Healey Suspends Enforcement of Long Gun Roster

[KAG Arms]

What a clusterf*** this all is...

Astute observation. Wouldn’t have noticed if you hadn’t pointed it out.

 

[chris_1001]

Astute observation. Wouldn’t have noticed if you hadn’t pointed it out.

I deleted the rest of what I wrote (was specifically towards and entity)... I was venting... and left that...

I'm Captain Obvious today!

 

[KAG Arms]

I deleted the rest of what I wrote (was specifically towards and entity)... I was venting... and left that...

I'm Captain Obvious today!

I appreciate the clarification. @Coyote33 had already commented today so was unsure why you were trying to fill in for him.

 

[Dadstoys]

Yeah, but she saved the Beaver.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Register... They want me to register firearms they already know about.... Only in MA.... Only in MA.....

 

[HorizontalHunter]

@GOAL
@GOALJim

Can you post a link to the REGISTRATION portal?

How can you tell people it is immediate and not provide a link?

I am asking because I know a registration portal doesn't exists.

You left out illegal under federal law.

18 U.S. Code § 926 - Rules and regulations​

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

Hat tip to @Coyote33 and @pastera .

 

[Beretta92FS]

You left out illegal under federal law.

18 U.S. Code § 926 - Rules and regulations​

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

Hat tip to @Coyote33 and @pastera .

The illegal registration requirement should be the topic of the first lawsuit filed against this mess.

 

[pastera]

The illegal registration requirement should be the topic of the first lawsuit filed against this mess.

Ah, no.
Let's go after the ASF and roster BS that's hitting us now.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

The illegal registration requirement should be the topic of the first lawsuit filed against this mess.

I originally felt that way as well but @pastera is right. We still got a couple of years on this. The other issues he posted are more pressing.

 

[milktree]

There is no law that requires anyone to use the FA10 system at all, because the FA10 system and any recording of transactions does not exist in current law at all.

Why would dealers be different?

This is still in the law

407 (b) All firearm transactions within the commonwealth, including, but not limited to, all purchases, sales, rentals, leases, loans or other transfers shall be reported to the electronic firearms registration system. All firearm transactions shall be reported by all parties to the transaction via the electronic firearms registration system within 7 days of the sale, rental, lease, loan or other transfer; provided, however, that no report shall be required for a loan of a firearm to a duly licensed or exempted person for a period of less than 7 days.

Therefore if the state is still requiring reporting transactions to the portal then it shows that the state is considering the portal the precursor to the new registration system.

You're using "still" in a funny way. That was not the law before, that's the new law.

And how do you square that with SECTION 157 of H.4885?

SECTION 157. The department of criminal justice information services shall establish the electronic firearms registration system established pursuant to section 121B of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as inserted by section 32, not later than 1 year after the effective date of this act; provided, that all firearms shall be registered in accordance with this act and not later than 1 year after said electronic firearms registration system is completed and publicly available.

 

[sieveboy]

This just came out from GOAL:


View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DAtjTTrtPD0/

WTF are they putting this shit out?

 

[JoseyWales]

You left out illegal under federal law.

18 U.S. Code § 926 - Rules and regulations​

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

Hat tip to @Coyote33 and @pastera .

Edit: just read a State can't either

I agree. Don't shoot the messenger. But I think that only applies on the Federal level not State? The feds can't force registration but the MA state can?

 

[pastera]

You're using "still" in a funny way. That was not the law before, that's the new law.

And how do you square that with SECTION 157 of H.4885?

I was referring to the fact that "transactions" are still required to be reported - specifically sales.
You stated:

There is no law that requires anyone to use the FA10 system at all, because the FA10 system and any recording of transactions does not exist in current law at all.

And I was merely showing that the current law still requires the reporting of "transactions"
It may not call it an FA-10 but it is a required system of firearms transaction reporting.

 

[pastera]

WTF are they putting this shit out?

So that Bubba FUD might possibly get a fire lit under his fat ass.

 

[center442]

Edit: just read a State can't either

I agree. Don't shoot the messenger. But I think that only applies on the Federal level not State? The feds can't force registration but the MA state can?

I was not aware of that regulation. My first thought was that was why Mass claimed they didn't have registration, just a record of transactions. But the quoted law specifically refers to transactions.

The quoted regulation specifically mentions states, yet we had transactions recorded under the old rules and under the new rules we'll have actual registration.

I must be missing something or I'm misunderstanding something .

 

[pastera]

Edit: just read a State can't either

I agree. Don't shoot the messenger. But I think that only applies on the Federal level not State? The feds can't force registration but the MA state can?

I don't believe its applicability to the states has been questioned since McDonald - given the language of the bill it is very likely to be found to prohibit a state registry.
On top of that, the requirement of registration as part of possession has no basis in the text or historical tradition either so a constitutional challenge would likely prevail.

A dealer transfer database - maybe since SCOTUS did tacitly okay restrictions on the commercial sale of arms.

 

[drgrant]

So that Bubba FUD might possibly get a fire lit under his fat ass.

Pulling a Gladys Kravitz likely not that effective tho. I guess they're trying to milk the momentum.

 

[Coyote33]

I was not aware of that regulation. My first thought was that was why Mass claimed they didn't have registration, just a record of transactions. But the quoted law specifically refers to transactions.

The quoted regulation specifically mentions states, yet we had transactions recorded under the old rules and under the new rules we'll have actual registration.

I must be missing something or I'm misunderstanding something .

"What you tolerate, you validate. What you put up with, you DESERVE!"
~ Scrivener

 

[bigred460]

I was referring to the fact that "transactions" are still required to be reported - specifically sales.
You stated:

And I was merely showing that the current law still requires the reporting of "transactions"
It may not call it an FA-10 but it is a required system of firearms transaction reporting.

if someone purchases a lower tomorrow it can not be accurately entered into the portal.

 

[pastera]

I was not aware of that regulation. My first thought was that was why Mass claimed they didn't have registration, just a record of transactions. But the quoted law specifically refers to transactions.

The quoted regulation specifically mentions states, yet we had transactions recorded under the old rules and under the new rules we'll have actual registration.

I must be missing something or I'm misunderstanding something .

Outside forces wrote the the original bill and half a dozen people without a clue on guns pieced together the final result to make both the senate and house happy.
None of them had a clue about federal gun laws nor did they care since they were well aware of how many parts of the bill were doomed to fail under Bruen. And that was before the SJC put out Canjura making it even harder for them to skirt Bruen.

 

[Mesatchornug]

"What you tolerate, you validate. What you put up with, you DESERVE!"
~ Scrivener

If only he (or anyone else) had attempted an attack on that vector.

 

[pastera]

if someone purchases a lower tomorrow it can not be accurately entered into the portal.

frames and receivers never could
I never said the portal as it sits is the new registration system - I stated that the portal, or at least its data, would not go away and would morph into or be absorbed into the new registration system.

 

[Brian8146]

Ah, no.
Let's go after the ASF and roster BS that's hitting us now.

I believe that we should focus on the roster BS. If SCOTUS accepts the Snope Vs. Brown case and the AWB should be done

 

[bigred460]

frames and receivers never could
I never said the portal as it sits is the new registration system - I stated that the portal, or at least its data, would not go away and would morph into or be absorbed into the new registration system.

I was just being a smartazz.

 

[pastera]

I believe that we should focus on the roster BS. If SCOTUS accepts the Snope Vs. Brown case and the AWB should be done

Concur.
However read Canjura - We have a good chance at a preliminary injunction at the state level using that case which would place the ASF stuff in limbo while SCOTUS hears SNOPE.

 

[KH56010]

there is no PRE 8/1. There is ON 8/1. PRE 8/1 means nothing. It needed to be lawfully possessed ON 8/1 in the commonwealth by a MA dealer or LTC holder. Then it is not an unlawful ASF.

Given that the EOPSS has said ALL rifles and shotguns not otherwise prohibited AND a rifle/shotgun lawfully possessed on 8/1 is not otherwise prohibited, the reasonable conclusion is that all such activities relative to such grandfathered rifles and shotguns are legal. Dealers can take in, consign, sell, transfer, etc.

Whether this was the intention or not, that is the logical conclusion of what was said.

What is more entertaining here is that anything in a MA Dealers inventory ON 8/1 is lawfully possessed as on 8/1 all dealers are exempt from the AWB and magazine capacity restriction. This is all totally independent of whether you are one of the statist cucks that believes 7/20/16 is a relevant date or not. So even someone that believes in 7/20/16 as meaningful cannot argue against a dealer selling a 8/1 rifle possessed by the dealer on 10/3 or after as long as the current EOPSS guidance exists.

Can you pin this stock and sell it...

 

[Ant589]

WTF are they putting this shit out?

Sucks I just lost all mine in a boating accident. Shucks

 

[center442]

Outside forces wrote the the original bill and half a dozen people without a clue on guns pieced together the final result to make both the senate and house happy.
None of them had a clue about federal gun laws nor did they care since they were well aware of how many parts of the bill were doomed to fail under Bruen. And that was before the SJC put out Canjura making it even harder for them to skirt Bruen.

I totally agree with your comments. The bill is a complete pile of crap, and a bunch of 4th graders could have done a better job.

My confusion predates the new law. Federal statute appears to outlaw registration of firearms or transactions in a database at both the Federal and state level, yet for years we've had a transaction database at the state level.

No one caught this? Are there other states with similar databases?

Or maybe I'm reading the Federal statute incorrectly. It wouldn't be the first time.

 

[drgrant]

Can you pin this stock and sell it...

Lol reminds me of the California single shot exemption. Buy pile of crap with deposit, return unnecessary crap after transfer, get $200 deposit back.

 

[Agnotology]

Not when you work third shift..

I mean for f***s sake I went to a job interview. They asked me if I wanted to open a tab. The answer was no.


I did spend the last $30 on booze and chicken tenders

I feel the third shift bit.