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

[VTski4x4]

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

This is absolute horseshit. If anyone got "jammed up" for anything AW related, I give it 100% odds that they committed a crime, opened their mouths, and f***ed themselves over. They either had non-AWB compliant rifles, or they had compliant rifles and the cops were looking to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. Remember, cops aren't lawyers, and they aren't your friends. Anyone remember the case a few years back when the PD charged a guy with an AWB violation after they physically broke the fixed mag out of his fix-mag AR and then charged him? I f***ing do.

 

[p..]

This is absolute horseshit. If anyone got "jammed up" for anything AW related, I give it 100% odds that they committed a crime, opened their mouths, and f***ed themselves over. They either had non-AWB compliant rifles, or they had compliant rifles and the cops were looking to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. Remember, cops aren't lawyers, and they aren't your friends. Anyone remember the case a few years back when the PD charged a guy with an AWB violation after they physically broke the fixed mag out of his fix-mag AR and then charged him? I f***ing do.

Can't say I would be surprised if a DA in MA gave it a whirl.

The person who wrote the memo is now the governor.
Governor gets along fine with the current AG.
We know where the legislative branch stands.

It's not like there's a balance of power in this state.

 

[VTski4x4]

Can't say I would be surprised if a DA in MA gave it a whirl.

The person who wrote the memo is now the governor.
Governor gets along fine with the current AG.
We know where the legislative branch stands.

It's not like there's a balance of power in this state.

If giggles thought for a second she could actually get away with getting people prosecuted for buying/selling post '16 rifles, the SS would be outside the Mill on a daily basis walking customers into the gas chamber.

 

[DW357]

GOM is all pant shitters

Oh my god you ain’t kidding. It’s brutal. On top of the most dumbest shit that gets posted/questioned there.

I don’t even know why I bother remaining a member.

 

[DW357]

I give it 100% odds that they committed a crime, opened their mouths, and f***ed themselves over. They either had non-AWB compliant rifles, or they had compliant rifles and the cops were looking to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks.

This is what I was thinking as well

 

[Reptile]

Oh my god you ain’t kidding. It’s brutal. On top of the most dumbest shit that gets posted/questioned there.

I don’t even know why I bother remaining a member.

I could not agree more!

Why would I want to join an organization that would want me as a member!

 

[chris_1001]

I could not agree more!

Why would I want to join an organization that would want me as a member!

Yet here you are on NES!

 

[Reptile]

Yet here you are on NES!

I Love You Guys!!!

 

[Taipan01]

 

[Broc Tuah]

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

There aren't any cases.

These people are either full of sh*t or the people that got "jammed up" were in trouble for other bullsh*t and they decided to throw that in there with a list of 100 other charges.

But my money is on "this never happened".

Reads like a bunch of stupid .

There are a lot of NES with registered post 94 and post 2016 ARs. No one is knocking on their doors.

Sounds like GOM is perfect for to get someone to buy his $3K lowers.

 

[Reptile]

Is a pre Healey NFA Tax Stamp for a lower receiver considered registered?
Example: You bought a pre Healey lower and got a NFA Tax Stamp for a SBR before 2016 - but never built it up.

Healey's FAQ and letter from Gary Klein (AG Gun Czar) said you can build up a pre Healey lower in the future after it being possessed in Mass before the Healey Ban.

All this is in her FAQ and "Guidance". Only thing new in the new bill is that it had to be registered, too.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

But, there is no way to prove that the dealer back before 2016 actually entered the gun into MIRCS.

It is more an issue of proving the dealer did not.

Dealers can get a duplicate copy of the eFA10 for guns they sold years ago (BTDT). Also, in routine cases, the state can check and will see a transfer. It gets tricky if the state does not see a transfer and tries to prove a negative - that the registration was never submitted.

 

[Hardwired]

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.

But wouldn’t a transfer have gone thru MIRCS with product and serial and approved by the state to proceed with the transfer?

These were ban state configured firearms being sold in the likes of CA, NY,NJ and MA for years based on the Fed AWB feature ban and now the legislature is going to step into the Time Machine back to 2016.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Sure proof would be a manufacture date of the lower after the cutoff date.

 

[Junior314]

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

Oh my god you ain’t kidding. It’s brutal. On top of the most dumbest shit that gets posted/questioned there.

I don’t even know why I bother remaining a member.

Does GOM still gargle Law Enforcement nut sacks?

If you think NES was bad there was one particularly arrogant a$$hole who would run his mouth on just about any question posted and belittle everyone/everything. At least he had his actual name up while doing it though. The amount of bad advice and stupid stuff I saw posted on there was mind boggling.

 

[VTski4x4]

I prefer NES autism to GOM down-syndrome. Love y'all

 

[not new guy]

So what's the status of a 22lr AR that was efa10ed post-2016, after Maura said 22lr guns were fine? Are those felonies too if this law passes as-is?

I know - this sort of mental masturbation isn't productive at this stage, just pointing out another inconsistency if they're operating under the assumption that Herr Healey's proclamation carried the weight of law.

 

[Spartan65]

So what's the status of a 22lr AR that was efa10ed post-2016, after Maura said 22lr guns were fine? Are those felonies too if this law passes as-is?

I know - this sort of mental masturbation isn't productive at this stage, just pointing out another inconsistency if they're operating under the assumption that Herr Healey's proclamation carried the weight of law.

You’re a felon.

Right to jail life over

 

[pastera]

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

Completely agree
The 2016 date in the bill is an ex post facto ban on items that have always been legal
It will get struck down eventually but that won't restore a person caught up in the mean time.

 

[pastera]

This is absolute horseshit. If anyone got "jammed up" for anything AW related, I give it 100% odds that they committed a crime, opened their mouths, and f***ed themselves over. They either had non-AWB compliant rifles, or they had compliant rifles and the cops were looking to throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. Remember, cops aren't lawyers, and they aren't your friends. Anyone remember the case a few years back when the PD charged a guy with an AWB violation after they physically broke the fixed mag out of his fix-mag AR and then charged him? I f***ing do.

Revisit you analysis on light of the massive expansion of red flag confiscation parts of the bill and the expansion of who can file against you along with the almost non-existent standard of review for granting a red flag

 

[pastera]

So what's the status of a 22lr AR that was efa10ed post-2016, after Maura said 22lr guns were fine? Are those felonies too if this law passes as-is?

I know - this sort of mental masturbation isn't productive at this stage, just pointing out another inconsistency if they're operating under the assumption that Herr Healey's proclamation carried the weight of law.

Can the lower accept a different caliber upper?
If so then it is definitely a copy or duplicate.
If the lower cannot take a different caliber upper but shares the same trigger group then it's also likely a copy or duplicate and therefore an AW.

It's written to be ambiguous and confusing so that people just give up.

 

[VTski4x4]

Revisit you analysis on light of the massive expansion of red flag confiscation parts of the bill and the expansion of who can file against you along with the almost non-existent standard of review for granting a red flag

My analysis has nothing to do with how the cops entered the situation, rather, what they were charged with.

 

[DJBrad]

What about those lowers with no serial numbers, dates, manufacturers, or locale?

 

[pastera]

My analysis has nothing to do with how the cops entered the situation, rather, what they were charged with.

You started your post with an assertion that anyone charged with an AW charge 100% committed a crime but then give an example where police manufactured an AW situation to create a charge.
The guy may have invited the police into his life some other way but the fact is that they got invited.
The expansion of red flag BS means you don't need to do anything more than show up on the wrong person's radar to have the police enter and ruin your life.

Unless your non-compliant gun is used to actually commit a crime, it's configuration shouldn't even be a consideration.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Can the lower accept a different caliber upper?
If so then it is definitely a copy or duplicate.
If the lower cannot take a different caliber upper but shares the same trigger group then it's also likely a copy or duplicate and therefore an AW.

It's written to be ambiguous and confusing so that people just give up.

According to the FAQ, even accepting a trigger is unacceptable, therefore copy.

But it doesn't matter because 2016 was not a law.

 

[pastera]

There aren't any cases.

These people are either full of sh*t or the people that got "jammed up" were in trouble for other bullsh*t and they decided to throw that in there with a list of 100 other charges.

But my money is on "this never happened".

Reads like a bunch of stupid .

There are a lot of NES with registered post 94 and post 2016 ARs. No one is knocking on their doors.

Sounds like GOM is perfect for to get someone to buy his $3K lowers.

The new bill specifically mentions "registered" which is a specific sub-function of the eFA-10 Transaction Portal.

Massachusetts Gun Transaction Portal

Massachusetts General Law c. 140, §§128A and 128B, requires all individuals who sell, transfer, inherit, or lose a firearm to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss of the firearms to the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau (FRB). This on-line system will allow you to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss/theft data electronically to the FRB.

Note that when a seller (private or dealer) enters a transfer they are recording a transfer NOT registering a gun.
Registration is a separate function within the portal.
So the number of 1994->2016 ARs that are "registered" in the database is highly likely to be much less than the number of AR transfers in the database.

Massachusetts courts are going to interpret the language in a light favorable to the state - in this case I would posit that means if you didn't go in and add your ARs through the register option then you may not be grandfathered if the AG wants to push the issue

 

[Reptile]

The new bill specifically mentions "registered" which is a specific sub-function of the eFA-10 Transaction Portal.

Massachusetts Gun Transaction Portal

Note that when a seller (private or dealer) enters a transfer they are recording a transfer NOT registering a gun.
Registration is a separate function within the portal.
So the number of 1994->2016 ARs that are "registered" in the database is highly likely to be much less than the number of AR transfers in the database.

Massachusetts courts are going to interpret the language in a light favorable to the state - in this case I would posit that means if you didn't go in and add your ARs through the register option then you may not be grandfathered if the AG wants to push the issue

I never heard of a gun buyer who buys a gun from a shop go home and register it.

This bill is insane.

They have no idea how any of this works.

 

[Bmcl322]

So if you have a registered/FA-10d lower that was purchased in say 2022, you become a felon? Options are… destroy? Surrender? They coming around to knock and talk about it?

You're fine. They are the bad guys. Never let the bad guys get in the way of doing the right thing. Build out our lower, teach your kids firearms safety and have fun at the range.

 

[drgrant]

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

GOM is aids though, but you already knew that.

 

[pastera]

I never heard of a gun buyer who buys a gun from a shop go home and register it.

This bill is insane.

They have no idea how any of this works.

They know exactly how this works

And those guys that I stated would suck a thousand bags of dicks for a grandfather clause are happily slurping them down right now not caring that they likely are getting a complete screw job over it.