The Liberal Gun Club Forum

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/ ... story.html

Attorney General Maura Healey, prompted by the recent mass shootings in Colorado and California, has warned the state’s 350 licensed gun dealers that they must obey the state’s strict gun laws and has been investigating several dealers suspected of selling illegal firearms, according to an official with knowledge of the matter.

The dealers under investigation are suspected of selling handguns or assault weapons that are banned under the state’s gun laws, which were tightened last year and have long been considered among the toughest in the nation.

In a letter Tuesday, Healey also reminded every gun dealer in the state of the obligation to follow the law, which, among other restrictions, forbids the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Looks like they were able to get one FFL for selling off-roster Glocks. There are supposedly only 350 FFLs in MA. Healey should be able whittle that down before her term is up.

DispositionMatrix wrote:https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/ ... story.html

Attorney General Maura Healey, prompted by the recent mass shootings in Colorado and California, has warned the state’s 350 licensed gun dealers that they must obey the state’s strict gun laws and has been investigating several dealers suspected of selling illegal firearms, according to an official with knowledge of the matter.

The dealers under investigation are suspected of selling handguns or assault weapons that are banned under the state’s gun laws, which were tightened last year and have long been considered among the toughest in the nation.

In a letter Tuesday, Healey also reminded every gun dealer in the state of the obligation to follow the law, which, among other restrictions, forbids the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Looks like they were able to get one FFL for selling off-roster Glocks. There are supposedly only 350 FFLs in MA. Healey should be able whittle that down before her term is up.

The off roster thing is big swiss cheese enforcement at best. I would rather though, we spend our precious dollars enforcing existing laws, and if that means FFL's who break the law go out of business, I am not sad. They are not helping.

Of the 979 traced firearms in 2014, 402 came from in state.

What dealer got zapped for the Glock thing? I had not heard?

I think the off-roster thing is the problem here.

Making it illegal to sell some of the most common and desired handguns on the market is a recipe for grey/black market creation.

The fact that you can't buy a new Glock or any Springfield gun in this state is utterly stupid.

(Says the guy planning to buy a 9mm soon and that had to knock several of his favorites off the list because it's somehow "unsafe" here (and basically nowhere else)...)

modernhamlet wrote:I think the off-roster thing is the problem here.

Making it illegal to sell some of the most common and desired handguns on the market is a recipe for grey/black market creation.

The fact that you can't buy a new Glock or any Springfield gun in this state is utterly stupid.

(Says the guy planning to buy a 9mm soon and that had to knock several of his favorites off the list because it's somehow "unsafe" here (and basically nowhere else)...)

You can get other striker fired guns. Guard agencies have been going to the M&P, which I personally dislike as much as the glock.

I know some Springfield Armory guns are on roster as well, but I guess the XD isn't one of those.

Don't disagree, the roster is a piece of work. Inconsistent, unclear, poorly understood, poorly enforced, as far as I can tell no secondary market enforcement other than Romney's magazine restrictions. That said, secondary market glocks are all over the place, so its not like you can't get one.

Yes , I know that's not the point. But its currently the law, and if anyone should be following the law, its an FFL here.

If the anti gun people had their way the only handgun that would on the roster in Massachusetts or other gun control states would be a flintlock horse pistol but there would be a restriction on buying flints.

Inquisitor wrote:

DispositionMatrix wrote:https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/ ... story.html

Attorney General Maura Healey, prompted by the recent mass shootings in Colorado and California, has warned the state’s 350 licensed gun dealers that they must obey the state’s strict gun laws and has been investigating several dealers suspected of selling illegal firearms, according to an official with knowledge of the matter.

The dealers under investigation are suspected of selling handguns or assault weapons that are banned under the state’s gun laws, which were tightened last year and have long been considered among the toughest in the nation.

In a letter Tuesday, Healey also reminded every gun dealer in the state of the obligation to follow the law, which, among other restrictions, forbids the sale of semiautomatic assault weapons and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Looks like they were able to get one FFL for selling off-roster Glocks. There are supposedly only 350 FFLs in MA. Healey should be able whittle that down before her term is up.

The off roster thing is big swiss cheese enforcement at best. I would rather though, we spend our precious dollars enforcing existing laws, and if that means FFL's who break the law go out of business, I am not sad. They are not helping.

Of the 979 traced firearms in 2014, 402 came from in state.

What dealer got zapped for the Glock thing? I had not heard?

Per the article, Richie’s Sporting Supply in Westport.
http://www.heraldnews.com/article/20150 ... /150628645

With regard to enforcing existing laws, that should apply to individuals as well. Looks as if Stephen Silva, who supplied the gun to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev got to skate on some serious gun-related charges for his alleged cooperation.
Man who lent gun to Boston Marathon bombers to be freed
Illegal possession and transfer of a handgun with destroyed serial number are not things authorities are supposed to overlook.

Inquisitor wrote:

modernhamlet wrote:I think the off-roster thing is the problem here.

Making it illegal to sell some of the most common and desired handguns on the market is a recipe for grey/black market creation.

The fact that you can't buy a new Glock or any Springfield gun in this state is utterly stupid.

(Says the guy planning to buy a 9mm soon and that had to knock several of his favorites off the list because it's somehow "unsafe" here (and basically nowhere else)...)

You can get other striker fired guns. Guard agencies have been going to the M&P, which I personally dislike as much as the glock.

I know some Springfield Armory guns are on roster as well, but I guess the XD isn't one of those.

Don't disagree, the roster is a piece of work. Inconsistent, unclear, poorly understood, poorly enforced, as far as I can tell no secondary market enforcement other than Romney's magazine restrictions. That said, secondary market glocks are all over the place, so its not like you can't get one.

Yes , I know that's not the point. But its currently the law, and if anyone should be following the law, its an FFL here.

There are zero Springfield Armory firearms on the MA roster: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/fir ... 5-2015.pdf

Springfield Arms has explicitly stated that they will not jump through the intentionally expensive and bureaucratic hoops required by the state in order to sell in MA.


While I can find plenty of Gen 2s, Gen 3s are relatively hard to come by and are more expensive. Supply and demand being what they are.

I've never seen a Gen 4 available for resale here.

My point was that if you want a Glock, you have to buy it used. Which for a new gun buyer is a big ask. I don't know how to examine a gun to make sure it doesn't have unreasonable wear and tear. It's not a risk I feel qualified to take at this point, even if I think a Glock is the right gun for me.

The confusing thing for me about Glock is that they ARE on the roster. Yet they're still not available for sale. And then the state wonders why people get confused?

No argument.

Simply being on the roster is not good enough for a gun to be available in Massachusetts. It also must pass some kind of "consumer safety test" to be approved by the AG. It's pretty hard to find out what the criteria is.
There are some nice used guns that were in-state (and thus grandfathered) before the stupid laws were passed, but you have to pay dearly for them. Unless you just steal one and scratch off the s/n. The AG will let you go anyway. Their laws just hurt honest people.

Wrboz wrote:Simply being on the roster is not good enough for a gun to be available in Massachusetts. It also must pass some kind of "consumer safety test" to be approved by the AG. It's pretty hard to find out what the criteria is.
There are some nice used guns that were in-state (and thus grandfathered) before the stupid laws were passed, but you have to pay dearly for them. Unless you just steal one and scratch off the s/n. The AG will let you go anyway. Their laws just hurt honest people.

The criteria is documented, but its drop tests and trigger pull, not dissimilar to CA if I understand it. But there are infamously 2 lists and they don't match.

I've never been able to find the AGs list. Any information on where it is documented?

Wrboz wrote:I've never been able to find the AGs list. Any information on where it is documented?

I said the criteria is documented, but the list is elusive

-edit-

it seems the AG's website on the subject now redirects to the main page and searches on the site point to the FRB, so its back to being less clear, sorry about that.

http://www.mass.gov/eopss/firearms-reg- ... d-rosters/

Yeah, I've been on that merry go round. Seems transparency in state government doesn't apply to firearms laws. It says a lot about the workings of the machine here.

Wrboz wrote:Yeah, I've been on that merry go round. Seems transparency in state government doesn't apply to firearms laws. It says a lot about the workings of the machine here.

In their defense ( ), they suck at transparency in pretty much everything. Not just gun laws.

modernhamlet wrote:

Inquisitor wrote:

modernhamlet wrote:I think the off-roster thing is the problem here.

Making it illegal to sell some of the most common and desired handguns on the market is a recipe for grey/black market creation.

The fact that you can't buy a new Glock or any Springfield gun in this state is utterly stupid.

(Says the guy planning to buy a 9mm soon and that had to knock several of his favorites off the list because it's somehow "unsafe" here (and basically nowhere else)...)

You can get other striker fired guns. Guard agencies have been going to the M&P, which I personally dislike as much as the glock.

I know some Springfield Armory guns are on roster as well, but I guess the XD isn't one of those.

Don't disagree, the roster is a piece of work. Inconsistent, unclear, poorly understood, poorly enforced, as far as I can tell no secondary market enforcement other than Romney's magazine restrictions. That said, secondary market glocks are all over the place, so its not like you can't get one.

Yes , I know that's not the point. But its currently the law, and if anyone should be following the law, its an FFL here.

There are zero Springfield Armory firearms on the MA roster: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/fir ... 5-2015.pdf

Springfield Arms has explicitly stated that they will not jump through the intentionally expensive and bureaucratic hoops required by the state in order to sell in MA.


While I can find plenty of Gen 2s, Gen 3s are relatively hard to come by and are more expensive. Supply and demand being what they are.

I've never seen a Gen 4 available for resale here.

My point was that if you want a Glock, you have to buy it used. Which for a new gun buyer is a big ask. I don't know how to examine a gun to make sure it doesn't have unreasonable wear and tear. It's not a risk I feel qualified to take at this point, even if I think a Glock is the right gun for me.

The confusing thing for me about Glock is that they ARE on the roster. Yet they're still not available for sale. And then the state wonders why people get confused?

Parts seem readily available for Glocks, so I'm not sure used pieces should be that much of a concern.

If I may make a suggestion, the H&K VP9/40 is on the list. I have the 9mm version and I'd take it over a Glock any day of the week. It's a very nice firearm and pleasurable to shoot.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:If I may make a suggestion, the H&K VP9/40 is on the list. I have the 9mm version and I'd take it over a Glock any day of the week. It's a very nice firearm and pleasurable to shoot.

Sexy. Added to the list.

Hopefully I can find one to shoot somewhere!