search
top

And Now Massachusetts…

Today, we get to look at another big anti-gun state to see what the gun owners are facing. According to Reuters, it’s summed up as “requir[ing] gun buyers to undergo background checks even when they made purchases at gun shows, limit[ing] buyers to purchasing one gun per month and reduc[ing] access to high-powered ammunition.”

I tried to look up introduced bills in Massachusetts, but no matter which bill turns up under a search for “firearm,” they all show as up as cannot be found, so I’m having to rely on that description above for any analysis. In other words, I can’t tell you much based on a quick search, but I can give you context to what kinds of laws Massachusetts gun owners already face that they are just trying to make even more complicated.

As I wrote back during NY Gov. Cuomo’s State of the State speech, Massachusetts already declared all previously issued gun licenses invalid – and then proceded to admit that they didn’t even tell thousands of gun owners about the change in the law, so they were suddenly in possession of firearms and ammunition illegally.

Massachusetts gun owners already go through costly license renewals every few years, and they already have to show those licenses every single time they buy either a firearm or ammunition. Even in private sales–including those at gun shows–the buyer and sellers have to show that they are legally licensed, complete an FA-10 together that has information on both individuals and the gun details, and mail a copy to state within 7 days. A private seller is also limited to selling 4 guns per year.

As for purchase restrictions, well, that’s pretty clearly just a case of trying to add insult to injury just because “they can.” There’s no purpose for it given that they already so heavily restrict licenses in the first place. There’s no accountability in issuing them, and it’s all up to the whim of local authorities. It’s tough to judge anything about the supposedly high-power ammunition bill since there’s no real description for what that even means.

So, yeah, we see in Massachusetts what they are trying when there’s really not much else to do when it comes to screwing gun owners. They already suffer enough.

14 Responses to “And Now Massachusetts…”

  1. TS says:

    California has been real quiet so far. Frankly I am scared. I think they are waiting to see what flies and then one up everyone so they keep their #1 Brady ranking.

    • Matt says:

      Ah, no. The Usual Suspects (Yee, DeLeon, every twit in LA county) here in the PRK have been introducing at least placeholder bills for all their fantasies. Most of ‘em don’t have any legal text yet, because they’re waiting for everyone on CalGuns to poke holes in ‘em so they can write a “better” bill.

      Aaaand, of course I can’t even look up the Legislation thread because CalGuns has pooped itself again.

  2. Jeff says:

    I don’t think we have text on anything yet here in MA. I know the one gun a month bill filed last year had an “oversight” that licensed dealers were not excluded from only getting one gun per month. Rep Linsky (D-Natick) is the guy to watch. He’s the MA equivalent of McCarthy.

    • Bitter says:

      Amazing how that’s the same kind of “accidental” problem that the one gun a month bill in New Jersey had… They are sharing legislation between states. We knew that was coming. I certainly warned Massachusetts gun owners about it anytime one of them would say there was at least some kind of “freedom” compared to another extremely anti-gun state.

  3. Harold says:

    There’s no accountability in issuing [licenses], and it’s all up to the whim of local authorities.

    Did Firearms Identification Cards become capriciously may issue like Licenses to Carry?

    Note to non-Massachusetts law aware folks: when I was there, both were lies: the former was cheap, shall issue and covered long guns, which by definition were not “firearms” (seriously), the latter was needed to even possess a handgun and often would be restricted to just that vs. real concealed carry. Or so I remember for the latter, it was too much of a hassle with a low probability of success for me to bother with, I just got an 870.

    • Bitter says:

      FID cards are still shall issue, but LTCs are may issue. However, LTCs are needed to own a good number of guns – including any kind of handgun.

    • RR says:

      I notice that they’re trying to lower the magazine limit to 7 rounds, grandfathering 10 round mags, and making it illegal to put more than 7 rounds in a magazine (like New York).

  4. terraformer says:

    Oh, it’s totally monkey see, monkey do.

  5. Looks like Mass is going to 7 round capacity too.

    SECTION 6. Said section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in lines 57-62, the words “a large capacity ammunition feeding device as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(31) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.” and inserting in place thereof the following words:- containing more than seven rounds of ammunition; or (iii) obtained after the effective date of this act and capable of accepting, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than seven rounds of ammunition.

  6. Bram says:

    I used to live in Massachusetts but wasn’t paying any attention because I was away a lot between school and Marine Reserves.

    I found out about the rules changes when I walked into a gun store, plunked down my FID card (with the words “no expiration date” on it) and asked for a few boxes of .308. The guy at the counter laughed and told me that it had indeed expired.

    A little research also revealed that the rifle in my trunk (an HK91 bought in MA in ’90) was now banned. Not sure if it was grandfathered.

    I officially changed my residence to NC a week later.

    • Alpheus says:

      I don’t get how you could get a license without an expiration date, and then have the license expire. It would seem to me that such licenses ought to be grandfathered, or that Massachusetts should be challenged for acting in poor faith (or whatever the appropriate legal term is), or that they violated ex post facto, or something.

      In any case, it’s funny how gun control folk say we’re paranoid, and that they aren’t after our guns, and we could trust them, it’s for the children, ya know!

      (If you really think about it, if you assume that a for every gun death–homicide and suicide, whether or not it was in self defense–a single gun was used, then only 1% of 1% (30,000 of 300,000,000) of all estimated guns are ever used to kill someone. And when you talk about rifles (about 600 deaths), that’s 2% of 1% of 1%–a vanishingly small number–yet this is the type of gun that banners want to see banned the most (at least, for now). All because they are afraid that some random law-abiding person is going to jump out of some hole with a rifle and start shooting people! And we’re supposed to be the paranoid ones?!?)

  7. Bram says:

    So are they going to make Kahr / Auto Ordnance and Springfield stop making high capacity weapons in the state?

    • Jeff says:

      The modern day Springfield Armory company has nothing to do with the historic armory in Springfield, MA. Smith and Wesson, however, *is* in Springfield. I hope if this passes they move and refuse to sell normal magazines to MA law enforcement.

top