Assault Style Firearm Update – March 27, 2025

[alan226]

So the Commonwealth wants to incorporate a firearm "registration" in the near future. So help my pea brain out here. I thought that firearm registration was strictly verboten per the Feds, and the only way MA has been able to get away with it is that the current EFA system is not a "registration" but simply transactions.

Am I missing something?

 

[paul73]

Am I missing something?

yes, and hell to all of it. as crackpot wrote - we have had no registration, ever, but latest 'clarification' presumes that it was, and all was already supposed to be registered.
all we can do now is to wait and remain silent.

 

[pastera]

The nuance will be how far it goes. The things like “you can’t change features later” doesn’t have any basis in the law? 2016 is referenced and ambiguous, so is less of a stretch to interpret. What remains to be seen is will they charge to enforce and risk the entire interpretation or hope it has the same effect as the 2016 guidance. From GOAL’s wording it sounds more aggressive than previously.

The language around 7/20/2016 is quite clear.
Any firearm in the database prior to that date would not be considered an ASF solely on the fact that it meets the "copy or duplicate" definition.
That would leave it to the features test for testing lawful possession on 8/1/2024 - if it was feature compliant then it is exempt from ASW prohibition under 131M(a) through 131M(b)

However, as you point out, there is no basis in law for the interpretation that the ASW must remain in the 8/1/2024 state to maintain exemption (yes, the firearm IS an ASW just not prohibited).
The law simply states that a lawful possession on 8/1/2024 excludes an ASF from the prohibition (unlike the 7/20/2016 that conditions a specific definition of ASF on registration status)

 

[CapeCod Shooter_56]

2016 was an enforcement notice not a law. This new law that references 2016 is ex post facto therefore unconstitutional. the appellate court will have a field day if it ever gets there. This is exactly what they’re doing just like in 2016. Fear mongering everyone into compliance. Obviously attorneys are going to tell everyone that they’re illegal so they don’t put themselves in a grey area. But enforcement notices aren’t law and ex post facto bans are unconstitutional.

 

[pastera]

So the Commonwealth wants to incorporate a firearm "registration" in the near future. So help my pea brain out here. I thought that firearm registration was strictly verboten per the Feds, and the only was MA has been able to get away with it is that the current EFA system is not a "registration" but simply transactions.

Am I missing something?

Look at the Snope thread.
The bully can't beat your ass in front of the teacher but if the teacher walks out of class after ten minutes and says "see you tomorrow", it's ass whopping time.
Canjura and Caetano create a clear ,to us, basis in case law that the features based ASF prohibition is unconstitutional (banned features are modern iterations that do not enhance the basic dangerousness of the item).

But if SCOTUS won't take Snope or Ocean State why should the SJC?

 

[MickeyD’s]

2016 was an enforcement notice not a law. This new law that references 2016 is ex post facto therefore unconstitutional. the appellate court will have a field day if it ever gets there. This is exactly what they’re doing in 2016. Fear mongering everyone into compliance. Obviously attorneys are going to tell everyone that they’re illegal so they don’t put themselves in a grey area. But enforcement notices aren’t law and ex post facto bands are unconstitutional.

Bans are unconstitutional per heller

Like that shit matters on this state

 

[Retsambew]

NH is awesome guys. Come on up. I’ve got 30+ silencers now with tax stamps getting approved in hours, all the “evil” feature rifles, SBRs up the ass, it’s awesome. No state income tax. No sales tax, surrounded by horse farms. All my neighbors own chickens and livestock. I’m 50 min from Boston. Very little traffic. Very few hood rats. It’s great. Every day is Christmas. It’s like 80% MA 20% FL.

Guy spends more than $6000 on government tax stamps for “silencers” (they’re actually called suppressors Snoop) then lectures the rest of us on the finer points of freedom. This is rich, even by NH standards.

 

[Mark from ?]

GOALJim is the OP, and you tagged him. Hey presto! It's been brought to his attention.

As for you wanting more "clarification?"

WUT?

Rapetile wants the guys who are making this shit law even muddier to clarify it further?

Rapetile, I think you should kite as many credit cards as possibile, then do a balance transfers on all of them, on a Guida's legal opinion.
It would be better than your lingerie model girlfriend, and her sister spending it on Foxy clothes or whatever the fxck you call them.

You might be finally broke enough to lose your computer or internet service and stop shitposting.

 

[Bud R]

Look at the Snope thread.
The bully can't beat your ass in front of the teacher but if the teacher walks out of class after ten minutes and says "see you tomorrow", it's ass whopping time.
Canjura and Caetano create a clear ,to us, basis in case law that the features based ASF prohibition is unconstitutional (banned features are modern iterations that do not enhance the basic dangerousness of the item).

But if SCOTUS won't take Snope or Ocean State why should the SJC?

Sir,
Just a very quick quston for your opinion? If a rifle was purchased and "registered" thru the porta; before 8/1 is it then legal to sell
or buy privately?
V/r

 

[Mark from ?]

Guy spends more than $6000 on government tax stamps for “silencers” (they’re actually called suppressors Snoop) then lectures the rest of us on the finer points of freedom. This is rich, even by NH standards.

Some good Flexing....30K on Silencers and 6K on tax stamps.

Shit I just want three....one large pistol, one large rifle and one .22 Last time i checked they have QD fittings on these things for gun to gun.

In before someone calls me gay for not wanting to have a dedicated can for each rifle and pistol.

 

[Bud R]

Sir,
Just a very quick quston for your opinion? If a rifle was purchased and "registered" thru the porta; before 8/1 is it then legal to sell
or buy privately?
V/r

Thank you for your time!

 

[pastera]

2016 was an enforcement notice not a law. This new law that references 2016 is ex post facto therefore unconstitutional. the appellate court will have a field day if it ever gets there. This is exactly what they’re doing just like in 2016. Fear mongering everyone into compliance. Obviously attorneys are going to tell everyone that they’re illegal so they don’t put themselves in a grey area. But enforcement notices aren’t law and ex post facto bans are unconstitutional.

The 2016 stuff in the law isn't ex post facto when viewed in light of the 8/1/2024 blanket exemption.
A copy or duplicate that was compliant and registered before the 7/20/2016 cutoff is not considered a copy or duplicate. Therefore, even if it wasn't possessed in the state on 8/1/2024 it can be returned into the state as long as it is compliant with the features restrictions.
It isn't a ban of guns after that date, it is an extension of an extremely narrow extension of an exemption - an almost non-existent exemption but an exemption nonetheless.
Interpreting the 8/1/2024 exemption out of existence places the entire ASF prohibition at risk, not just the 7/20/16 definition change language.

 

[DarthRevan]

Guy spends more than $6000 on government tax stamps for “silencers” (they’re actually called suppressors Snoop) then lectures the rest of us on the finer points of freedom. This is rich, even by NH standards.

Either way, MA is still less free.
You can stay bitter, or do something about it.
I did.

 

[pastera]

Sir,
Just a very quick quston for your opinion? If a rifle was purchased and "registered" thru the porta; before 8/1 is it then legal to sell
or buy privately?
V/r

Big boy rules - the state is purposely misinterpreting the clear language in the law.
If it was legal under the old law and in the possession of an LTC holder or Dealer on 8/1/2024 then it is exempt.
The question is whether it actually was lawfully possessed.
If a dealer possessed it on 8/1/2024 then they could actually legally possess it.
If an LTC holder possessed it then the state is trying to say that it was not legally possessed - which is contrary to the previous legislation and case law.

So, the rifle is by all reasonable readings of the law legal to possessand transfer.
But the state can treat you however it likes since none of us can self fund a defense, especially with SCOTUS kicking the can on the whole "assault weapons" ban subject.

 

[Bud R]

Big boy rules - the state is purposely misinterpreting the clear language in the law.
If it was legal under the old law and in the possession of an LTC holder or Dealer on 8/1/2024 then it is exempt.
The question is whether it actually was lawfully possessed.
If a dealer possessed it on 8/1/2024 then they could actually legally possess it.
If an LTC holder possessed it then the state is trying to say that it was not legally possessed - which is contrary to the previous legislation and case law.

So, the rifle is by all reasonable readings of the law legal to possessand transfer.
But the state can treat you however it likes since none of us can self fund a defense, especially with SCOTUS kicking the can on the whole "assault weapons" ban subject.

So, a reasonable LTC individual that had purchased one that was owned by another LTC, not a dealer, the most prudent thing to do for that person to do, in your opinion, is to wait to see how things shake out or to sell it out of state? Again, much thanks for taking the time to answer these questions, you are much appreciated.

 

[Picton]

So, a reasonable LTC individual that had purchased one that was owned by another LTC, not a dealer, the most prudent thing to do for that person to do, in your opinion, is to wait to see how things shake out or to sell it out of state? Again, much thanks for taking the time to answer these questions, you are much appreciated.

Assumptions like these are why the state knows it can do anything it wants to us. I wish I was surprised.

 

[pastera]

So, a reasonable LTC individual that had purchased one that was owned by another LTC, not a dealer, the most prudent thing to do for that person to do, in your opinion, is to wait to see how things shake out or to sell it out of state? Again, much thanks for taking the time to answer these questions, you are much appreciated.

Unless you do stupid shit then risk is low.
If you can store out of state then risk is zero.
If you sell it now, then there is little incentive for the state to go after you unless that sale is outright illegal or the buyer uses it to create a multi-cycle news event.

Even if SCOTUS had granted cert in Snope today, we wouldn't have resolution for at least a year.
The only shorter term relief would be if we could get someone like judge Coffey in Lowel to issue an injunction against section 131m based on Canjura. But that is highly unlikely.

 

[pastera]

Assumptions like these are why the state knows it can do anything it wants to us. I wish I was surprised.

I thought I was very clear and derogatory about that line of thought but some people must be into that stuff.

 

[CapeCod Shooter_56]

Unless you do stupid shit then risk is low.
If you can store out of state then risk is zero.
If you sell it now, then there is little incentive for the state to go after you unless that sale is outright illegal or the buyer uses it to create a multi-cycle news event.

Even if SCOTUS had granted cert in Snope today, we wouldn't have resolution for at least a year.
The only shorter term relief would be if we could get someone like judge Coffey in Lowel to issue an injunction against section 131m based on Canjura. But that is highly unlikely.

So when actual registration gets implemented to register or not is the real question for those who have post 2016 ar’s

 

[mikeboston]

Guy spends more than $6000 on government tax stamps for “silencers” (they’re actually called suppressors Snoop) then lectures the rest of us on the finer points of freedom. This is rich, even by NH standards.

I understand how this may have sounded but he was also a member of the finer Massachusetts mental gymnastics team while he resided here. It’s easier for some to move than others. I believe he is explaining the benefits for those who can actually make the move and are holding back.

 

[MAJoe]

So when actual registration gets implemented to register or not is the real question for those who have post 2016 ar’s

Yup, because failure to register any gun will be a crime, so not doing anything will no longer be the “safe and legal” option.

 

[paul73]

failure to register any gun will be a crime

you think of all this, then visualize those fat ugly mugs of that corrupt to the core so called MA 'legislation' and nothing good comes to mind. and they sit there pretty much for life.
damn shame.

 

[pastera]

So when actual registration gets implemented to register or not is the real question for those who have post 2016 ar’s

Sorry, but have to ask this
Have you been munching on paint chips?
If you have balls enough to hang on this long then why comply then?

 

[MAJoe]

Sorry, but have to ask this
Have you been munching on paint chips?
If you have balls enough to hang on this long then why comply then?

I mean, post 2016 ARs weren’t illegal based on the law. It will be illegal to have anything not registered. I think there is a difference between those situations. I’d liken that to someone buying a post 8/1 lower and not caring to register it.

 

[Mark from ?]

Sorry, but have to ask this
Have you been munching on paint chips?
If you have balls enough to hang on this long then why comply then?

A frame is a firearm now and you have been mandated to register all your firearms once the registry is complete that is passed law. Registration system is not there, so nothing should be registered until that happens.

Prior to this law a frame was not a firearm therefore impossible to register.......it had nothing to do with balls, it was standard procedure for non idiots and non pantshitters.

 

[wcorey]

proof of ownership was and always will be the day you did the 4473 and aquired the item.

What about completed 80% lowers?

 

[pastera]

A frame is a firearm now and you have been mandated to register all your firearms once the registry is complete that is passed law. Registration system is not there, so nothing should be registered until that happens.

Prior to this law a frame was not a firearm therefore impossible to register.......it had nothing to do with balls, it was standard procedure for non idiots and non pantshitters.

So you have off list guns that you are going to purposely inform an adversarial government about?

 

[quinnjalan]

What about completed 80% lowers?

It’s a hunk of aluminum just like what I have on a rack at the back of my garage!

 

[Drill Baby Drill]

I don’t understand why people are panicking. Nothing has happened, and nothing will happen if you haven’t done anything wrong. No one is going to search your car or home unless you’re involved in something serious like drugs, rape, or murder. And if that’s the case, it doesn’t matter what you have—whether it’s a fully automatic weapon with a suppressor or just a pocket knife—you’re in trouble.
“We don’t comply” means exactly that. It’s not just about wearing a shirt or hat that says it—I actually won’t comply.

 

[Reptile]

I don’t understand why people are panicking. Nothing has happened, and nothing will happen if you haven’t done anything wrong. No one is going to search your car or home unless you’re involved in something serious like drugs, rape, or murder. And if that’s the case, it doesn’t matter what you have—whether it’s a fully automatic weapon with a suppressor or just a pocket knife—you’re in trouble.
“We don’t comply” means exactly that. It’s not just about wearing a shirt or hat that says it—I actually won’t comply.

According to the state - they have done something wrong.

According to the state and the committee post 2016 lowers are illegal.

Question is will the register their ill gotten goods.

And, if they do - will the state come after them?