MA Gun Grab 2024: H.4885 - Passed legislature, headed to the governor

[Rob Boudrie]

No grandfathering of lowers not registered prior to 7/20/16

That is in the current draft and a likely outcome (amendment 11.1), but 11 which does not have the 2016 clause was also adopted. I assume the later overrides. Plus, the bill still has to be reconciled by the house and senate. The bottom like is "Likely but not yet certain".

What is does mean is than anyone who buys a $3000 stripped in state but not registered lower anticipating it will qualify for grandfathering is taking a big risk. The value of those $3K lowers will go down if the "registered" requirement remains in the bill, and up if "in state" or "owned prior to" is enough. And I'm referring to the baseline of the current, unknown, market value of those lowers since the lengthy series of bumps suggests that $3000 may not be in line with the current market. It remains to be seen if "unregistered" becomes a feature or defect after the bill is enacted.

 

[Atlantis]

BBR applies

Big Boy Rules: you're an adult that must manage one's own risk tolerance.

Nothing in this bill can survive an actual judicial review under the 2a pillars (Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen) but you won't see an actual review in Mass courts or the 1st circuit.

Yep, I suppose I could/should have included the "...or they can stack up" option more explicitly. I just don't have the heart to play the proverbial boating accident game, what's the point of 2A if you aren't willing to oppose tyranny anyways?

Correct - as written a transfer record dated 7/21/2016 or later is prima facia evidence of a crime. You don't need to currently possess the gun since the record is proof that you knowingly possessed a banned assault weapon within Massachusetts.

In for a penny in for a pound I guess.

 

[pastera]

That is in the current draft and a likely outcome (amendment 11.1), but 11 which does not have the 2016 clause was also adopted. I assume the later overrides. Plus, the bill still has to be reconciled by the house and senate. The bottom like is "Likely but not yet certain".

What is does mean is than anyone who buys a $3000 stripped in state but not registered lower anticipating it will qualify for grandfathering is taking a big risk. The value of those $3K lowers will go down if the "registered" requirement remains in the bill, and up if "in state" or "owned prior to" is enough. And I'm referring to the baseline of the current, unknown, market value of those lowers since the lengthy series of bumps suggests that $3000 may not be in line with the current market. It remains to be seen if "unregistered" becomes a feature or defect after the bill is enacted.

The bill as amended is S2584 contains the 11.1 text in lines 184 through 191

 

[Reptile]

The bill as amended is S2584 contains the 11.1 text in lines 184 through 191

"unless it has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated as a semiautomatic assault weapon; and provided further"

Could a person store a stripped lower in this condition and keep it at his house and wait for the courts to decide the case?

 

[Hogie1]

That is in the current draft and a likely outcome (amendment 11.1), but 11 which does not have the 2016 clause was also adopted. I assume the later overrides. Plus, the bill still has to be reconciled by the house and senate. The bottom like is "Likely but not yet certain".

What is does mean is than anyone who buys a $3000 stripped in state but not registered lower anticipating it will qualify for grandfathering is taking a big risk. The value of those $3K lowers will go down if the "registered" requirement remains in the bill, and up if "in state" or "owned prior to" is enough. And I'm referring to the baseline of the current, unknown, market value of those lowers since the lengthy series of bumps suggests that $3000 may not be in line with the current market. It remains to be seen if "unregistered" becomes a feature or defect after the bill is enacted.

I realize nothing has been finalized/passed yet, but would it be an option to have a lawsuit/injunction ready to go? Perhaps it's too early, and the state/courts are too blue, but that's where this is gonna end up being fought and won.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Correct - as written a transfer record dated 7/21/2016 or later is prima facia evidence of a crime. You don't need to currently possess the gun since the record is proof that you knowingly possessed a banned assault weapon within Massachusetts.

I guess that will make a bunch of law abiding citizens documented felons awaiting prosecution. These people have lost their ever loving minds.

 

[Endangered]

No grandfathering of lowers not registered prior to 7/20/16

Notice that this is a grandfathering of only the copy or duplicate ban - anything not a federal pre-ban cannot have more than two evil features.

Anyone that stocked up prior to the cut off but never FA-10'd the lowers will be sitting on felonies until this is hashed out in the courts.
Anyone that bought anything fun after moon landing day 2016 will also be an immediate felon (these cannot easily be brought into compliance)

So Lets say I moved back into MA from a free state after the 2016 BS. I converted any ARs to comply with MA AWB. Without receipts showing that I purchased them prior to moving back in state, it looks like I would be felon (possibly even with receipts)?

 

[pastera]

"unless it has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated as a semiautomatic assault weapon; and provided further"

Could a person store a stripped lower in this condition and keep it at his house and wait for the courts to decide the case?

Yes but if it is permanently modified then it's a worthless brick the day that AWBs fall.
The inclusion of 3d printing and cnc language makes the usual "permanent" mods easily restorable so unless you want to weld in the mag release then it's going to be easily converted.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So Lets say I moved back into MA from a free state after the 2016 BS. I converted any ARs to comply with MA AWB. Without receipts showing that I purchased them prior to moving back in state, it looks like I would be felon (possibly even with receipts)?

The proposed law includes the Gliddenesque "Once an AR always an AR" definition ending the concept of "compliance conversion"

 

[pastera]

I realize nothing has been finalized/passed yet, but would it be an option to have a lawsuit/injunction ready to go? Perhaps it's too early, and the state/courts are too blue, but that's where this is gonna end up being fought and won.

The chance of an injunction from the 1st circus is less than me getting a wife approved BJ from Scarlet Johansson.

 

[pastera]

So Lets say I moved back into MA from a free state after the 2016 BS. I converted any ARs to comply with MA AWB. Without receipts showing that I purchased them prior to moving back in state, it looks like I would be felon (possibly even with receipts)?

Since they would not have been registered then they would not be eligible for the copies or duplicates exemption language.

But if you were smart enough to not register them since you brought them in with you when moving here (perfectly legal) then the state would have no knowledge of them and a state actor would need probable cause to believe that the particular rifle you had at the range was not covered in order to search your possession for proof of wrongdoing (a single, neutered rifle would be fruit of the forbidden tree if you STFU)

 

[pastera]

I guess that will make a bunch of law abiding citizens documented felons awaiting prosecution. These people have lost their ever loving minds.

While crazy might also be evil don't mx the two up - these people are evil, pure and simple.

 

[MaroonedinMA]

The chance of an injunction from the 1st circus is less than me getting a wife approved BJ from Scarlet Johansson.

So… you’ve asked and been denied?

Just trying to be thorough.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

While crazy might also be evil don't mx the two up - these people are evil, pure and simple.

Agreed, unfortunately, there is no shortage of evil in todays world.

 

[1903Collector]

The chance of an injunction from the 1st circus is less than me getting a wife approved BJ from Scarlet Johansson.

Brother you're on a roll!!!! First bags of aids infected dicks and now this, pure poetry!

 

[alan226]

The chance of an injunction from the 1st circus is less than me getting a wife approved BJ from Scarlet Johansson.

So you are saying there IS a chance?

 

[mothybee]

I guess that will make a bunch of law abiding citizens documented felons awaiting prosecution. These people have lost their ever loving minds.

Nobody could love those minds, even on valentine's day.

 

[pastera]

So you are saying there IS a chance?

Deep in my occipital lobe it is a near certainty...

 

[Toast]

That is in the current draft and a likely outcome (amendment 11.1), but 11 which does not have the 2016 clause was also adopted. I assume the later overrides.

The first line of 11.1 is:

"Ms. Creem and Messrs. Tarr and Montigny move that the amendment be amended by striking out the text thereof and inserting in place thereof the following: "​

​

Therefore, when 11.1 was adopted, it completely replaced 11.

 

[inerlogic]

The first line of 11.1 is:

"Ms. Creem and Messrs. Tarr and Montigny move that the amendment be amended by striking out the text thereof and inserting in place thereof the following: "​

​

Therefore, when 11.1 was adopted, it completely replaced 11.

Montigny? he showed up? damn.... didn't answer any of my messages....

 

[GOAL]

Announcement from Jim on reactions to the MA Legislature attacks, and GOAL's exploration of moving into a litigation stance going forward.


View: https://youtu.be/8apnRp9cBDI?si=gIccECncVraKQYK-

 

[Broc Tuah]

Announcement from Jim on reactions to the MA Legislature attacks, and GOAL's exploration of moving into a litigation stance going forward.


View: https://youtu.be/8apnRp9cBDI?si=gIccECncVraKQYK-

Thank you

 

[Amputee Marksman]

Correct - as written a transfer record dated 7/21/2016 or later is prima facia evidence of a crime. You don't need to currently possess the gun since the record is proof that you knowingly possessed a banned assault weapon within Massachusetts.

No "new" laws have currently been passed and signed. The notice of enforcement was not a law and has not been challenged in court. There have been no efforts to enforce the notice of enforcement. Based on these statements a lower that was built and complied with the 94 AWB and was legal according to the written MA laws which was subsequently eFA10 after 7/21/2016 should have been and was legal.

I don't see how that data could be used as proof that you knowingly possessed a banned AW when I don't believe such a weapon was banned.

If some variant of the new law is passed which forbids such weapons as described earlier that were "born on" 7/21/2016 and later that would be a retroactive law. It seems to me at a minimum you would be allowed the time from the signing until the law takes effect or some defined grace period to sell out of state, give away out of state, turn in or otherwise dispose of said weapon.

If they pass a law and it signed (that has no provisions for already owned/possessed weapons) then I can see the eFA10 record being used as a basis to obtain a search warrant to come looking for said weapon. At that point I think it would only be a crime if they actually found the weapon.

IANAL

 

[allen-1]

Announcement from Jim on reactions to the MA Legislature attacks, and GOAL's exploration of moving into a litigation stance going forward.


View: https://youtu.be/8apnRp9cBDI?si=gIccECncVraKQYK-

NES MA residents - take the time, listen to this, pass the message on.

 

[VTski4x4]

No "new" laws have currently been passed and signed. The notice of enforcement was not a law and has not been challenged in court. There have been no efforts to enforce the notice of enforcement. Based on these statements a lower that was built and complied with the 94 AWB and was legal according to the written MA laws which was subsequently eFA10 after 7/21/2016 should have been and was legal.

I don't see how that data could be used as proof that you knowingly possessed a banned AW when I don't believe such a weapon was banned.

If some variant of the new law is passed which forbids such weapons as described earlier that were "born on" 7/21/2016 and later that would be a retroactive law. It seems to me at a minimum you would be allowed the time from the signing until the law takes effect or some defined grace period to sell out of state, give away out of state, turn in or otherwise dispose of said weapon.

If they pass a law and it signed (that has no provisions for already owned/possessed weapons) then I can see the eFA10 record being used as a basis to obtain a search warrant to come looking for said weapon. At that point I think it would only be a crime if they actually found the weapon.

IANAL

If they started granting search warrants based off our horrible Efa10 system (which is notoriously inaccurate), they would essentially be leading sheep to slaughter. The idea of sending cops door to door confiscating weapons is a whole new ballgame, and I doubt anyone but the most SS hardos of the MSP would raise their hands for that suicide mission. There's plenty of crazies out there who are legal gun owners.

 

[chris_1001]

If they started granting search warrants based off our horrible Efa10 system (which is notoriously inaccurate), they would essentially be leading sheep to slaughter. The idea of sending cops door to door confiscating weapons is a whole new ballgame, and I doubt anyone but the most SS hardos of the MSP would raise their hands for that suicide mission. There's plenty of crazies out there who are legal gun owners.

No way to record a transfer out of state baring a receipt from the FFL.

Hope you all got receipts! Lol.

 

[DW357]

Not to give any validity to Rapetile’s posts, but I was reading these comments on one of the guns of MA Facebook groups, between a MA dealer and some dude. I guess we don’t have the full story/context so may not be helpful.
But it makes you wonder if there are cases of folks getting jammed up on “post 2016” ARs and we never hear about it??

 

[alan226]

The chance of an injunction from the 1st circus is less than me getting a wife approved BJ from Scarlet Johansson.

So, what did the wife say?

 

[Hardwired]

No grandfathering of lowers not registered prior to 7/20/16

Notice that this is a grandfathering of only the copy or duplicate ban - anything not a federal pre-ban cannot have more than two evil features.

Anyone that stocked up prior to the cut off but never FA-10'd the lowers will be sitting on felonies until this is hashed out in the courts.
Anyone that bought anything fun after moon landing day 2016 will also be an immediate felon (these cannot easily be brought into compliance)

How about shovels post 7/20/16?

 

[Spartan65]

Not to give any validity to Rapetile’s posts, but I was reading these comments on one of the guns of MA Facebook groups, between a MA dealer and some dude. I guess we don’t have the full story/context so may not be helpful.
But it makes you wonder if there are cases of folks getting jammed up on “post 2016” ARs and we never hear about it??View attachment 850644View attachment 850645View attachment 850646View attachment 850647View attachment 850648View attachment 850649

A dealer who needs hooked on phonics. I guess you get what you pay for.

GOM is all pant shitters