Healey Suspends Enforcement of Long Gun Roster

pastera said:
Not necessarily since it is a true preban and C&R holders are allowed to transfer in C&R arms not in the state pre 98
I haven't pulled the string on C&R so I would have to study the text but I believe you could bring in a 60's AR without issue
Click to expand...

The C&R is a bargain at $30 for 3 years.
 
milktree said:
Stop saying this. (bolded part) It's not true. The training requirements "change" was just a fix of a typo.

There's plenty of crappy malice in the bill to criticize and plenty of bullshit shenanigans on their part. Don't misrepresent things, it makes us look hysterical.
Click to expand...
Concur - we both have made this entirely clear as soon as GOAL f***ed up their interpretation.
 
milktree said:
Isn't that the same as, "follow the EOPSS guidance"? (i.e.: "do what we're told")

Or do you mean EVERYTHING, including off roster handguns and ASWs?




It depends? If a dealer sells off-roster handguns, the state will come down on them. That's how TiteGroup Sporting got nailed.

Selling ASFs would also be pretty risky.

The state could stomp on anyone selling those without touching the absurd rifle/shotgun problem.
Click to expand...
I say a shop should do the sale to a dual resident but not physically transfer here in Mass. Ship the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser's home state.
Completely legal transaction but looks as if banned by current law if one doesn't know the ASF was shipped to a legal state.

Standing without risk of prison
 
milktree said:
It doesn't exist. That's the problem.

The way the law is written, everything must be on the "approved firearms roster".

So, one of the following has to happen to fix this:

  • EVERY SINGLE RIFLE AND SHOTGUN must be added to the "approved firearms roster"
  • A new roster of rifles and shotguns must be created, and specifically referenced in MGL (this would require a new bill that the legislature would have to vote on and pass)
  • MGL would have to be changed so the requirements in §123(o) would only apply to handguns (and the "firearms roster" would have to get renamed as "handgun roster") This would also take an act of the legislature.
Click to expand...
So in the meantime, let's just continue on the way it was.
 
milktree said:
Stop saying this. (bolded part) It's not true. The training requirements "change" was just a fix of a typo.

There's plenty of crappy malice in the bill to criticize and plenty of bullshit shenanigans on their part. Don't misrepresent things, it makes us look hysterical.
Click to expand...
Agreed, my bad, however it's still an example of the tangled mess that this bill is, the lack of review and thought, and poor planning. So ALL these people read the bill before they passed it, including the drafters, and their teams, and this wasn't noticed until well after the signature was placed on it...
 
Night_solstice said:
Agreed, my bad, however it's still an example of the tangled mess that this bill is, the lack of review and thought, and poor planning. So ALL these people read the bill before they passed it, including the drafters, and their teams, and this wasn't noticed until well after the signature was placed on it...
Click to expand...
They were well aware of the issue - many of us let them know what the bill contained.
And they knew what they were doing and intended to do it.

What they didn't anticipate is the SJC giving them the telephone pole treatment with Canjura right after passing this monstrosity.

If you haven't read Canjura then go read it.
 
pastera said:
At the time of the country's founding Harvard and Yale were honorable institutions and alum would, and did, believe that self governance under God's divine instruction was the correct method.
Click to expand...
And Harvard is second only to the US Military Academy in terms of number of MoH honorees. When you look at things in a decades or centuries time scale, it’s astonishing how far the institutions that once were shining examples of duty and honor have fallen.
 
milktree said:
Or do you mean EVERYTHING, including off roster handguns and ASWs?
Click to expand...
im better star trek GIF

milktree said:
t depends? If a dealer sells off-roster handguns, the state will come down on them. That's how TiteGroup Sporting got nailed.
Click to expand...
This is why I say it would have to be everyone. If a couple shops did it, it would be easy for the state to just hit them.

If everyone from 4S to Ma**h*** was in on it, they'd have a harder choice

pastera said:
Nonenforcement in the current timeline keeps it out of the consciousness of those that would fight it now but if the state slowly picks certain unpopular dealers to hit over time then it become the status quo.
Click to expand...
That gets to the heart of capricious. If CGW and 4S are doing it too, hitting somebody small at the mill would be a harder hill to climb.
 
Rockrivr1 said:
So no training program developed yet for new applicants to follow the laws requirements
So no registration system developed yet to follow the laws requirements
So no Roster of long guns that would have stopped all MA sales in order to follow the laws requirements
So directive given by Gov't to bypass the following of the laws requirements

To me this sounds our Gov't will have a hard time explaining why the Preamble was needed seeing nothing required by the new law is developed or on the books yet. Gov't at it's finest. Even a moron judge would have to see this is sideways already.
Click to expand...
Heres's hoping when it gets to U.S. Court in Boston, we get this guy.....

en.wikipedia.org

F. Dennis Saylor IV - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Mesatchornug said:
im better star trek GIF


This is why I say it would have to be everyone. If a couple shops did it, it would be easy for the state to just hit them.

If everyone from 4S to Ma**h*** was in on it, they'd have a harder choice


That gets to the heart of capricious. If CGW and 4S are doing it too, hitting somebody small at the mill would be a harder hill to climb.
Click to expand...

Canjura said:
To determine whether a weapon is in "common use" today, most courts have chosen among three statistical approaches: (1) raw numerical commonality, examining "the total number of a particular weapon"; (2) proportionate commonality, examining the proportion of a broader class of weapons that are the specific weapon in question, such as the percentage of firearms that are assault rifles; and (3) jurisdictional commonality, examining the number of States that allow the possession or carrying of the subject weapon.
Click to expand...
Dealers should look at the commonality test and freely sell those that meet all three approaches

And for those that think (2) allows banning AR style rifles look at the exact language used "assault rifles" - The SJC is saying that machine guns may be considered uncommon not that "assault-style" firearms can be banned.
 

Attachments

pastera said:
I say a shop should do the sale to a dual resident but not physically transfer here in Mass. Ship the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser's home state.
Completely legal transaction but looks as if banned by current law if one doesn't know the ASF was shipped to a legal state.

Standing without risk of prison
Click to expand...

This behavior wouldn't show up on their radar though. Who would even notice?
There wouldn't be anything to indicate who the buyer was because it would show up in all the records as "a shop out of state"
 
zork51 said:
Mr. Crackpot, does this mean there is now a rifle "roster" that still excludes ALL semi auto rifles and shotguns? HTF could they possible figure that out? They know nothing of firearms.
Click to expand...
There is now a roster that includes rifles and shotguns. Per the Executive Secretary of EOPSS it now includes ALL rifles and shotguns not otherwise prohibited in MA until such a time as they provide new guidance.
 
pastera said:
Dealers should look at the commonality test and freely sell those that meet all three approaches

And for those that think (2) allows banning AR style rifles look at the exact language used "assault rifles" - The SJC is saying that machine guns may be considered uncommon not that "assault-style" firearms can be banned.
Click to expand...

It'll be intersting and may need to play out. US District Court in Kansas ruling re: possession.


View: https://youtu.be/dAY3jAmgGcM?si=XGVc6LYCZ_xrtxup
 
CrackPot said:
There is now a roster that includes rifles and shotguns. Per the Executive Secretary of EOPSS it now includes ALL rifles and shotguns not otherwise prohibited in MA until such a time as they provide new guidance.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the new roster that includes all rifles and shotguns?

I was not able to find anything like that. (a few hours ago)
 
milktree said:
Can you point me to the new roster that includes all rifles and shotguns?

I was not able to find anything like that. (a few hours ago)
Click to expand...
The law permits EOPSS at their discretion to add/remove stuff from the roster. It takes effect when they publish the fact that stuff was added/removed. The notification that sales of existing long guns are permitted if not otherwise prohibited was issued by the executive secretary of EOPSS. This is the person delegated to by the legislature to do this. AND its published on the state website.


So given that this is from the person delegated to arbitrarily add and remove from the list AND its published on the state website, it appears to meet the statutory requirements set forth in 131 3/4. That is the legal theory on why this memo is binding.

Follow at your own risk.
 
Obviously, nothing is clear yet about the current status for rifles and shotguns. And individual dealers, and their lawyers, will have to make their decisions about what they want to do. But I am still interested in people's thoughts on a few specific questions.

Do we think that the current EOPSS statement means that dealers who still have any pre-8/1 assault style firearms (ASF) in stock can continue to sell them? They would appear to be rifles that are not otherwise prohibited in MA. Admittedly, there will be few such firearms in stock, but some dealer might have a few items that did not get sold before the preamble.

In a more realistic question, can a dealer buy legal pre-8/1 ASFs for resale, or take them in on consignment? This seems like a much more realistic question, since there are probably owners who would like to consign guns for sale at current prices.

Can a dealer do an FFL transfer of a legal ASF for people who have arranged a deal, but would prefer to have a dealer do the transfer to avoid using one of the sellers four yearly private transfers?

Or most broadly, do pre-8/1 ASFs count as "firearms not otherwise prohibited?" Or have I missed some important detail?
 
straightshooterjake said:
Obviously, nothing is clear yet about the current status for rifles and shotguns. And individual dealers, and their lawyers, will have to make their decisions about what they want to do. But I am still interested in people's thoughts on a few specific questions.

Do we think that the current EOPSS statement means that dealers who still have any pre-8/1 assault style firearms (ASF) in stock can continue to sell them? They would appear to be rifles that are not otherwise prohibited in MA. Admittedly, there will be few such firearms in stock, but some dealer might have a few items that did not get sold before the preamble.

In a more realistic question, can a dealer buy legal pre-8/1 ASFs for resale, or take them in on consignment? This seems like a much more realistic question, since there are probably owners who would like to consign guns for sale at current prices.

Can a dealer do an FFL transfer of a legal ASF for people who have arranged a deal, but would prefer to have a dealer do the transfer to avoid using one of the sellers four yearly private transfers?

Or most broadly, do pre-8/1 ASFs count as "firearms not otherwise prohibited?" Or have I missed some important detail?
Click to expand...
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.
 
straightshooterjake said:
Do we think that the current EOPSS statement means that dealers who still have any pre-8/1 assault style firearms (ASF) in stock can continue to sell them? They would appear to be rifles that are not otherwise prohibited in MA. Admittedly, there will be few such firearms in stock, but some dealer might have a few items that did not get sold before the preamble.
Click to expand...

Yes. mostly. Not "pre-8/1", but "possessed in MA on 8/1" They're not prohibited for possession, therefore "not otherwise prohibited"

straightshooterjake said:
In a more realistic question, can a dealer buy legal pre-8/1 ASFs for resale, or take them in on consignment? This seems like a much more realistic question, since there are probably owners who would like to consign guns for sale at current prices.
Click to expand...

it has to have been IN MASS. and POSSESSED BY A LTC HOLDER OR DEALER, not "before", but ON 8/1. So, importing stuff that wasn't in state on that date is a no-no.

But consignment, or purchases of ASFs that were in state on 8/1 is fine.

straightshooterjake said:
Can a dealer do an FFL transfer of a legal ASF for people who have arranged a deal, but would prefer to have a dealer do the transfer to avoid using one of the sellers four yearly private transfers?
Click to expand...

Yes.

straightshooterjake said:
Or most broadly, do pre-8/1 ASFs count as "firearms not otherwise prohibited?" Or have I missed some important detail?
Click to expand...

It's not "pre 8/1". Stop saying that. It has to have been in the state ON on that date. But other than that, yes.

The difference is small, but might matter if someone had an ASF before 8/1, but sold it out of state. That gun cannot be possessed in Mass. because it was not here ON 8/1.
 
daveshrews said:
I’m really confused… are all the pre-94 pre-ban mags I lost in that boating accident a few years ago illegal to possess / carry now?
Click to expand...

They're legal to possess, unless:

- pre-94 ban
- at your house
- at a friend's house with explicit permission
- at a licensed gun range

Anywhere else it must be unloaded and in a locked container, and you have to be traveling between those places.

So, no more carry of 11+ magazines.
 
CrackPot said:
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.
Click to expand...

So that extra killy MCX is now also extra legal?
 
CrackPot said:
The law permits EOPSS at their discretion to add/remove stuff from the roster. It takes effect when they publish the fact that stuff was added/removed. The notification that sales of existing long guns are permitted if not otherwise prohibited was issued by the executive secretary of EOPSS. This is the person delegated to by the legislature to do this. AND its published on the state website.


So given that this is from the person delegated to arbitrarily add and remove from the list AND its published on the state website, it appears to meet the statutory requirements set forth in 131 3/4. That is the legal theory on why this memo is binding.

Follow at your own risk.
Click to expand...

1465 (c) The secretary may amend any roster upon their own initiative.
Click to expand...
While the secretary can amend the roster, the declaration isn't a roster.
They should have just added the text stating all non-explicitly banned long guns are approved to a roster as that would be clearly legal and binding
 
KAG Arms said:
So that extra killy MCX is now also extra legal?
Click to expand...
Sure. lets go with that. More my entertainment is that the Healey 7/20/16 apologists that think anything post 7/20/16 sold to a resident of MA is not lawfully possessed have no argument for something a dealer had on 8/1 now being sold as the dealer is unambiguously able to lawfully possess on 8/1 regardless of Healey "guidance". I enjoy cognitive dissonance that this must cause some.
 
CrackPot said:
Sure. lets go with that. More my entertainment is that the Healey 7/20/16 apologists that think anything post 7/20/16 sold to a resident of MA is not lawfully possessed have no argument for something a dealer had on 8/1 now being sold as the dealer is unambiguously able to lawfully possess on 8/1 regardless of Healey "guidance". I enjoy cognitive dissonance that this must cause some.
Click to expand...

Quite the admirable goal. I shall now refer to them as the extra cucky statists.
 

Similar threads

Roster
Replies
0
Views
92
lutstribe
L
MA Firearms Roster questions / Maine to MA transfer
Replies
14
Views
331
maverickx31996
M
Boston Long Gun Roster?
Replies
4
Views
480
HooVooLoo
HooVooLoo
Selling Longarm to Out-of-State Dealer
Replies
17
Views
415
theciviliansupply
theciviliansupply
How to record sales to out of state dealer/auction house on FA10?
Replies
27
Views
477
67ray
67ray
Back
Top Bottom