#46
 

On 2/29/2016 7:48 PM, Alex wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/28/2016 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:51:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Kimber is a non-issue for me. I can't legally buy one even if I wanted
one. *All* Kimber handguns are banned in Massachusetts.

http://fsguns.com/fsg_information.html

===

What prevents you from buying elsewhere and bringing it back home?



If I weren't such a law abiding citizen I could. :-)
I can't do that legally in MA. If caught with it, there goes
my gun permit and technically could be subject to fines or prosecution.

Can't order one from out of state and have it shipped and transferred
to my by a FFL either. All Kimbers are simply illegal to own here
unless they were made before 1998 and only *if* they were
always in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I know. It's crazy. But them's the rules here.




It is about money or some missing "feature" on the gun itself?



It's due to a complicated and convoluted set of laws in Massachusetts
governed by two different agencies ... an independent testing lab and
the Attorney General's office. Simply put (as simple as I can) here's
the deal:

The Massachusetts state legislation passed a law many years ago that
requires any new handgun sold by an FFL in the state to be tested and
approved by an independent testing lab. The guns are subjected to tests
to ensure their safety, quality and other criteria that I don't know all
the details of. Mostly it is safety. If the handgun meets the design
criteria requirements and the various tests it is "approved" for sale.

But the Attorney General's office also has something to say about it.
This dates back to 1997 and a Massachusetts state AG by the name of
Scott Harshbarger. Harshbarger was anti-gun and wanted to ban them
in Massachusetts altogether. He couldn't without going through the
legislative process and could not convince enough state legislators to
ban guns so he initiated some subjective requirements that did not
require a formal bill to be put into force. Basically, in addition to
passing the safety/quality tests by the testing lab any new handgun sold
in MA by an FFL must also have:


1. Child-safety features – 940 CMR 16.05(2), (4)
2. Load indicators and magazine safety disconnects for semi-automatic
handguns – 940 CMR 16.05 (3), (4)
3. Tamper-resistant serial numbers 940 CMR 16.03

The AG's office has sole discretion as to whether a handgun meets these
requirements. So, a gun can be approved by the testing lab but not
approved by the AG's office.

The result is that some handgun manufacturer's don't even bother to
submit their products for testing and approval in MA.

I can still buy a "non compliant" handgun from a private seller but only
if the seller is also a MA resident *and* the gun has always been
in MA since new. Problem is, no one can legally buy them to begin with
because they would have had to originally been sold by an FFL and and
FFL can't legally sell them.

Guns manufactured before 1998 are grandfathered however they must also
have always been in the state. For example, someone can sell or trade in
a non-compliant handgun manufactured before 1998 to a FFL and he can
sell it. But, you can't buy one that comes from outside MA privately or
through a FFL ... legally.

Clear as mud, right?

#46
 

On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 23:28:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/29/2016 7:48 PM, Alex wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/28/2016 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:51:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Kimber is a non-issue for me. I can't legally buy one even if I wanted
one. *All* Kimber handguns are banned in Massachusetts.

http://fsguns.com/fsg_information.html

===

What prevents you from buying elsewhere and bringing it back home?



If I weren't such a law abiding citizen I could. :-)
I can't do that legally in MA. If caught with it, there goes
my gun permit and technically could be subject to fines or prosecution.

Can't order one from out of state and have it shipped and transferred
to my by a FFL either. All Kimbers are simply illegal to own here
unless they were made before 1998 and only *if* they were
always in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I know. It's crazy. But them's the rules here.




It is about money or some missing "feature" on the gun itself?



It's due to a complicated and convoluted set of laws in Massachusetts
governed by two different agencies ... an independent testing lab and
the Attorney General's office. Simply put (as simple as I can) here's
the deal:

The Massachusetts state legislation passed a law many years ago that
requires any new handgun sold by an FFL in the state to be tested and
approved by an independent testing lab. The guns are subjected to tests
to ensure their safety, quality and other criteria that I don't know all
the details of. Mostly it is safety. If the handgun meets the design
criteria requirements and the various tests it is "approved" for sale.

But the Attorney General's office also has something to say about it.
This dates back to 1997 and a Massachusetts state AG by the name of
Scott Harshbarger. Harshbarger was anti-gun and wanted to ban them
in Massachusetts altogether. He couldn't without going through the
legislative process and could not convince enough state legislators to
ban guns so he initiated some subjective requirements that did not
require a formal bill to be put into force. Basically, in addition to
passing the safety/quality tests by the testing lab any new handgun sold
in MA by an FFL must also have:


1. Child-safety features – 940 CMR 16.05(2), (4)
2. Load indicators and magazine safety disconnects for semi-automatic
handguns – 940 CMR 16.05 (3), (4)
3. Tamper-resistant serial numbers 940 CMR 16.03

The AG's office has sole discretion as to whether a handgun meets these
requirements. So, a gun can be approved by the testing lab but not
approved by the AG's office.

The result is that some handgun manufacturer's don't even bother to
submit their products for testing and approval in MA.

I can still buy a "non compliant" handgun from a private seller but only
if the seller is also a MA resident *and* the gun has always been
in MA since new. Problem is, no one can legally buy them to begin with
because they would have had to originally been sold by an FFL and and
FFL can't legally sell them.

Guns manufactured before 1998 are grandfathered however they must also
have always been in the state. For example, someone can sell or trade in
a non-compliant handgun manufactured before 1998 to a FFL and he can
sell it. But, you can't buy one that comes from outside MA privately or
through a FFL ... legally.

Clear as mud, right?



Give 'em an inch...
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns!

#46
 

On 3/1/2016 6:14 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 23:28:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/29/2016 7:48 PM, Alex wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/28/2016 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:51:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Kimber is a non-issue for me. I can't legally buy one even if I wanted
one. *All* Kimber handguns are banned in Massachusetts.

http://fsguns.com/fsg_information.html

===

What prevents you from buying elsewhere and bringing it back home?



If I weren't such a law abiding citizen I could. :-)
I can't do that legally in MA. If caught with it, there goes
my gun permit and technically could be subject to fines or prosecution.

Can't order one from out of state and have it shipped and transferred
to my by a FFL either. All Kimbers are simply illegal to own here
unless they were made before 1998 and only *if* they were
always in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I know. It's crazy. But them's the rules here.




It is about money or some missing "feature" on the gun itself?



It's due to a complicated and convoluted set of laws in Massachusetts
governed by two different agencies ... an independent testing lab and
the Attorney General's office. Simply put (as simple as I can) here's
the deal:

The Massachusetts state legislation passed a law many years ago that
requires any new handgun sold by an FFL in the state to be tested and
approved by an independent testing lab. The guns are subjected to tests
to ensure their safety, quality and other criteria that I don't know all
the details of. Mostly it is safety. If the handgun meets the design
criteria requirements and the various tests it is "approved" for sale.

But the Attorney General's office also has something to say about it.
This dates back to 1997 and a Massachusetts state AG by the name of
Scott Harshbarger. Harshbarger was anti-gun and wanted to ban them
in Massachusetts altogether. He couldn't without going through the
legislative process and could not convince enough state legislators to
ban guns so he initiated some subjective requirements that did not
require a formal bill to be put into force. Basically, in addition to
passing the safety/quality tests by the testing lab any new handgun sold
in MA by an FFL must also have:


1. Child-safety features – 940 CMR 16.05(2), (4)
2. Load indicators and magazine safety disconnects for semi-automatic
handguns – 940 CMR 16.05 (3), (4)
3. Tamper-resistant serial numbers 940 CMR 16.03

The AG's office has sole discretion as to whether a handgun meets these
requirements. So, a gun can be approved by the testing lab but not
approved by the AG's office.

The result is that some handgun manufacturer's don't even bother to
submit their products for testing and approval in MA.

I can still buy a "non compliant" handgun from a private seller but only
if the seller is also a MA resident *and* the gun has always been
in MA since new. Problem is, no one can legally buy them to begin with
because they would have had to originally been sold by an FFL and and
FFL can't legally sell them.

Guns manufactured before 1998 are grandfathered however they must also
have always been in the state. For example, someone can sell or trade in
a non-compliant handgun manufactured before 1998 to a FFL and he can
sell it. But, you can't buy one that comes from outside MA privately or
through a FFL ... legally.

Clear as mud, right?



Give 'em an inch...

There is current legislation pending that would remove the AG's
involvement in the determination of what is compliant and what is not.

#46
 

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM UTC-6, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/29/2016 10:17 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 9:10:44 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 02:53:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Sort of flies in the face of claims that they only want "reasonable"
gun laws.
What makes a Kimber any worse than any other .45 pistol?


They either don't pass the MA safety tests, meet the AG requirements or
Kimber refuses to submit any to the state for compliance testing.

===

My guess is the latter. Kimber can already sell everything they make
so why waste production assets on stupid states with stupid rules.

I was thinking the same thing. Kimber has high sales volume and I can't see them making a 'special' model to satisfy an angry state's resterictions just to sell a few.



Good thing I am not a "gun nut", huh? :-)

Yes Richard, that's wise. You should leave the gun nutting up to us professionals. LOL

#46
 

On Tue, 1 Mar 2016 04:14:10 -0800 (PST), Tim wrote:

On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM UTC-6, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/29/2016 10:17 AM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, February 29, 2016 at 9:10:44 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 02:53:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Sort of flies in the face of claims that they only want "reasonable"
gun laws.
What makes a Kimber any worse than any other .45 pistol?


They either don't pass the MA safety tests, meet the AG requirements or
Kimber refuses to submit any to the state for compliance testing.

===

My guess is the latter. Kimber can already sell everything they make
so why waste production assets on stupid states with stupid rules.

I was thinking the same thing. Kimber has high sales volume and I can't see them making a 'special' model to satisfy an angry state's resterictions just to sell a few.



Good thing I am not a "gun nut", huh? :-)

Yes Richard, that's wise. You should leave the gun nutting up to us professionals. LOL

Ah, I wondered why your cards show: "Tim Schnautz, PGN"

Professional Gun Nut. Now I know.
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns!

#46
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/29/2016 7:48 PM, Alex wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/28/2016 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:51:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Kimber is a non-issue for me. I can't legally buy one even if I
wanted
one. *All* Kimber handguns are banned in Massachusetts.

http://fsguns.com/fsg_information.html

===

What prevents you from buying elsewhere and bringing it back home?



If I weren't such a law abiding citizen I could. :-)
I can't do that legally in MA. If caught with it, there goes
my gun permit and technically could be subject to fines or prosecution.

Can't order one from out of state and have it shipped and transferred
to my by a FFL either. All Kimbers are simply illegal to own here
unless they were made before 1998 and only *if* they were
always in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I know. It's crazy. But them's the rules here.




It is about money or some missing "feature" on the gun itself?



It's due to a complicated and convoluted set of laws in Massachusetts
governed by two different agencies ... an independent testing lab and
the Attorney General's office. Simply put (as simple as I can) here's
the deal:

The Massachusetts state legislation passed a law many years ago that
requires any new handgun sold by an FFL in the state to be tested and
approved by an independent testing lab. The guns are subjected to
tests to ensure their safety, quality and other criteria that I don't
know all the details of. Mostly it is safety. If the handgun meets
the design criteria requirements and the various tests it is
"approved" for sale.

But the Attorney General's office also has something to say about it.
This dates back to 1997 and a Massachusetts state AG by the name of
Scott Harshbarger. Harshbarger was anti-gun and wanted to ban them
in Massachusetts altogether. He couldn't without going through the
legislative process and could not convince enough state legislators to
ban guns so he initiated some subjective requirements that did not
require a formal bill to be put into force. Basically, in addition to
passing the safety/quality tests by the testing lab any new handgun
sold in MA by an FFL must also have:


1. Child-safety features – 940 CMR 16.05(2), (4)
2. Load indicators and magazine safety disconnects for semi-automatic
handguns – 940 CMR 16.05 (3), (4)
3. Tamper-resistant serial numbers 940 CMR 16.03

The AG's office has sole discretion as to whether a handgun meets these
requirements. So, a gun can be approved by the testing lab but not
approved by the AG's office.

The result is that some handgun manufacturer's don't even bother to
submit their products for testing and approval in MA.

I can still buy a "non compliant" handgun from a private seller but
only if the seller is also a MA resident *and* the gun has always been
in MA since new. Problem is, no one can legally buy them to begin
with because they would have had to originally been sold by an FFL and
and FFL can't legally sell them.

Guns manufactured before 1998 are grandfathered however they must also
have always been in the state. For example, someone can sell or trade
in a non-compliant handgun manufactured before 1998 to a FFL and he
can sell it. But, you can't buy one that comes from outside MA
privately or through a FFL ... legally.

Clear as mud, right?






Yup. What the hell is a tamper-resistant serial number? Only a
criminal would "tamper" with one and only to hide a crime. They
wouldn't care how they obscure it. A grinder, a weld, acid, etc.

The problem is that once laws like this are enacted, they are nearly
impossible to repeal. I don't agree with the NRA on a lot of things but
I understand their philosophy as this illustrates. Give an inch and
they will take a mile.

#46
 

John H. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 23:28:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 2/29/2016 7:48 PM, Alex wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/28/2016 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:51:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Kimber is a non-issue for me. I can't legally buy one even if I wanted
one. *All* Kimber handguns are banned in Massachusetts.

http://fsguns.com/fsg_information.html
===

What prevents you from buying elsewhere and bringing it back home?


If I weren't such a law abiding citizen I could. :-)
I can't do that legally in MA. If caught with it, there goes
my gun permit and technically could be subject to fines or prosecution.

Can't order one from out of state and have it shipped and transferred
to my by a FFL either. All Kimbers are simply illegal to own here
unless they were made before 1998 and only *if* they were
always in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I know. It's crazy. But them's the rules here.



It is about money or some missing "feature" on the gun itself?


It's due to a complicated and convoluted set of laws in Massachusetts
governed by two different agencies ... an independent testing lab and
the Attorney General's office. Simply put (as simple as I can) here's
the deal:

The Massachusetts state legislation passed a law many years ago that
requires any new handgun sold by an FFL in the state to be tested and
approved by an independent testing lab. The guns are subjected to tests
to ensure their safety, quality and other criteria that I don't know all
the details of. Mostly it is safety. If the handgun meets the design
criteria requirements and the various tests it is "approved" for sale.

But the Attorney General's office also has something to say about it.
This dates back to 1997 and a Massachusetts state AG by the name of
Scott Harshbarger. Harshbarger was anti-gun and wanted to ban them
in Massachusetts altogether. He couldn't without going through the
legislative process and could not convince enough state legislators to
ban guns so he initiated some subjective requirements that did not
require a formal bill to be put into force. Basically, in addition to
passing the safety/quality tests by the testing lab any new handgun sold
in MA by an FFL must also have:


1. Child-safety features – 940 CMR 16.05(2), (4)
2. Load indicators and magazine safety disconnects for semi-automatic
handguns – 940 CMR 16.05 (3), (4)
3. Tamper-resistant serial numbers 940 CMR 16.03

The AG's office has sole discretion as to whether a handgun meets these
requirements. So, a gun can be approved by the testing lab but not
approved by the AG's office.

The result is that some handgun manufacturer's don't even bother to
submit their products for testing and approval in MA.

I can still buy a "non compliant" handgun from a private seller but only
if the seller is also a MA resident *and* the gun has always been
in MA since new. Problem is, no one can legally buy them to begin with
because they would have had to originally been sold by an FFL and and
FFL can't legally sell them.

Guns manufactured before 1998 are grandfathered however they must also
have always been in the state. For example, someone can sell or trade in
a non-compliant handgun manufactured before 1998 to a FFL and he can
sell it. But, you can't buy one that comes from outside MA privately or
through a FFL ... legally.

Clear as mud, right?


Give 'em an inch...
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, idiots, audiophools, and narcissists...not guns!


I should have read ahead, John!

#46
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/1/2016 6:14 AM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 23:28:30 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/29/2016 7:48 PM, Alex wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/28/2016 7:49 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:51:32 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"

wrote:

Kimber is a non-issue for me. I can't legally buy one even if I
wanted
one. *All* Kimber handguns are banned in Massachusetts.

http://fsguns.com/fsg_information.html

===

What prevents you from buying elsewhere and bringing it back home?



If I weren't such a law abiding citizen I could. :-)
I can't do that legally in MA. If caught with it, there goes
my gun permit and technically could be subject to fines or
prosecution.

Can't order one from out of state and have it shipped and transferred
to my by a FFL either. All Kimbers are simply illegal to own here
unless they were made before 1998 and only *if* they were
always in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I know. It's crazy. But them's the rules here.




It is about money or some missing "feature" on the gun itself?



It's due to a complicated and convoluted set of laws in Massachusetts
governed by two different agencies ... an independent testing lab and
the Attorney General's office. Simply put (as simple as I can) here's
the deal:

The Massachusetts state legislation passed a law many years ago that
requires any new handgun sold by an FFL in the state to be tested and
approved by an independent testing lab. The guns are subjected to
tests
to ensure their safety, quality and other criteria that I don't know
all
the details of. Mostly it is safety. If the handgun meets the design
criteria requirements and the various tests it is "approved" for sale.

But the Attorney General's office also has something to say about it.
This dates back to 1997 and a Massachusetts state AG by the name of
Scott Harshbarger. Harshbarger was anti-gun and wanted to ban them
in Massachusetts altogether. He couldn't without going through the
legislative process and could not convince enough state legislators to
ban guns so he initiated some subjective requirements that did not
require a formal bill to be put into force. Basically, in addition to
passing the safety/quality tests by the testing lab any new handgun
sold
in MA by an FFL must also have:


1. Child-safety features – 940 CMR 16.05(2), (4)
2. Load indicators and magazine safety disconnects for semi-automatic
handguns – 940 CMR 16.05 (3), (4)
3. Tamper-resistant serial numbers 940 CMR 16.03

The AG's office has sole discretion as to whether a handgun meets these
requirements. So, a gun can be approved by the testing lab but not
approved by the AG's office.

The result is that some handgun manufacturer's don't even bother to
submit their products for testing and approval in MA.

I can still buy a "non compliant" handgun from a private seller but
only
if the seller is also a MA resident *and* the gun has always been
in MA since new. Problem is, no one can legally buy them to begin with
because they would have had to originally been sold by an FFL and and
FFL can't legally sell them.

Guns manufactured before 1998 are grandfathered however they must also
have always been in the state. For example, someone can sell or
trade in
a non-compliant handgun manufactured before 1998 to a FFL and he can
sell it. But, you can't buy one that comes from outside MA
privately or
through a FFL ... legally.

Clear as mud, right?



Give 'em an inch...

There is current legislation pending that would remove the AG's
involvement in the determination of what is compliant and what is not.





That won't automatically undo the "damage", right?