Assault Style Firearm Update – March 27, 2025

[Picton]

This new law is so confusing. Is it legal to sell a 80% lower in this state to another Mass resident ?

Certainly, as long as the buyer and seller decide (correctly) that the state can shove its stupid law up its ass.

What two legal and rational adults do when exchanging personal property that was wholly legal when it was purchased and entirely lawful under the Constitution is decreasingly the State's business. JMO.

 

[dcmdon]

Let's say you own a receiver prior to 2016.

It wasn't a firearm perm MA law.

October 2024 it became a firearm because the law changed.

For the purpose of law, can you now said that you owned that FIREARM prior to 2016??

 

[FalArAk]

This thread is funny and sad at the same time.

 

[Rocky Mosasaurus]

My blood pressure and anxiety are both rising by the minute.

 

[linux]

Let's say you own a receiver prior to 2016.

It wasn't a firearm perm MA law.

On 8/1 2024 it became a firearm because the law changed.

For the purpose of law, can you now said that you owned that FIREARM prior to 2016??

The law did not change on 8/1. It changed in October when the emergency preamble was signed

 

[dcmdon]

The law did not change on 8/1. It changed in October when the emergency preamble was signed

Yes. I'll correct that.

 

[MickeyD’s]

Let's say you own a receiver prior to 2016.

It wasn't a firearm perm MA law.

October 2024 it became a firearm because the law changed.

For the purpose of law, can you now said that you owned that FIREARM prior to 2016??

Magic 8 ball says :

Try again later

 

[wcorey]

This new law is so confusing. Is it legal to sell a 80% lower in this state to another Mass resident ?

Did you own it in Ma on 8/1?
If so then my 'interpretation of the (actual written) law' says yes...
Though IANAL nor can guarantee compatibility with the time travel paradox the state would like to apply.

 

[ware]

Where is all this stuff documented?

 

[paul73]

For the purpose of law, can you now said that you owned that FIREARM prior to 2016??

Who controls the past controls the future.
Who controls the present controls the past

all what was considered to be legal before was just claimed to be illegal now, so, who knows.

 

[scott-o]

Lot of noise here. But, at the end of the day, 8/1 is going to be the distinguished date. Following through with anything to the end is much more legally complex than anything because of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and how haphazardly written these laws are/were. It's not even YOU that would have to possess it ON said date, it's that IT must have been lawfully possessed ON that date.

Not to mention there is no official definition of what "Registered" means, plus the whole thing where we don't have a registry, and the fact it's not even accurate or reliable. Further more the ACTUAL previous legal requirement to a private transaction was a WRITTEN letter MAILED to the commissioner, not an electronic entry.

Defense says that IT was lawfully possessed ON said date, they now need to prove it wasn't for the entire 24 hours of that date. Not to mention the various states said item could be configured in at said time, the numerous classes of individuals whom could lawfully and/or unlawfully possess said item on said day. Defense does not have to prove IT was, they need to prove IT wasn't. How much resources they going to blow to prove the impossible?

Much more of slam dunk if a manufacturers records say it was manufactured post 8/1.
Any hood rats using 80% AR pistols for crime will get wacked with it as a new copy or dupe and plea out to a lesser. Business as usual. On the front lines it's generally understood that LTC holders stay within the lines, also that the laws are a pile of shit that are selectively enforced.

 

[MAJoe]

Lot of noise here. But, at the end of the day, 8/1 is going to be the distinguished date. Following through with anything to the end is much more legally complex than anything because of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and how haphazardly written these laws are/were. It's not even YOU that would have to possess it ON said date, it's that IT must have been lawfully possessed ON that date.

Not to mention there is no official definition of what "Registered" means, plus the whole thing where we don't have a registry, and the fact it's not even accurate or reliable. Further more the ACTUAL previous legal requirement to a private transaction was a WRITTEN letter MAILED to the commissioner, not an electronic entry.

Defense says that IT was lawfully possessed ON said date, they now need to prove it wasn't for the entire 24 hours of that date. Not to mention the various states said item could be configured in at said time, the numerous classes of individuals whom could lawfully and/or unlawfully possess said item on said day. Defense does not have to prove IT was, they need to prove IT wasn't. How much resources they going to blow to prove the impossible?

Much more of slam dunk if a manufacturers records say it was manufactured post 8/1.
Any hood rats using 80% AR pistols for crime will get wacked with it as a new copy or dupe and plea out to a lesser. Business as usual. On the front lines it's generally understood that LTC holders stay within the lines, also that the laws are a pile of shit that are selectively enforced.

The edge cases continue to grow the more you dig in. Exempt LEO owned an enumerated weapon, now wants to sell it. Lawfully owned and good to go now for anyone.

 

[chris_1001]

The 5th amendment said I do not have to self incriminate myself if I have/did something “questionable”

Thus I have no obligation to register something that “might” be illegal.

 

[Warm_Garand]

Lot of noise here. But, at the end of the day, 8/1 is going to be the distinguished date. Following through with anything to the end is much more legally complex than anything because of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and how haphazardly written these laws are/were. It's not even YOU that would have to possess it ON said date, it's that IT must have been lawfully possessed ON that date.

Not to mention there is no official definition of what "Registered" means, plus the whole thing where we don't have a registry, and the fact it's not even accurate or reliable. Further more the ACTUAL previous legal requirement to a private transaction was a WRITTEN letter MAILED to the commissioner, not an electronic entry.

Defense says that IT was lawfully possessed ON said date, they now need to prove it wasn't for the entire 24 hours of that date. Not to mention the various states said item could be configured in at said time, the numerous classes of individuals whom could lawfully and/or unlawfully possess said item on said day. Defense does not have to prove IT was, they need to prove IT wasn't. How much resources they going to blow to prove the impossible?

Much more of slam dunk if a manufacturers records say it was manufactured post 8/1.
Any hood rats using 80% AR pistols for crime will get wacked with it as a new copy or dupe and plea out to a lesser. Business as usual. On the front lines it's generally understood that LTC holders stay within the lines, also that the laws are a pile of shit that are selectively enforced.

The MA Firearms Portal disagrees with your assessment.

See option 2 on the Transaction list:

Massachusetts Gun Transaction Portal

REGISTRATION:

• Use this option if 1) you are a Massachusetts resident and you obtained a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun from out of state 2) you recently moved to Massachusetts and you wish to record ownership of a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun or 3) you possess a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun and there is no record of the weapon on file with the Firearms Records Bureau.

 

[Warm_Garand]

The 5th amendment said I do not have to self incriminate myself if I have/did something “questionable”

Thus I have no obligation to register something that “might” be illegal.

You are correct. You don't have to tell Customs that you have a kilo of coke in your luggage. But that 5th Amendment right doesn't protect you from prosecution.

 

[rcwhat]

 

[Darksideblues42]

You are correct. You don't have to tell Customs that you have a kilo of coke in your luggage. But that 5th Amendment right doesn't protect you from prosecution.

Correct, but you can't be prosecuted for not telling them. You can be prosecuted for the prohibited contraband, but not for failing to disclose it.

 

[Warm_Garand]

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.

If you registered your AR build within 1 week of it being "able to fire a shot" you were following MA law 1) in good faith and 2) EXACTLY AS IT WAS WRITTEN.

You have a legal case worth fighting--and hopefully there are people who are ready, willing, and able to fight that in court.

If you said F*ck tha po-leeese--and F*uck the law, well I'd say you are screwed and you have no actual defense.

 

[MAJoe]

The MA Firearms Portal disagrees with your assessment.

See option 2 on the Transaction list:

Massachusetts Gun Transaction Portal

REGISTRATION:

• Use this option if 1) you are a Massachusetts resident and you obtained a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun from out of state 2) you recently moved to Massachusetts and you wish to record ownership of a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun or 3) you possess a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun and there is no record of the weapon on file with the Firearms Records Bureau.

I think his point was “official definition”. There was nothing in the old law that required anyone moving into the state to register a firearm nor ensure the FA10 database has all of your firearms.

We’re splitting hairs at this point and what will matter is the final guidance and what cases we see brought forth.

 

[Picton]

Correct, but you can't be prosecuted for not telling them. You can be prosecuted for the prohibited contraband, but not for failing to disclose it.

More to the point, you are not coming through Customs with your 80% lower. You are presumably storing it in your home, where it is protected from arbitrary search and seizure in a way that @Warm_Garand 's kilo of coke is not.

 

[pastera]

Sporting PAR 16" 223 | TROY Industries

Sporting PAR 16" 223

worldoftroy.com

Would the Troy PUMP ACTION AR be considered in "assault style"? It looks just like the scary school shooter guns.

Yes because the lower is considered a Copy or Duplicate

 

[chris_1001]

If you registered your AR build within 1 week of it being "able to fire a shot" you were following MA law 1) in good faith and 2) EXACTLY AS IT WAS WRITTEN.

And admitting to a possible felony. Enjoy prison, i'm sure you will meet a lot of people that thought they were doing the right thing.

Most people talk themselves INTO jail, not out of it.

 

[Warm_Garand]

More to the point, you are not coming through Customs with your 80% lower. You are presumably storing it in your home, where it is protected from arbitrary search and seizure in a way that @Warm_Garand 's kilo of coke is not.

There is nothing "arbitrary" about the recent State Police investigations into "ghost guns" or the search warrants they execute. The seem to feel that they have "probable cause" based on internet purchases of gun parts and 80% lowers. They then articulate to a VERY sympathetic judge that they have a reasonable suspicion that illegal weapons are being manufactured, and the judge gives them a search warrant.

 

[Reptile]

And admitting to a possible felony. Enjoy prison, i'm sure you will meet a lot of people that thought they were doing the right thing.

Most people talk themselves INTO jail, not out of it.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqo5RYOp4nQ

 

[chris_1001]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqo5RYOp4nQ

Shut the f*** up Friday (Sunday)!!!!

 

[pastera]

Sold, owned and registered before 7/20/2016 is what the law says. So no, in state on 7/19 with the ffl does not meet the language in the new ASF definition.

But that is only to not be a Copy or Duplicate - it can still be an ASF if it has more than two features.
Seems they are completely forgetting the 8/1/2024 date in the law.

 

[Warm_Garand]

And admitting to a possible felony. Enjoy prison, i'm sure you will meet a lot of people that thought they were doing the right thing.

Most people talk themselves INTO jail, not out of it.

And the difference is that I have followed the law as written, and others have not.

I'm going to guess that following the law as written will (after a whole ton of cash gets burned) prove to be an affirmative defense (and actually serve to defend the greater cause of gun rights in MA)--whereas if you intentionally did NOT follow the law as written, well--good luck with that.

And now, for a musical interlude.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABhyKEK-CDg

 

[chris_1001]

And the difference is that I have followed the law as written, and others have not.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqo5RYOp4nQ

Good luck as written is a joke...

I hope when your lawyer comes to talk to you he forgives you for admitting to whatever you did. I HATE to promote @Reptile, but his post is 100000000000000% right. Shut the f*** up.

 

[pastera]

No. The bigger question is why do people keep talking about 2016.

It is simple; is it in the f***ing law, yes or no? ... if you can't point to it in the law, then it isn't.

Someone's interpretation doesn't mean sh*t.

Show me where it appears in the written law. NEW or OLD law.

It absolutely is in the law

e); provided further, that the firearm shall not be considered a copy or duplicate of a firearm identified in clauses (d) and (e) if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016

But this becomes an almost meaningless in light of Section 131M(b) - This is especially true for stripped lowers and 80% since those were not assault weapons and therefore legally possessed

 

[pastera]

Here is "The Law"...

As you probably know, there is a carve-out for previously owned firearms in the definition of "assault-style firearm" in Section 121 of Chapter 140 of the General Laws. However, that provision, located in subsection(f), reads, "the firearm shall not be considered a copy or duplicate of a firearm identified in clauses (d) and (e) if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016” (emphasis added). According to the plain language of the statute, an assault-style firearm must have been registered prior to July 20, 2016 to qualify.

Now do Section 131M(b)
If it was legally possessed on 8/1/2024, it doesn't matter that it is an ASF because it is exempt from the ban in Section 131M(a)

The state can argue that some firearms were not "lawfully possessed" but they cannot argue that items that were not "assault weapons" but are "assault-style firearms" were absolutely legal to possess on 8/1/2024 and therefore clearly exempt.

The 7/20/2016 simply makes something not a copy or duplicate but does not exempt it from being an ASF