Confiscation has begun in Massachusetts!

[Steve Lempitski]

I have an original Ruger .22 semiauto I bought used 20 years ago. My nephew absolutely loves it and constantly borrows it when his father, (a revolver only guy), takes him to the range. As nephew is turning 18 this year, the boys mother finally consented to my brother and I getting him a Ruger .22 semi-auto for Christmas. As I have the Class A carry pistol permit, I went to the local gun store today to buy it, only find that all Ruger MK2, and MK3 standard models as well as the 22/45 models in 22LR caliber are now illegal to sell in Massachusetts as they are not on the "approved handgun list" from the state attorney general and product safety offices - a call to Ruger customer service confirmed that the guns cant be sold in this state. I cant even buy one online as no FFL dealer can legally transfer it into the state. Keep in mind that Obamacare started based on the Massachusetts plan; dont be surprised when they try to invoke gun law change based on Massachusetts laws as well!

[lew1]

What effect is there on the one you already have ?

[cdmech]

We have a similar list of approved handguns in California. Just a quick glance at your Massachusetts list here http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/chsb/...ter-4-2012.pdf shows that the Sturm Ruger Mark III in 4 and 6 inch barrells are approved for sale in your state though. Great gun, I recently bought one myself.
Marc

[mrerick]

What does this have to do with confiscation?

More importantly, exactly what is constitutional about this kind of restraint of trade? Seems to violate at least a couple of the amendments.

Have these lists ever been challenged at a Federal level?

Marc

[Steve Lempitski]

Online link that was given is an outdated list...Check the MA compliant list on Rugers own website. Ruger customer service confirmed only the SR22 is only Ruger made .22LR semiauto that is now legal in Mass. Ruger literally had to recall every standard model and every 22/45 model still in Mass dealer shops. What this means to an owner of any handgun that is not on the "approved" list is that the pistol cannot be sold or traded in Massachusetts. So my C&R can only be used to ship a pistol out of state to another FFL, I cant sell any C&R pistol not on the list legally in state, nor can I legally buy one.

[alvin]

The handgun not on list cannot be "imported" from another state. But if is already in the state, it still can be sold and bought. Even preban rifle is allowed in Mass as long as it's already in the system before certain date (1994?). I just bought a Mini-14 folder from a local dealer. Not NIB, but it's almost new. The price is a little bit higher than other states because no new ones can be added into the system. I bet you can find a good Ruger .22LR in local stores.

[Curly1]

So why exactly are they banned, did they flunk some kinda safety test?

Preban for NYS also is prior to October or November 1994 when the federal ban took place.

[Steve Lempitski]

What happened was the Attorney General got together with the state product safety board and they came up with criteria for what they determined to be "safer" handguns. Each manufacturer is to submit so many samples of each gun type for "safety testing" - drop tests, etc. at a cost of around $5000.00 per gun. They also require guns to have such things as minimum poundage for trigger pulls, magazine disconnects, loaded indicators, etc. What is really curious is why the brand new MK3s and 22/45 pistols that were already in Mass and for sale in the stores were recalled by Ruger? Obviously they had to get them out of state for some reason.... A neighbor of mine has a relative working at the Ruger factory in NH, hopefully I can get the full story of what happened from him.

[Steve Lempitski]

Found the MA handgun tests to be a certified pistol on the MA attorney general website- 940 CMR 16.00

First test is the 6 drops of a loaded pistol onto a slab of concrete from 3 feet, each drop on a different part of the pistol - to pass pistol must not discharge on any of the 6 drops

Second test is the pistol must fire its first 20 rounds without a jam to pass

Third test is pistol must fire 600 rounds with no more than 6 jams to pass

Then we have the child proofing safety features such as a MINIMUM 10 POUND trigger pull and microscopic engraving of the serial number in a location on the pistol only told to the attorney generals office....

[Curly1]

Jeez that probably eliminates any auto 22lr from passing the 600 rounds w/o 6 jams.

[lew1]

Originally Posted by mrerick

What does this have to do with confiscation?

More importantly, exactly what is constitutional about this kind of restraint of trade? Seems to violate at least a couple of the amendments.

Have these lists ever been challenged at a Federal level?

Marc

Perhaps the 10th Amendment.

I do not agree with the action of MA and CA in this respect, But it is a law enacted by the state for their respective residents and applies equally to the residents of the respective states. Such is not a federal question.

[lew1]

Originally Posted by Steve Lempitski

What happened was the Attorney General got together with the state product safety board and they came up with criteria for what they determined to be "safer" handguns. Each manufacturer is to submit so many samples of each gun type for "safety testing" - drop tests, etc. at a cost of around $5000.00 per gun. They also require guns to have such things as minimum poundage for trigger pulls, magazine disconnects, loaded indicators, etc. What is really curious is why the brand new MK3s and 22/45 pistols that were already in Mass and for sale in the stores were recalled by Ruger? Obviously they had to get them out of state for some reason.... A neighbor of mine has a relative working at the Ruger factory in NH, hopefully I can get the full story of what happened from him.

Well, Ruger may have taken such action to avoid possible litigation in the future. Corporations tend to be pro active in that respect.

But look at it from a different aspect. Any guns shipped by Ruger go to a distributor. The distributor pays for them and 'legally' the guns become the legal property of the distributor.

The distributor sells the weapons to a dealer and at that point the weapons become the legal property of the dealer.

At either of the two stages, Ruger no longer is the owner of the weapons and has no legal rights to them.

Simply put - the dealers caved. The dealers could have easily said that they had already sold the weapons, or just said no to Ruger, etc.

An analogy is whether an individual who purchased such a weapon - could be forced by Ruger - to return it. The answer is No because it was no longer the legal property of Ruger.

(One might have problems with the State, but that is a different ball of wax.)

[Steve Lempitski]

Got to credit the Mass AGs office for the backdoor strategy - they figure that if they cannot, (as yet), outright ban handguns in the state, they can enact criteria that the handguns cannot pass as a way of eliminating them. They also figure with fewer and fewer firearms that can be sold in state, the gunshops will no longer be profitable and close their doors as well. Watch out all - our esteemed governor Duvall Patrick is a Chicago native and personal friend of Obama. Im sure they have discussed this handgun policy many times when the meet for dinner regularly!

[Steve Lempitski]

Just talked to neighbor who is a state certified firearms instructor about this..Charlie you hit the nail on the head! LITIGATION!. Turns out under Mass law, as soon as the MK3 and 22/45 pistols came off the MA approved firearms list, legally Ruger suddenly becomes a "manufacturer of dangerous products" and now is liable for any harm or damage caused by the product. No wonder they recalled every pistol from dealers shelves!

[Edward Tinker]

Is Mass breaking any of its own constitutional laws?

Just because a law is passed in a state does not mean it is legally (constitutionally) binding.

also, remember, it might be a state law, but that does not mean it does not have federal implications, DC's law was not upheld, not that it has made a difference, but it forced them to not try and enforce their old laws (from what i remember).


ed

[Ice]

I wonder if the NRA will become involved in this mess.

Charlie

[Steve Lempitski]

Scary thought is that with the control of the US Senate more firmly in liberal hands come January, I shudder to think what will happen if a current supreme court justice decides to step down....Elizabeth Warren, whom MA just voted in over Scott Brown, was an attorney for the MA State product safety board that drafted this handgun approval list testing....Look for her to introduce anti-gun legislation in her first 6 months!

[zinfull]

MA just copied the CA gun laws. The law was originally written to remove cheap Saturday night specials. They then stared to add all sorts of requirements on to existing laws. The OLD Rugers can not be sold here due to the lack of mag disconnect and load indicators. Of course to make sure the law passed they allowed the police to be exempt from the requirements. If the gun is not on the "not unsafe roster" then you can only buy it from some one who has it already in CA in a person to person sale, at a FFL01 store and $35 for registration. There are now problems with police buying the non CA guns and "realizing" they do not like the gun so they sell them for a high profit. Read the law and as in CA there are ways around them if you want something bad enough, getting rid of the jerks in power in CA is not an option but we try.

NRA is not doing anything worthy about this law.

Jerry

[cdmech]

Originally Posted by zinfull

The Rugers can not be sold here due to the lack of mag disconnect and load indicators.

My MKIII 4 inch has both a magazine disconnect and a loaded chamber indicator. It and the 6 inch Standard are on the CA list.
http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

Originally Posted by zinfull

getting rid of the jerks in power in CA is not an option but we try.

AMEN TO THAT! I hate it when people outside of California tell me "if you don't like your laws then change them". As if we could!

Marc

[mrerick]

While I'm a life member of the NRA, and teach their safety programs, my experience within North Carolina has been that the NRA just hasn't been doing a good job in assisting with litigation or state house lobbying. They tend to become "friends" of those that are already deeply in the fight, often well after the NRA contribution to the effort would have mattered.

The ILA lobbyists also tend to dip into areas within which they don't have appropriate expertise. The Chicago McDonald litigation and the Washington Heller litigation were cases in point. Alan Gura spoke with our group (Grass Roots North Carolina) and told us that by the time NRA got involved, they waded into areas they didn't understand, and might have derailed the decisions. Full comments are here... Of course, when Alan won the suits, NRA tried to take a disproportionate amount of public credit.

In the past congressional election effort, NRA endorsed a 2nd amendment antagonist who had a worse record than the opponent, David Rouzer. Rouzer (top rated 2nd amendment candidate) may lose to McIntyre by only 600 votes.

At a state level, our lobbying effort hasn't gotten much support from NRA.

- - - -

On what Mass is doing here, the 10th amendment would seem to interfere with their actions. The amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But the second amendment clearly prohibits actions by states that result in infringement of the right to bear arms:

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.

So, interfering with the commerce in arms would seem to interfere with an individual right to acquire them so that a citizen could bear them....

I know... we're only a single supreme court justice away from losing in these areas...

MArc