-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms April Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Assault Style Firearm Update – March 27, 2025
- Thread starter GOALJim
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,206
- Likes
- 1,409
No. The new law says it is legal IF it was LAWFULLY possessed on 8/1.
Haven't you noticed that they keep using that word LAWFULLY?
Surprise.
I still want someone to explain how a stripped lower or better yet an 80% unfinished lower wasn't legal to own on 8/1, considering it wasn't even a firearm by state law until 9/13. Where it then became a firearm and in the same instant was grandfathered if lawfully possessed on 8/1...
Because Maura declared stripped lower were illegal copies and duplicates, despite not even fitting the legal definition of a firearm at that time.
Now they are, effective when the emergency preamble was signed. She thinks they were already illegal. Perhaps reading comprehension is a challenge.
Other news, sky is blue, water is wet, and the state house is filled with people with heads up their own keisters.
They may have written some contradictory perversion of 7/16 into Ch135 but it sure as hell wasn't written law on 8/1.
That they added it to Ch135 is their admission that it didn't exist as law previously...
That they added it to Ch135 is their admission that it didn't exist as law previously...
Last edited:
Every single gun owner in unison would say “no ****” but the people in this state don’t like things like logic and common sense.
My guess is they aren’t going to openly go after people on the 7/20 date alone. But if you get caught and do something illegal, they will add on the extra charge. That makes the most sense to me from a strictly resource standpoint.
Mark from ?
NES Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 14,026
- Likes
- 15,245
No one knows and you are guessing.
If you registered a post 6/2017 lower you are doing something illegal technically correct? You possess a banned item.
They could use that for a warrant to gain access or charge you and you lose your guns and gun rights.
Not saying any of this would happen.Large scale very doubtful
The inevitable question is ok this window shit is banned well whats next for those that have it???
I think for sure this was done so they will tell you to sell out of state and get rid of your contraband by a certain date. As a kick in the pricks to all those people that went out and bought and registered ignoring Healys edict and also rushing to buy before 8/1.
Last edited:
556USER
NES Member
Logic indicates that statute of limitations time begins on ANY day you are in possession. Years ago or NOW. It's not when you first possessed. I possess on Monday, its X years from then, I posses on Tuesday it's X years from then etc.......Any lawyers want to clarify?
HARRYM
NES Member
Actually Heller, Bruen and several others ARE the Law of the land. What we have here are Leftists ignoring the Law of the land and trying to write weasel words to ignore the actual Law of the land.
Jim is trying to do what he can but he's simply the token sheep surrounded by Leftist wolves taking votes on how to write laws to ignore the actual law.
Jim is trying to do what he can but he's simply the token sheep surrounded by Leftist wolves taking votes on how to write laws to ignore the actual law.
HARRYM
NES Member
"While the Constitution outlines a system of federalism where power is shared between the federal and state governments, the states do not control the U.S. Constitution, and it is the supreme law of the land."
My hope is that I live long enough to see an empowered SCOTUS step up and make it very clear that the above is NOT NEGOTIABLE.
I don't know though......I don't like my odds.
My hope is that I live long enough to see an empowered SCOTUS step up and make it very clear that the above is NOT NEGOTIABLE.
I don't know though......I don't like my odds.
Devils Paintbrush
NES Member
The state wants to profit from you being scared of their rules and the amount of time it will take to litigate for what gun owners know is a violation of our rights.
This intentional confusion was planned and the governor went as far as saying (as AG) that we won't prosecute at this time (the 7/20/16)...now that time is coming to take the next step. They will extend the confusion and litigation time, until they hope to get a favorable ruling with court that has an alignment with their unconstitutional direction.
Never forget especially in this state that they will not stop until ALL of your firearms are gone.
Government might not single you out personally, but if they want to get you, they will invent a way and increase the fear that you are the next target.
Take the case of the first class master at arms Pat Adamiak. The ATF lied about the case to get a look see with a warrant and didn't find what they were after, but lied to get a 20 year conviction.
Sailor convicted
“I was repeatedly asked by various people if I had machineguns for sale, and my answer never changed: No!” he said. “They attempted over and over again to have me source or put together a machinegun for them, but as a law-abiding citizen, I refused. I even cited NFA rules on several occasions in writing. I wouldn’t even bend a MAC-10 flat for them, which they asked me to do many times.”
Adamiak did agree to broker the purchase of a PPSh-41 barrel shroud for a client. The part does not qualify as a firearm.
“It was literally purchased in open commerce, with a business check, from a confirmed FFL as an unregulated part directly off of Gun Broker,” he said. “Evidently, the ATF must have realized this was the closest thing they could get from me to a firearm, but what they really wanted was to get in my house to see the Mark 19 and the M240 replicas that their CI was boasting about.”
“When applying for their search warrant the ATF told the judge in a criminal complaint that at issue was the PPSh-41 barrel shroud that they said was a machinegun, but that was not even close, legally,” Adamiak said.
Unless, of course, you "registered" a post-7/16 lower with a .22lr upper before 8/1, which Healy's edict explicitly stated was not a copy or duplicate.
Granted, just about all of this is guardhouse lawyer BS.
Last edited:
cstockwell
NES Member
I would daily driver the f*ck out of that!!!
The new guidance conveniently leaves that out along with the guidance that said you could build any pre-2016 lower up after. It’s selectively pulling in the pieces they want. Lower = same = bad.
HARRYM
NES Member
Well, Harris took close to 62% of the vote in Massachusetts.
VTski4x4
NES Member
I'd wager our 38% could easily handle the 62%.
This.
DAs love to over indict. It gives them leverage to trade off charges that they don't want to prosecute anyway and chalking up a conviction without a trial.
In MASS, the prosecution IS the punishment even if you're judged not guilty. Stress, legal fees, possibly loss of employment, etc. The DA has a huge ATM called 'taxpayers' so they don't care how expensive the legal process is.
It's a beautiful system... guilty or not guilty, you are punished and you pay for your own punishment.
Last edited:
Sure, it doesn't count as an exception now, but under the 7/16 edict at the time it would have encountered an EFA-10, it explicitly wasn't a copy. Therefore, before the new law went into effect it was explicitly lawfully owned and thus falls under the 8/1 exception.
Yet another example of the self-contradictory nonsense that was passed.
EDIT: I realized that you thought I meant building a .22LR now, as opposed to building and doing an EFA-10 between 2016 and 8/1/25. I have edited the post in question to reflect that.
Last edited:
2nd Amendment | Bill of Rights : The John Birch Society
Arthur R. Thompson discusses how the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is very misunderstood. The 2nd Amendment states, “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.” Find out some of the...
jbs.org
rep308
NES Member
That is a feature of the law, to feed uncertainty and fear.
Coda
NES Member
Yup, like mags.......... If you have a valid license and someone of authority is asking you to prove when you bought your rifle, you are probably in the process of getting jammed up for a lot more than having a too new rifle.
