Assault Style Firearm Update – March 27, 2025

[pastera]

Looks like the late comers who bought $300 Anderson lowers on 8/1 at The Mill are stuck with useless paperweights.

2016 is now the law of the land folks.

No, read Section 131M(b)
Does the lower meet the definition of an ASF? Yes
Was it illegal to possess on 8/1/2024? No
So it is exempt per the letter of the law.

 

[pastera]

Can they? They technically shouldn’t have those? Right?

Wouldn’t each serial number have to be submitted for a trace check?

Law enforcement would contact the manufacturer, then the gun shop that has the 4473, then the original purchaser, etc. until they get to you.

I don’t know if this is exactly correct……..

Also, when does the statute of limitations start running out on possession of ASF?, 6 years after 2016 press conference?

Or do you have to out yourself first?

Possession is a current status unlike purchase or sale - if you have it, you are at risk.

 

[pastera]

Those people were evidently mistaken.

The expurts on NES interpreted the law for us with wishful thinking about grandfathering.

First Jason Guida said it.

Then GOAL said it.

Now, the AG said it.

Post 2016 and you have a problem.

I’ll believe the last 3 before any NES armchair lawyer expurt.

Again - show the legal construction that invalidates Section 131M(b)
You are taking a section of law that provides a definition and interpreting it as banning the described items - nope, the 7/20/2016 language changes only a definition.

We must look at Section 131M(a) to find the prohibition on possession and subsections (b) & (c) have a clear set of exemptions from (a)'s prohibition.
So anything that falls into the ASF definition but not the AW definition and was possessed in Mass on 8/1/2024 is clearly exempt from prohibition under 131M(a)

 

[Toast]

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.

Well, from a legal defense purpose only, the upper right corner of the eFA-10 generated when you submit for a built-out item would seem to be a means to convince a jury that said item was "registered".

 

[pastera]

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...

Exactly - no stripped or unfinished lower was an AW on 8/1/2024 therefore was lawfully possessed (a stripped lower would need to be held by a dealer or LTC holder)

 

[pastera]

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

Do whatever you want
Or step over the northern border and transact like free men

 

[pastera]

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??

2016 doesn't matter
8/1/2024 matters

 

[scott-o]

Well, from a legal defense purpose only, the upper right corner of the eFA-10 generated when you submit for a built-out item would seem to be a means to convince a jury that said item was "registered".
View attachment 980342

So because the word Registration appears on a pdf generated from a website provided for convience by the state to comply with the then written law which was -- to notify the comissioner in writing by mail. Thats not what the MGL spelt out for some time.

If a person wanted to comply TO THE THEN LETTER OF THE LAW; they should have been sending love letters in instead of eFA-10s; that got later changed to the "real time portal".

Everyone used to send in the hand written FA10s or BOS back when they were rolling out the "e" system knows there were windows of time they accepted everything then slowly it changed until it was eFA-10 only.

I have a letter right here for one circa ~2013/2014 (best part is they sent it to ME; the buyer-when it was the sellers responsibility to record the transfer); they moved the goal posts from everything to only paper FA10 only (including the infamous fillable PDF); to paper FA10/pdf/e-FA10; to just paper FA-10 you can get at any police station and eFA-10, then they officially stopped accepting all paper love letters in March 2015 I believe directing everyone to the portal.

The old PDF that used to be used is still on NES here: https://www.northeastshooters.com/FA10.pdf

 

[MAJoe]

Well, from a legal defense purpose only, the upper right corner of the eFA-10 generated when you submit for a built-out item would seem to be a means to convince a jury that said item was "registered".
View attachment 980342

And keep in mind the state updated the system to prevent registrations of anything with a 0” barrel length. The state prevented registrations of lowers unless they were built, or someone committed perjury.

It was not possible to meet this definition of registration for what the state said was lawful.

 

[Reptile]

It absolutely is in the law

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

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

No, read Section 131M(b)
Does the lower meet the definition of an ASF? Yes
Was it illegal to possess on 8/1/2024? No
So it is exempt per the letter of the law.

Possession is a current status unlike purchase or sale - if you have it, you are at risk.

Again - show the legal construction that invalidates Section 131M(b)
You are taking a section of law that provides a definition and interpreting it as banning the described items - nope, the 7/20/2016 language changes only a definition.

We must look at Section 131M(a) to find the prohibition on possession and subsections (b) & (c) have a clear set of exemptions from (a)'s prohibition.
So anything that falls into the ASF definition but not the AW definition and was possessed in Mass on 8/1/2024 is clearly exempt from prohibition under 131M(a)

Exactly - no stripped or unfinished lower was an AW on 8/1/2024 therefore was lawfully possessed (a stripped lower would need to be held by a dealer or LTC holder)

2016 doesn't matter
8/1/2024 matters

You need to bring this to the attention of @GOALJim

If he can present this to the board perhaps we can get some clarification.

 

[Picton]

You need to bring this to the attention of @GOALJim

If he can present this to the board perhaps we can get some clarification.

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

As for you wanting more "clarification?"

 

[Reptile]

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

As for you wanting more "clarification?"

I want him to present your findings to the commission and have them admit that 8/1 lowers are legal.

Good Luck with that!!!!

 

[Picton]

I want him to present your findings to the commission and have them admit that 8/1 lowers are legal.

Yes. I know you do. That's why I posted that Dr Evil GIF: you don't get it.

You honestly believe the state will go on record and pin themselves down? When they don't have to? Why on earth do you think they'd ever limit themselves on the record like that?

This isn't your first day in MA, as we all know. It's amazing that your expectations are so unrealistic.

 

[Reptile]

Yes. I know you do. That's why I posted that Dr Evil GIF: you don't get it.

You honestly believe the state will go on record and pin themselves down? When they don't have to? Why on earth do you think they'd ever limit themselves on the record like that?

This isn't your first day in MA, as we all know. It's amazing that your expectations are so unrealistic.

If it is so obvious they should have to admit it.

I'm sure Jason Guida would make the case if it was possible.

Your gobbly gook lawyerese makes no sense to him.

 

[pastera]

You need to bring this to the attention of @GOALJim

If he can present this to the board perhaps we can get some clarification.

Jim knows the letter of the law
The board knows the letter of the law

The law was passed with the text as written in order to avoid a very clear taking and Heller/Caetano issue.
Now the board is interpreting the law as they see fit because they know most people will suck a bag of aids infected dicks to be in compliance.
Along with that the fact that SCOTUS is kicking Snope and Ocean State down the road means they can hit us in the chocolate starfish unlubed as often and hard as they please.

This scenario was predicted long ago - it is playing out now and unfortunately I, along with many others, were completely wrong about SCOTUS being pissed over the 4th's overt defiance in Snope.
And now we have NY blatantly ignoring Caetano also.

If SCOTUS doesn't pick up Snope and Ocean State, we will have a very expensive, uphill battle for at least 7-10 years trying to fight this.
The only shorter term possibility is to pull off another miracle in Mass courts using Canjura (which was a miracle)

 

[Picton]

Jim knows the letter of the law
The board knows the letter of the law

The law was passed with the text as written in order to avoid a very clear taking and Heller/Caetano issue.
Now the board is interpreting the law as they see fit because they know most people will suck a bag of aids infected dicks to be in compliance.
Along with that the fact that SCOTUS is kicking Snope and Ocean State down the road means they can hit us in the chocolate starfish unlubed as often and hard as they please.

This scenario was predicted long ago - it is playing out now and unfortunately I, along with many others, were completely wrong about SCOTUS being pissed over the 4th's overt defiance in Snope.
And now we have NY blatantly ignoring Caetano also.

If SCOTUS doesn't pick up Snope and Ocean State, we will have a very expensive, uphill battle for at least 7-10 years trying to fight this.
The only shorter term possibility is to pull off another miracle in Mass courts using Canjura (which was a miracle)

Expressed more clearly and diplomatically than I can, which is impressive considering you use the term "chocolate starfish" in there.

 

[Reptile]

Jim knows the letter of the law
The board knows the letter of the law

The law was passed with the text as written in order to avoid a very clear taking and Heller/Caetano issue.
Now the board is interpreting the law as they see fit because they know most people will suck a bag of aids infected dicks to be in compliance.
Along with that the fact that SCOTUS is kicking Snope and Ocean State down the road means they can hit us in the chocolate starfish unlubed as often and hard as they please.

This scenario was predicted long ago - it is playing out now and unfortunately I, along with many others, were completely wrong about SCOTUS being pissed over the 4th's overt defiance in Snope.
And now we have NY blatantly ignoring Caetano also.

If SCOTUS doesn't pick up Snope and Ocean State, we will have a very expensive, uphill battle for at least 7-10 years trying to fight this.
The only shorter term possibility is to pull off another miracle in Mass courts using Canjura (which was a miracle)

It should be obvious to all of you that I have no idea how this stuff works.

I admit it.

I like to go right to the top.

I'll pick the most expensive expert in a field and take his advice.

That expert is Jason Guida or @nstassel.

They are both working with GOAL.

I will take their advice as a client or do what they publicly say.

They will be glad to take my money if I get jammed up to try to keep me out of jail.

I think you are doing a disservice by arguing that some AR lowers are legal when the people at the top of the government and all the reputable 2a lawyers on down disagree with you.

I think that some people who take you advice on 8/1 lowers are going to get sniped by the government and lose their LTC's.

I doubt the SCOTUS will take up these relevant cases and rule in our favor.

In the mean time the government will just take it's time putting us in jail.

 

[whatluck]

oh my god i just read this thread and had a stroke, then a responding paramedic read the thread and also had a stroke

 

[pastera]

If it is so obvious they should have to admit it.

I'm sure Jason Guida would make the case if it was possible.

Your gobbly gook lawyerese makes no sense to him.

So are you saying I'm wrong in my assessment of 131M(b)?

I dropped the relevant text in the quotes below for your assessment

Or am I misreading your "if it is so obvious" statement.

A frame or receiver, stripped or unfinished, was not a firearm before Chapt 135 therefore could not be considered a banned assault weapon.
In order for 131M(b) to have any meaning, the definition of ASF must be retroactively applied since the bill had no effect on that particular day. So any item that would be considered an ASF on 2 Oct 2024 with the signing of the emergency preamble but was not banned by the then current law on 8/1/2024 was and is completely exempt from 131M(a)'s prohibition on possession.

1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 122; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C

143 “Assault-style firearm”, any firearm which is:
(a) a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features:

(i) a folding or telescopic stock;​

(ii) a thumbhole stock or pistol grip;​

(iii) a forward grip or second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;​

(iv) a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or similar feature; or (v) a shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.​

(b) a semiautomatic pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features:

(i) the capacity to accept a feeding device that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;​

(ii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;​

(iii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer; or​

(iv) a shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.​

(c) a semiautomatic shotgun that includes at least 2 of the following features:

(i) a folding or telescopic stock;​

(ii) a thumbhole stock or pistol grip;​

(iii) a protruding grip for the non-trigger hand; or​

(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device.​

(d) Any firearm listed on the assault-style firearm roster pursuant to section 128A.

(e) Any of the following firearms, or copies or duplicates of these firearms, of any caliber, identified as:

(i) Avtomat Kalashnikov, or AK, all models;​

(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;​

(iii) Beretta AR70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC;​

(v) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12;​

(vi) Steyr AUG;​

(vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and​

(viii) revolving cylinder shotguns including, but not limited to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;​

(f) a copy or duplicate of any firearm meeting the standards of or enumerated in clauses (d) and (e); provided, that for the purposes of this subsection, “copy or duplicate” shall mean a firearm:

(A) that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a detachable magazine; and​

(B)(i) that has internal functional components that are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an enumerated firearm in clauses (d) and (e); or​

(ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an enumerated firearm in said clauses (d) and (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​

230 “Firearm”, a stun gun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, sawed-off shotgun, large capacity firearm, assault-style firearm and machine gun, loaded or unloaded, which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a shot or bullet; the frame or receiver of any such firearm or the unfinished frame or receiver of any such firearm; provided, however, that “firearm” shall not include any antique firearm or permanently inoperable firearm.

 

[Reptile]

So are you saying I'm wrong in my assessment of 131M(b)?

I dropped the relevant text in the quotes below for your assessment

Or am I misreading your "if it is so obvious" statement.

A frame or receiver, stripped or unfinished, was not a firearm before Chapt 135 therefore could not be considered a banned assault weapon.
In order for 131M(b) to have any meaning, the definition of ASF must be retroactively applied since the bill had no effect on that particular day. So any item that would be considered an ASF on 2 Oct 2024 with the signing of the emergency preamble but was not banned by the then current law on 8/1/2024 was and is completely exempt from 131M(a)'s prohibition on possession.

That sounds wonderful.

However the government does what it wants.

IF I had 8/1 lowers they can take them and send me to jail for years while it gets worked out.

The government of Massachusetts could care less about the written law.

They do what they want and send people to jail.

 

[pastera]

Expressed more clearly and diplomatically than I can, which is impressive considering you use the term "chocolate starfish" in there.

I present the full and proper listing of alternates here - Slang for anus (Related Terms) - Urban Thesaurus
It is quite an exhaustive list but I will draw your attention to both "chocolate pocket" and "leather cheerio" as illustrative examples of choice alternatives

 

[VitalDude]

The only thing about stripped lowers and 2016 was that Maura declared them copies and duplicates despite not even fitting the definition of a firearm. This was pointed out by everyone who knows the law. It's either our AG at the time didn't know what the law says, or knows full well that no AWB charge would stick on someone in possession of a stripped lower, but the "interpretation" and threat of legal peril would be enough to do her bidding.

Believe the term is called "lawfare".

 

[pastera]

It should be obvious to all of you that I have no idea how this stuff works.

I admit it.

I like to go right to the top.

I'll pick the most expensive expert in a field and take his advice.

That expert is Jason Guida or @nstassel.

They are both working with GOAL.

I will take their advice as a client or do what they publicly say.

They will be glad to take my money if I get jammed up to try to keep me out of jail.

I think you are doing a disservice by arguing that some AR lowers are legal when the people at the top of the government and all the reputable 2a lawyers on down disagree with you.

I think that some people who take you advice on 8/1 lowers are going to get sniped by the government and lose their LTC's.

I doubt the SCOTUS will take up these relevant cases and rule in our favor.

In the mean time the government will just take it's time putting us in jail.

They will definitely take your money - I suggest dropping few $k on @nstassel and get his actual legal opinion.
It will likely be - Don't FA because you can't afford to FO.
What the law actually says is reserved for those with many more digits in their account balances than us mere mortals.

 

[Reptile]

They will definitely take your money - I suggest dropping few $k on @nstassel and get his actual legal opinion.
It will likely be - Don't FA because you can't afford to FO.
What the law actually says is reserved for those with many more digits in their account balances than us mere mortals.

That was the best advice in this whole thread.

I would donate to a defense fund for a good test case for somebody who wants to FA.

Look at how Toby put himself out there with his petition.

Maybe somebody wants to be a martyr for Massachusetts gun owners.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

Expressed more clearly and diplomatically than I can, which is impressive considering you use the term "chocolate starfish" in there.

See, legal term of art.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

The state is taking the position that Healey guidance was law. All post 2016 ARs are illegal. You cannot modify your legal, grandfathered AR.

None of their positions are consistent with the actual written law and they don't care.

And they think registration existed prior to the current law (and still doesnt until they implement a EFRS). All just proving they don't know or care what the law was. They don't know or care what the law they just passed actually says.

Well, it seems that with time the State and I have finally begun to coalesce around an opinion.

 

[paul73]

I present the full and proper listing of alternates here - Slang for anus (Related Terms) - Urban Thesaurus
It is quite an exhaustive list but I will draw your attention to both "chocolate pocket" and "leather cheerio" as illustrative examples of choice alternatives

SCOTUS so far never indicated a desire to insert itself into any 2a fights, and neither did trump admin.

It is a really a very wishful thinking to still believe any of them are that much interested to support armed civilians, as a concept.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

oh my god i just read this thread and had a stroke, then a responding paramedic read the thread and also had a stroke

At least the coppers didn’t respond and take your gunz.

 

[Yotacrawler]

I would daily driver the f*ck out of that!!!

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ngtALzDAIcU

 

[MAJoe]

They will definitely take your money - I suggest dropping few $k on @nstassel and get his actual legal opinion.
It will likely be - Don't FA because you can't afford to FO.
What the law actually says is reserved for those with many more digits in their account balances than us mere mortals.

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.