outlaw guns? Guns were designed for them in the first place. Let's be real does anyone think Obama could hold his own in a bar fight or mugging situation? How fast people forget our history and what the world was really like before we could defend ourselves equally.

“God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal!”

[ChrisBlair]

Fellas, lets stick to facts and leave politics out.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

No, not really. All semi-auto rifles are not banned in MA.

I am a resident of the "great" Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I try to stay on top of these things as much as I can, being a repsonsible firearms owner and possessor of a variety of FFL.

Specifically, AG Healey has stated that firearms purchased before today, Wednesday 20 July 2016, that are part of what she terms the "loophole" are not affected. Quote:

"We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so the directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday."

What is un-spoken is the status of firearms that were indeed sold 100% legally which were 'registered' and owned in MA before the previous ban, such as two rifles I own were. Buying them looks like an even wiser move than it did when I bought them. Since they have nothing to do with the AWB "loophole" (which in my estimation was nothing of the sort; the Commonwealth stated X Y and Z must be present to be part of the ban; manufacturers obeyed and deleted X Y or Z; it is hardly the manufacturers' fault that the Commonwealth allowed the leeway).

Now, I would be the first to applaud an AG that states they will enforce existing laws instead of drafting new ones, knee-jerk fashion. However, the tone of AG Healey's statement (listed as an "opinion" [LOL!] in the Boston Globe) gives serious pause.

That said, we need to be aware of two things:

1) The AG can say what she wants to. In the past she has said (there is no such law however) that it is not permissible for ammunition to be shipped to Massachusetts to private purchasers. Many companies believe this to be in fact law when it is not.

2) What is the 'transferable' (for lack of a better term) status of firearms she describes that she- grudgingly- allows to be legal, which were bought before today. They must be legal, otherwise it is reckless for the AG to state people can still have them owing to an intent to obey the law. There is no 'mostly legal' in firearms laws here in MA. So much clarification is needed.

We must gather information and see how much bullsheets we're wading in.

Better be careful about this directive.

A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate and is therefore a prohibited Assault weapon if it meets one or both of the following tests and is 1) a semiautomatic rifle or handgun that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine, or 2) a semiautomatic shotgun.3

1. Similarity Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if its internal functional components are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an Enumerated Weapon. Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons.
2. Interchangeability Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if it has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an Enumerated Weapon. A receiver will be treated as the same as or interchangeable with the receiver on an Enumerated Weapon if it includes or accepts two or more operating components that are the same as or interchangeable with those of an Enumerated Weapon. Such operating components may include, but are not limited to: 1) the trigger assembly; 2) the bolt carrier or bolt carrier group; 3) the charging handle; 4) the extractor or extractor assembly; or 5) the magazine port.

You say not all semi-automatic rifles will be banned, and while that may technically be true for those that are grandfathered under the law... the transfer and sale of new rifles under these guidelines may be affected more than some people realize. Note that the weapon in question does NOT need to be an AR style rifle... but rather just a semi-auto that can accept detachable magazines period.

Most semiautomatic weapons have internal components that are similar in construction and configuration. That's really ambiguous, and could flag a lot of semi-autos.

Under her second "test" you're going to flag "magazine ports" on almost every rifle because magazines can be interchanged between many of those rifles. And test is "not limited to" those 5 examples.

Basically, under this "clarity" or whatever the AG wants to call it, you could quite easily rationalize the ban of future sale or transfer of literally semi-auto that accepts a detached magazine.

I'd be very wary about the implications of this notice, and how it will be used.

[PHXLT1]

Originally Posted by drivingagain

This is why I live in Florida still. Other than texas we still have liberal laws and too many republicans to mess with our gun rights. Our Auto laws are lax on smog tests too. For the time being!

No offense to woman but why is it always the pansy men and women who try to outlaw guns? Guns were designed for them in the first place. Let's be real does anyone think Obama could hold his own in a bar fight or mugging situation? How fast people forget our history and what the world was really like before we could defend ourselves equally.

“God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal!”

Because they are sissies.

[ChrisBlair]

Originally Posted by kalimus

Better be careful about this directive.

You say not all semi-automatic rifles will be banned, and while that may technically be true for those that are grandfathered under the law... the transfer and sale of new rifles under these guidelines may be affected more than some people realize. Note that the weapon in question does NOT need to be an AR style rifle... but rather just a semi-auto that can accept detachable magazines period.

Most semiautomatic weapons have internal components that are similar in construction and configuration. That's really ambiguous, and could flag a lot of semi-autos.

Under her second "test" you're going to flag "magazine ports" on almost every rifle because magazines can be interchanged between many of those rifles. And test is "not limited to" those 5 examples.

Basically, under this "clarity" or whatever the AG wants to call it, you could quite easily rationalize the ban of future sale or transfer of literally semi-auto that accepts a detached magazine.

I'd be very wary about the implications of this notice, and how it will be used.

AG Healey is quite clear about new sales. She put it in writing and gave it to the Boston Globe to distribute https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...pYM/story.html . She is emphatically clear. She says it will stop now. She told manufacturers and FFLs that yesterday. And nowhere do I suggest that the firearm needs to be an AR type.

And there's something I need to address. You say quote

Originally Posted by kalimus

You say not all semi-automatic rifles will be banned, and while that may technically be true for those that are grandfathered under the law... the transfer and sale of new rifles under these guidelines may be affected more than some people realize. Note that the weapon in question does NOT need to be an AR style rifle... but rather just a semi-auto that can accept detachable magazines period.

Firstly no, I do not say that. AG Healey does. Secondly, she specifically mentioned firearms purchased before 20 July 16- that was Wednesday. So by her own statement those are not "banned". That's [insert joke here] what she said. "Banning" them would require confiscation, logically. Again I quote Maura Healey here:

"We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so this directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday."

Note she says "possesion" specifically. This suggests that the sale is prohibited. But is that suggestion law? As I say we must collect info.

Did you just not understand what I posted? Or maybe you didn't know I was referring the the AG's statements verbatim?