• 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.

Bill H.4139

J

Jdc4444

NES Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2023
Messages
12
Likes
28
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Section 128B. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device. 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 124 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 125; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 122 and serialized in accordance with section 122A.

Bill H.4139

malegislature.gov malegislature.gov
 
Jdc4444 said:
Section 128B. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device. 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 124 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 125; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 122 and serialized in accordance with section 122A.

Bill H.4139

malegislature.gov malegislature.gov
Click to expand...
What's the question?
 
Jdc4444 said:
Section 128B. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device. 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 124 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 125; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 122 and serialized in accordance with section 122A.

Bill H.4139

malegislature.gov malegislature.gov
Click to expand...
Before you go thinking that language means anything you have to read further
The senate and house versions codify the AG's notice into the bills therefore it isn't possible to "lawfully" possess an assault style firearm - the caveat in the notice was that while the state openly admitted that possession of the items was unlawful they would use their discretion and choose not to prosecute at THAT time.

So, you likely won't get to have a post-ban preban since you can't lawfully possess the item now in order to comply with the exemption in the house bill. The senate bill is even more screwed up.
 
pastera said:
So, you likely won't get to have a post-ban preban since you can't lawfully possess the item now in order to comply with the exemption in the house bill. The senate bill is even more screwed up.
Click to expand...

At this point in time all I want is one thing. The ability to move any "banned" firearms, assuming I have any, out of state without the threat of prosecution because maybe I had them in the state previously. This would include anything post 7/20/2016.
 
oh my god omg GIF by Hell's Kitchen


There you go. Grandfathering again!!!! Oh GOD
 
Amputee Marksman said:
At this point in time all I want is one thing. The ability to move any "banned" firearms, assuming I have any, out of state without the threat of prosecution because maybe I had them in the state previously. This would include anything post 7/20/2016.
Click to expand...
If you moved newly banned assets out of Mass in a reasonable time period after enactment then the state would have a hard time prosecuting
In truth they would need to prove that you knowingly possessed them in Mass post enactment so if you just drive them out of state without getting searched on the way there would be little chance of prosecution let alone conviction.
 
pastera said:
If you moved newly banned assets out of Mass in a reasonable time period after enactment then the state would have a hard time prosecuting
In truth they would need to prove that you knowingly possessed them in Mass post enactment so if you just drive them out of state without getting searched on the way there would be little chance of prosecution let alone conviction.
Click to expand...

The one scenario that could be problematic is post 7/20/2016 purchased lower that was built out following the evil feature count and then eFA-10. In other words, post 7/20/16 built lowers in the system. I downloaded the personal transfer records from the state and ran a few queries and roughly determined the count was around 4750 "registered" post 7/20/2016. I did not look at transfers. That is only 5.56 and I didn't look any that were 223. If you run the same queries on the dealer transfer data you will find about 12k "sold" however there is not enough data to tell how many were pre 94 and pre 2016 etc.

Of course this is only my rough data. The data I downloaded was incomplete, a few missing date ranges, and of course it had other errors. My queries were also rough and I did not take the time to refine them. I was just looking for some rough numbers.
 
Amputee Marksman said:
The one scenario that could be problematic is post 7/20/2016 purchased lower that was built out following the evil feature count and then eFA-10. In other words, post 7/20/16 built lowers in the system. I downloaded the personal transfer records from the state and ran a few queries and roughly determined the count was around 4750 "registered" post 7/20/2016. I did not look at transfers. That is only 5.56 and I didn't look any that were 223. If you run the same queries on the dealer transfer data you will find about 12k "sold" however there is not enough data to tell how many were pre 94 and pre 2016 etc.

Of course this is only my rough data. The data I downloaded was incomplete, a few missing date ranges, and of course it had other errors. My queries were also rough and I did not take the time to refine them. I was just looking for some rough numbers.
Click to expand...
All of that data is evidence that the firearms are in common use and the lack of crime data for AWs shows those uses are for lawful purpose.
So the framework is there for a Heller/Bruen analysis smack down but we need a fast track to get it to SCOTUS - which would be lack of grandfathering resulting in an otherwise lawful person being charged giving us an clear pathway to an injunction request
 
So this is all predicated on the case where your forearms are listed in the transaction DB and the owner is known? I know people who have them that moved from out of state so how would the state know anything?
 
Amputee Marksman said:
The one scenario that could be problematic is post 7/20/2016 purchased lower that was built out following the evil feature count and then eFA-10. In other words, post 7/20/16 built lowers in the system. I downloaded the personal transfer records from the state and ran a few queries and roughly determined the count was around 4750 "registered" post 7/20/2016. I did not look at transfers. That is only 5.56 and I didn't look any that were 223. If you run the same queries on the dealer transfer data you will find about 12k "sold" however there is not enough data to tell how many were pre 94 and pre 2016 etc.

Of course this is only my rough data. The data I downloaded was incomplete, a few missing date ranges, and of course it had other errors. My queries were also rough and I did not take the time to refine them. I was just looking for some rough numbers.
Click to expand...
I figured there would be way more, I wonder how many are not in the system
 
@ OP, or
Jdc4444 said:
Section 128B. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device. 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 124 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 125; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 122 and serialized in accordance with section 122A.

Bill H.4139

malegislature.gov malegislature.gov
Click to expand...
It helps to put the working bill title in the thread title as NES may have, may be, should be covering the subject in another or numerous other threads.

.gov's title. you may have heard it before.

An Act modernizing firearm laws​

 
pastera said:
I just f'ng answered this on the post above yours

Maybe yes, maybe no
But given the current language of the bills the exclusion might not be worth the electrons used to display it
Click to expand...

I was f***ing making fun of the people in the other thread. Some people got it, some didn’t. I’m not a MA cuckold and therefore not subject to MA law and do not care if there is grandfathering. Frankly, I hope there isn’t. For many reasons. I understand why you didn’t get the sarcasm though. I did try to make it somewhat noticeable with the extra punctuation.
 
If you have a lower is the thought that you can still build up if this passes? I’m new to this and wondering if buying a lower is a wise decision
 
dukeofsoul said:
If you have a lower is the thought that you can still build up if this passes? I’m new to this and wondering if buying a lower is a wise decision
Click to expand...
depends on what language actually makes it through the process
If you want one but are concerned with having to dump it just get a cheap one.

Our best long term option is that they go full Mom's Demand and just smash everything post 1994 - will suck for a few years but would pretty much ensure a SCOTUS cert where we will win bigly if the court's makeup doesn't change in the next few years.
 
dukeofsoul said:
If you have a lower is the thought that you can still build up if this passes? I’m new to this and wondering if buying a lower is a wise decision
Click to expand...
If you can find an inexpensive lower I would grab it, worse case is you need to get rid of it at a minimal loss.

Just don't buy the NES chainsaw lower, then you might be out $3000. ;)
 

Similar threads

Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Nebraska lawmakers pass bill that would allow smaller school districts to arm staff members
Replies
0
Views
48
Reptile
Reptile
TN Senate Passes Bill Allowing Armed Teachers After Covenant School Shooter Struck School with Least Security
Replies
1
Views
61
MaverickNH
MaverickNH
Florida House Passes Bill to Lower Legal Gun Purchase Age to 18
Replies
0
Views
89
Reptile
Reptile
California Dems Push Bill Requiring Guns to Be Registered Annually, with a Fee
Replies
7
Views
301
bigbravehog
bigbravehog
Back
Top Bottom