Mass News

T

The specialist

New member
I was at the gun store on Sayurday. It was a depressing scene. All of the Glocks,HK's , Sig's, Beretta's, Custom .45's all taken out of the cases unless they were used. The only new firearms were S&W's, and Ruger .22 "target" pistols which are exempt. The dealer said no more 1911 style .45's , unless it is used. There goes the prices for used guns. I called the Nra and they said they are working hard on this. I asked them why they and the gun makers let the deadline run out for appealing in the courts and the girl did'nt have an answer. I asked her why they always wait for the other side to do something and then they counter after the fact she did'nt know. Just you all wait it'll be coming to a state near you sooner than you think!
 
It's even worse than that. I live in MA. I'm trying to get a revolver ordered through a MA dealer, through a MA distributor (Lew Horton). The rep at Lew Horton said the AG won't let them ship ANY handgun to any dealer in MA.

As far as legal appeals, make sure you are a member of GOAL and send them $$ for their legal defense fund. From what I understand, the original appeal was through gun manufacturers. When that ran out, GOAL was left by itself to keep the fight going. This isn't over by a long shot, if you know Mike Yacino, you couldn't ask for a better, more agressive guy to be leading the fight.
 
Just being used doesn't mean its sellable. In order for a shop to sell a used piece it must have been manufactured before Jan 98. After that date everything is subject to the new requirements. (A worker at Four Seasons in Woburn gave me this).

------------------
 
Hi, guys,

I guess I still don't understand why this has been such a surprise to the folks in Mass. The former AG (Harshberger) formulated the rules over three years ago and they were appealed, basically on the grounds that the AG did not have the right to issue such regulations. The State's response was that guns are a consumer product, and if the State can regulate other products (as it does) guns should not be exempt.

The recent court decision was the final step in Mass. for appeals. The next step would have to be legislative action to remove guns from the AG's regulatory authority. Whether that can be done or not, you Mass. guys would know. Meantime, appeals to the AG by the manufacturers might have some effect.

But the decision should not have come as a shock; it has been 3-5 years in the making, publicized in Mass. and around the country, and it seems no one in Mass. knew about it. Amazing. Sleepytime in the Kennedy Kingdom?

Jim
 
The shock is not the attorney generals regulations. The shock is the fact that the manufacturers, and the Nra let the appeals process go by without a fight! Do you really think the legislature is gonna take away the attorney's power to regulate consumer goods. I highly doubt it. Don't think it will stop here in this state either. It will soon happen to all of you too!
 
Even though this concerns handguns, it s actually a legal matter. Look for the thread in Legal and Political...
 
Now for the bad news.

The regulatory authority that the MA AG used to ban new hand gun sales also exists in 34 other states. Yes; your state.
 
Folks:

The manufacturers, in the form of the American Shooting Sports Council, sued the state of MA over this law. This suit was in state court (not federal). During that suit, the manufacturers claimed that the AG did not have the right to regulate guns. This claim was taken up to the MA Supreme Judicial Court. They ruled that the AG did, in fact, have the right to regulate guns.

The lower court judge then ruled in favor of the AG. The ASSC failed to appeal the ruling. It isn't clear exactly why, but part of the reason is probably that the ASSC folded and was defunct by the end of the appeals process.

Either the manufacturers were too busy defending themselves against other lawsuits and the appeal slipped through the cracks, or they looked at the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court and decided that appealing the lower court ruling (which would go back to the MA Supreme Judicial Court) and decided they had no chance.

The Gun Owner's Action League has announced that they are challenging the regulations in court. It isn't clear whether they are challenging in state or federal court. In federal court, I suspect we have a snowball's chance in hell. In state court, I suspect that we have no chance at all.

Btw, even if we defeat the AGs regulations, much of the regulations were passed by the state legislature in Ch. 180, which is, itself, being challenged by GOAL.

So, it may be a long time before anything substantive changes.

Jared
 
There is nothing about ten pound trigger pulls or magazine disconnects or loaded chamber indicators in chapter 180. Chapter 180 regulates who can have hicap firearms, mandatory trigger locks (which don't have to be built into the gun), And some performance testing. The 180 law is nothing like this "BACK DOOR GUN BAN"
 
So ...I suppose massive demonstration by Gun owners on the steps of the AG's office....is out of the question....NO MAS ??
frown.gif
 
I think it is time for another Concord Bridge.

IMHO.

Wonder where the Line in the Sand is now?

------------------
Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF CAN)
MD C.A.N.OP
tbellomo@home.com
http://homes.acmecity.com/thematrix/digital/237/cansite/can.html
www.members.home.net/tbellomo/tbellomo/index.htm
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
 
See you there. Interesting note on the Mass Supreme Judicial Court. We just installed a former resident of South Africa on the bench. I take it she is a screeming liberal, wife of a Cambridge swell, and a supporter of the ANC. This was all done by our "Republican" governor.
Snowballs chance in hell in this court.
Mike Yacino of the Gun Owners Action League was on with Howie Carr the other day. A caller said he was up at the Kittery Trading Post in Maine, and they would not sell him a gun because he is a Mass resident. Maybe this will wake up the gun owners in this state. Maybe not.

[This message has been edited by Paul Morceau (edited April 20, 2000).]
 
So I guess that means that there might be a booming black market for Fake drivers licenses for Mass. residents so they can purchase firearms outta state? Yes?
 
I would not know about that. I think you might need one to sell your guns if they were made after 1998. Private sales are banned on new guns.
 
Robert T Crook wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert T Crook <ccsct@erols.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 4:35 PM
> Subject: MA: Gun Dealer Woes
>
> > Only Smith & Wesson handguns meet state's specs
> > By Trudy Tynan, Associated Press, 4/18/2000 00:02
> >
> http://www.boston.com/dailynews/109/economy/Only_Smith_Wesson_handguns_mee:.
> > shtml
> > SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) Gun dealers are clearing their shelves and some
> > gunmakers have been effectively shut out of the Massachusetts market as
> the
> > nation's toughest handgun safety regulations take effect.
> >
> > The only new handguns that can be sold here under the new consumer
> > protection regulations announced earlier this month are some models made
> by
> > Springfield-based Smith & Wesson.
> >
> > That means even the high-end models of Glocks and SIG-Sauers used by
> police
> > would not pass muster if they were being sold to the general public.
> >
> > ''It's killing the small dealers,'' said Vincent DelValle, manager of
> > Strictly Defense in West Springfield. ''We are stuck with thousands of
> > dollars in guns we can't sell.''
> >
> > The new rules ban cheap handguns and require childproof locks on any
> handgun
> > sold in the state. They also require safety warnings with each handgun,
> > tamper-resistent serial numbers and indicators on semiautomatic handguns
> > that tell if a bullet is in the chamber.
> >
> > Used handguns, police weapons and models made before September 1998 are
> > exempt from the regulations that went into effect after manufacturers,
> > including Smith & Wesson, lost a two-year court fight to stop them.
> >
> > Attorney General Thomas Reilly realizes many gun manufacturers don't meet
> > the regulations yet.
> >
> > ''It is our hope that all companies will comply,'' said Ann Donlan, a
> > spokeswoman for Reilly. ''But there is no going back as far as we are
> > concerned.''
> >
> > The other major gunmakers say they've been sidelined by such things as how
> > many serial numbers are now required on the weapon and the minimum force
> > needed to pull the trigger.
> >
> > ''It's in the details,'' said Gary Mehalik, marketing manager for
> > Miami-based Taurus, which has been selling pistols equipped with an
> internal
> > trigger lock since 1997. ''We are able to comply in most regards.''
> >
> > But Taurus, and Glock which makes the guns that Boston police carry and
> > SIG-Sauer which arms the state police have all run afoul of a requirement
> > that it take at least 10 pounds of force to pull the trigger.
> >
> > Some of Smith & Wesson's lighter guns, including its popular Sigma line,
> > also fail to meet the 10-pound pull test that is aimed at helping to
> prevent
> > a child from firing the weapon.
> >
> > In part because more women are buying guns, most guns are now sold with a
> > trigger pull of 4 to 6 pounds, with target pistols having pulls as light
> as
> > 2 pounds.
> >
> > Richard Callaghan, of Callaghan's Firearms in Marlboro, is one of several
> > gun dealers who have pulled all their new handguns off the shelves in
> > response to the new regulations.
> >
> > There may be some room for interpretation of the new regulations, but
> > Callaghan is taking no chances.
> >
> > ''I am not going to jeopardize my business and life savings for a fast
> > buck,'' he said.
> >
> > Paul Jannuzzo, a spokesman for Glock, said the company may send special
> > models to Massachusetts if distributors are interested.
> >
> > Beretta stopped shipment into Massachusetts for just one reason: Its guns
> do
> > not have a second hidden serial number.
> >
> > Paul Jannuzzo, a spokesman for Beretta USA, based in Accokeek, Md., said
> > Beretta had been trying to comply with requirements in the state's 1998
> gun
> > law, which are exceeded and superseded the new consumer protection
> > regulations.
> >
> > ''Unfortunately, everyone is styling themselves as experts in gun design
> and
> > we are on the brink of ending up with a confused mix of state, local and
> > federal laws,'' he said.
> >
> > The same week Massachusetts announced its new regulations, Maryland's
> > governor signed legislation requiring built-in locks on all new handguns
> > sold after January 2003.
> >
> > Even within Massachusetts things are getting confusing.
> >
> > Aides to Jane Perlov, the state's secretary of public safety, say Perlov
> is
> > drawing up her own list of acceptable weapons based on the less-stringent
> > provisions of the 1998 law. That could include guns that would not be
> > acceptable under the attorney general's new regulations.
> >
> > ''We took it a step further,'' said Donlan of the attorney general's
> > regulations. ''As far as we are concerned we have the law behind us and we
> > are going about the business of enforcing the consumer regulations.''

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ernest2's two cents worth......

Prehaps Sig Sauer has the right approach with their removable trigger group in the Pro Sig
Polymer Line.

Sig could build a Massivetwos~its trigger with a 37 pound pull and a coupon
in the pistol box for sending the pistol back to Sig for an upgrade, once the pistol is used.

The upgrade would replace the 37 pound
Massivetwosh~ts trigger with a standard Sig
2 pound trigger.

Or Sig could sell a standard trigger
group with instructions for the owner to upgrade to the (custom trigger; the once upon a time standard trigger group.)

Firearm mfg for the Massivetwoshi~s market will need to provide easily changeable
trigger group modules which owners can change
out to something shootable.

They should also make the magazine disconecter easily removable once the hand
gun becomes used.

The Massivetwoshi~s parts could be saved and reinstalled before again selling the handgun as a used gun so as to comtinue to
comply with Massivetwo*hits law

------------------
GUN CONTROL puts THE CONTROL
in the hands of THE CRIMINALS.
--------------------------------------------
In 2000, we must become politically active in
support of gun rights or we WILL LOSE the right
& the freedom.
-------------------------
NO FATE BUT WHAT WE MAKE!!!
----------------------
Every year,over 2 million Americans use firearms
not to take live but to preserve life,....limb & family
.Gun Control Democrats would prefer that they are all disarmed
and helpless and die victims of felony violence,instead.

Protect your gun rights, go to: http://home.xnet.com/~gizmonic/TheMarch.html
and sign up as a helper or attendee or state organizer.
ernest2, Conn. CAN opp. "Do What You Can"! http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html



[This message has been edited by ernest2 (edited April 21, 2000).]
 
For goodness sake, don't bother me with the details. I am a Massachusetts liberal democrat. I know what is right.

HEADLINE BOSTON HERALD

ANIMAL HOUSE

Drunk and Rowdy House of Representatives drink and snore their way through state budget process!

That says it all, they are all spawns of Teddy Boy.
 
If you don't give a crap about the RKBA, Mass is a great place to live. I live in Central Mass and my state senator (Guy Glodis) and state rep (George Peterson) are both pro gun guys as far as I can tell. I think the liberal garbage increases exponentially the closer you get to Boston (Cambridge). I used to work in Cambridge, that place is so damn feel good liberal it made me sick. We need to turn the state around, vote Kennedy out(the most public upset that would get press). I think we need to start locally as well, get some pro gun people in the senate and rep seats. It's not all democrat/republican split either, there are several pro gun democrats (Glodis is one). http://www.goal.org has a rating of all public servants.

ANIMAL HOUSE - The big all night budget party. Why wasn't I invited? I'll show these guys how to really drink and I'd push through some good legislation. By the way, I heard any Mass citizen can go into the House and introduce legislation, is this true? One of the few states where this can happen? Or was I dreaming?
 
Eric Bleicken Candidate for Congress on the record. www.bleicken.com check it out

2ND AMANDMENT

GOAL SPEECH BUNKER HILL

I would like to start by telling you about a couple of my gun-toting ancestors. Palmer Tingle was the first to come to America. He was born in 1614 and arrived in 1637. Palmer fought the Pequad Indians and was awarded 8 acres of land in Ipswich for his service.

During the American Revolution, Benjamin Tingly was a First Lieutenant in Caleb Richardson's Revolutionary Company from Bristol County. After the war, he married the widow of Eliphalet Philbrook who was Commander of the British troops in the English Colony of Rhode Island and apparently died during the Revolution.

I have two documents from the British Governor bearing both his stamp and his wax seal directing Eliphalet to "repel, kill and destroy" the rebels. The latter Writ is dated August 5, 1775.

On December tenth, just four months later, British General Thomas Gage dispatched 700 Redcoats to Concord Massachusetts to seize and destroy the weapons and supplies of the colonial militia. At 4:30 that morning the "shot heard round the world" was fired. The American Revolution was not just about a tea tax. It was about standing orders to kill

Americans and our right to "Keep and Bare Arms." It was about government tyranny.

Pelatiah Tingly, Benjamin's uncle and a Baptist Elder from Waterboro Maine, later became a delegate in the Massachusetts Convention, which ratified the Constitution of the United States. He voted "nay".

I am inclined to believe that his decent was cast with George Mason and the Federalist Farmers for the Constitution's lack of a Bill of Rights: the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Part of that controversy focused on the word "militia" in the Second Amendment, which reads:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment was not just a guarantee against threats from outside its borders. It was a guarantee against tyranny by the federal government or the state itself.

Mason declared, " Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people. "Samuel Adams stressed that only, "peaceable people" should be protected in their right to keeping their own arms. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Adams, and James Monroe all spoke to this "Right". Federalists and Anti-federalists alike insisted on the individual citizens right to arms.

Six generations later, and on the eve of the second millennium, nearly half of our nations household have guns and private citizens use gun defensively nearly 1 million times a year with the vast majority of cases resulting in no injuries. Civilians legally kill 3 times as many felons as law enforcement officers in crime prevention. Seizing the legally owned guns of "peaceable citizens", to use John Adams term, is not going to stop gun use by criminals.

Yet, today our legislature and our Governor have passed a law that places the confiscation of every "peaceable citizen’s " legally owned weapons at the discretion of government appointed police chiefs.

There is only one answer to this tyranny. We must change all elected officials who have violated their oath to protect the Constitution. Meeting here today is good. Writing your legislators, waving your arms and lifting your voice on Capital Hill is also good. But it is not good enough. You must put your own people in office. You must identify those who truly support the Constitution and recruit from your own ranks. You must devote your time and contribute your money.

Many of you have read my admonition in this month’s Goal Message. I am a solid pro-gun candidate running against a clearly anti-gun, liberal. At the time I wrote my column I had not received a single dollar from any person interested in protecting his gun rights. Not a nickel from any of the million and a half gun owners in Massachusetts. I have since received about $200, which is very welcome, but it is not going to get your gun rights back. It is not enough to give you a presence in the 106th Congress.

But the issue goes far deeper. The message to every liberal politician is that there is no price to be paid for taking away your fundamental rights. There is not even token resistance. Not enough money to print fliers or buy radio advertising. Not enough people to hand out literature or make phone calls.

Your message to those who believe in the Right to Keep and Bare Arms is that it is a fool’s mission. Today, my opponent has more hundreds of thousands of dollars than I have hundreds of dollars, much of it coming from your adversaries. If someone mentioned the threat of the pro-gun lobby to him, he would laugh. If there is no political price to pay, then we are a political joke.

You must identify your candidates. Forget those who are likely to win and you think you can influence after the election. If every one of you donated the price of a box of ammunition to each of us running for office here today, we could each afford a radio campaign in these last two weeks. If one tenth of the states gun owners contributed $10 I would have a Million Dollar campaign and Bill Delahunt would be history.

Our nation is embroiled in a war of ideas. Our Constitution is pitted against the liberal socialist philosophy of Marx and Lenin. We watched the Berlin wall come down chip by chip. It was a long and painful journey that started in August 1914 and spilled the blood of an estimated 100 million Soviet citizens along its gory path.

It is time to dismantle the "wall" in America. It is not time for those who love liberty and our Constitution to shy from conflict. The enemies of liberty, those who crave greater government control of our lives, will attempt to erode the Second Amendment with a morass of legislation like we have before us today. And don't think for a minute that they are done with this bit of treachery. This is only another volley.

The Stoic, Epictetus told us in the third century B.C. that, "man's duty is to resist tyrannical power". Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Monroe along with the rest of this Nation's founders promised all generations the will to resist tyranny by making the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" the cornerstone of liberty.

You and I must not fail to pass on this precious legacy. Without the Right to Keep and Bear Arms this greatest of all human experiments becomes fragile, unable to finally resist any historical moment of government tyranny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top