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

[pastera]

Question - does MA statute, law, or regulation require "Registration" by the buyer of a firearm purchased and delivered from the CMP? Or is the text on the Gun Transaction Portal just a suggestion?

If you are a mass resident then yes, you are required to report the transfer under Chapter 140 section 128B
However that section requires written notice and written notice is no longer possible.
So the electronic portal registration is your only option for compliance.
Legallythe state would no chance of winning the argument that you didn't actually notify in writing since they themselves refused to accept what the law requires.

 

[2/1Marine]

I sent this to my house rep and senator, both who will be no help....but what the hell. Got some of the language from a guy on the MassGuns Redditt....a reddit I'm banned from posting on for making a comment the colonel didn't like lol.

I am writing to bring a portion of the newly released text of S.2572 to your attention. Specifically, lines 184-191 which state that any "duplicate" assault weapons shall only be legal if possessed prior to July 20, 2016. This references AG Healy's "enforcement notice." AG Healy's enforcement notice never carried the force of law; there's a reason no one was ever prosecuted under this notice. Therefore, the provisions in this act concerning 'grandfathering' are ex post facto, retroactively criminalizing a behavior legal at the time the action was committed. Retroactive criminalization does not happen in functioning democracies. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Additionally S.2584 also mentions the word “registration”. Currently Massachusetts requires all sellers of firearms to report firearms sales and transfers to the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services, which maintains comprehensive records of sales and transfers. In many instances these records are inaccurate and do not reflect the current ownership of firearms a State resident may have disposed of through means other than a sale or transfer to another properly licensed Massachusetts resident. Massachusetts does not require firearm owners to periodically confirm their continuing ownership of firearms or eligibility to possess firearms. Where will the funds come from to create a registration process in Massachusetts? Who will enforce and audit the process to ensure it is accurate? What will penalties be for lack of registration?

These are but two of many issues in S.2584.

This legislation does little to address the criminals that commit offenses with firearms and instead creates a new class of felons in Massachusetts, gunowners who lawfully purchased certain firearms through licensed dealers in Massachusetts on July 20, 2016 to current day. Firearms that are compliant with the current law as codified in Massachusetts.

 

[Harry Christopher]

I sent this to my house rep and senator, both who will be no help....but what the hell. Got some of the language from a guy on the MassGuns Redditt....a reddit I'm banned from posting on for making a comment the colonel didn't like lol.

I am writing to bring a portion of the newly released text of S.2572 to your attention. Specifically, lines 184-191 which state that any "duplicate" assault weapons shall only be legal if possessed prior to July 20, 2016. This references AG Healy's "enforcement notice." AG Healy's enforcement notice never carried the force of law; there's a reason no one was ever prosecuted under this notice. Therefore, the provisions in this act concerning 'grandfathering' are ex post facto, retroactively criminalizing a behavior legal at the time the action was committed. Retroactive criminalization does not happen in functioning democracies. Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation... pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Additionally S.2584 also mentions the word “registration”. Currently Massachusetts requires all sellers of firearms to report firearms sales and transfers to the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services, which maintains comprehensive records of sales and transfers. In many instances these records are inaccurate and do not reflect the current ownership of firearms a State resident may have disposed of through means other than a sale or transfer to another properly licensed Massachusetts resident. Massachusetts does not require firearm owners to periodically confirm their continuing ownership of firearms or eligibility to possess firearms. Where will the funds come from to create a registration process in Massachusetts? Who will enforce and audit the process to ensure it is accurate? What will penalties be for lack of registration?

These are but two of many issues in S.2584.

This legislation does little to address the criminals that commit offenses with firearms and instead creates a new class of felons in Massachusetts, gunowners who lawfully purchased certain firearms through licensed dealers in Massachusetts on July 20, 2016 to current day. Firearms that are compliant with the current law as codified in Massachusetts.

The above is a well thought out and written reasoning of the complete nonsense that both the house and senate bills are founded upon. When one has finally arrived at the conclusion that there is in fact no form of known communication means with the Boston politicians that will substantially avert the enactment of this blatant legislative attack on our Constitutional civil rights........then they are left with only one recourse.......diplomacy.......

 

[drgrant]

Are you willing to put your freedom on the assumption that a reporting of a transfer is legally equivalent to a registration when the option to register is openly available?
The bill specifically calls out "registered" and there is an option in the portal to do so.

Lol @ Speculation in the absence of something that looks like a final draft. Further "put your freedom" is a bit dramatic, given that the outcome of most of this, will be unfunded virtue signaling.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Are you willing to put your freedom on the assumption that a reporting of a transfer is legally equivalent to a registration when the option to register is openly available?
The bill specifically calls out "registered" and there is an option in the portal to do so.

When you file an FA 10, the State has a record.

That list the State released had some guns I bought through private transfer and some that I built.

 

[pastera]

View attachment 850947


When you file an FA 10, the State has a record.

That list the State released had some guns I bought through private transfer and some that I built.

My point is there is a different in the portal between reporting a transfer and registration.
The grandfathering calls out that the gun must have been registered not that the transfer was reported.
And the SCOTUS document that I linked, in my opinion, supports this interpretation.

With what you know about Mass courts what do you think they would do given two options
1 - interpret the language in the most narrow and strict manner such that gun owners are converted to prohibited persons
2 - interpret in a light more favorable to gun owners such that they can legally retain scary assault weapons

 

[Broc Tuah]

My point is there is a different in the portal between reporting a transfer and registration.
The grandfathering calls out that the gun must have been registered not that the transfer was reported.
And the SCOTUS document that I linked, in my opinion, supports this interpretation.

With what you know about Mass courts what do you think they would do given two options
1 - interpret the language in the most narrow and strict manner such that gun owners are converted to prohibited persons
2 - interpret in a light more favorable to gun owners such that they can legally retain scary assault weapons

I think a competent attorney can fight this and win. Let's assume the bill passes as is. Before the bill, there was no registration requirement, only FA10. The registration part was there in case you owned a gun the State had no record of you owning. The FA10 is a record.

But, I get your point. And the way some judges are, I wouldn't be surprised if they interpret it as #1.

 

[pastera]

I think a competent attorney can fight this and win. There was no registration requirement, only FA10. The registration part was there in case you owned a gun the State had no record of you owning. The FA10 is a record.

But, I get your point. And the way some judges are, I wouldn't be surprised if someone lost in court.

Any competent attorney would win but it would be expensive and lengthy and on appeal.
You'd likely be put of prison by the time it made it through

 

[chris_1001]

View attachment 850838

I do not wish…

 

[drgrant]

I do not wish…

View attachment 850954

Bartelby: "I would prefer not to. "

 

[btnh6668]

My point is there is a different in the portal between reporting a transfer and registration.
The grandfathering calls out that the gun must have been registered not that the transfer was reported.
And the SCOTUS document that I linked, in my opinion, supports this interpretation.

With what you know about Mass courts what do you think they would do given two options
1 - interpret the language in the most narrow and strict manner such that gun owners are converted to prohibited persons
2 - interpret in a light more favorable to gun owners such that they can legally retain scary assault weapons

There are a ton of frame transfers that have been "registered"

 

[dgrafton]

Are you willing to put your freedom on the assumption that a reporting of a transfer is legally equivalent to a registration when the option to register is openly available?
The bill specifically calls out "registered" and there is an option in the portal to do so.

Part 3 under registration covers that. By having a transaction reported, there is a trail in FRB for that gun

 

[MaroonedinMA]

Bartelby: "I would prefer not to. "

 

[Lxpony]

You all are worse then my grandmother's sewing group at Old Fellows Home in Worcester. You have nothing better to do then think the worst case here. Everyone needs to step away from their basement desktop computers and get some direct sunlight and fresh air.

 

[RumRunner]

You all are worse then my grandmother's sewing group at Old Fellows Home in Worcester. You have nothing better to do then think the worst case here. Everyone needs to step away from their basement desktop computers and get some direct sunlight and fresh air.

There is sun up there?

 

[42!]

You all are worse then my grandmother's sewing group at Old Fellows Home in Worcester. You have nothing better to do then think the worst case here. Everyone needs to step away from their basement desktop computers and get some direct sunlight and fresh air.

Sunlight is deadly.
Whenever someone dies the sun is shining on the Earth someplace, how can you not see the relationship. The only safety is hiding in a dark basement.

 

[Varmint]

Nothing is more powerful than an old dude with nothing to lose.

 

[Varmint]

There are a ton of frame transfers that have been "registered"

And a ton that have not.

 

[Varmint]

if i buy it, i haven't sold it, inherited it, or lost it. as the buyer, i'm not required to register according to this. the seller was required to register it.
i saw them go to the website and do it, of course i don't have an eFA10 receipt, it was registered with the system, why do i need a receipt?

"registration" is not compulsory, we don't have firearms registration in the commonwealth, we track transfers. if i bought a receiver and never built it, there was no need for me to register it, as it would not be capable of discharging a projectile. NOW, ex post facto, they want to require registration.

they can fellate me.

Are they changing the definition of firearm as well? Is that frame now a firearm that needs to have been registered? I don’t really care just curious.

 

[pastera]

Part 3 under registration covers that. By having a transaction reported, there is a trail in FRB for that gun

Yes, it does
How many of your "copies and duplicates" did you go in and register in the portal before 20 July 2016?
Or did you just stop at the seller reporting a transfer?

Is the state going to go that path? Mayne not but given the language in the bill they can.

 

[pastera]

There are a ton of frame transfers that have been "registered"

So the owners went in and used the Registration option on the portal after the dealer/seller reported a transfer through their account?
In law every word has a meaning and that meaning is either defined in the law or is taken as it's plain reading.
The Mass database is called out as a transfer database not a registry.
There is an option for owners to voluntarily register a firearm
The records contain different information therfore would very likely be seen as different actions in court.

If the bill passes with this language and the state pushes the issue then they will likely win in state courts and a good probability of winning in lower federal courts unless SCOTUS rules on one of the AWB cases moving through other circuits.

 

[BigGreen2000]

View attachment 851079

“El Camino.” Love it!

 

[btnh6668]

So the owners went in and used the Registration option on the portal after the dealer/seller reported a transfer through their account?

My understanding is that when buying a frame you are doing the 4473 to record the firearm transfer/sale as defined federally. Are you implying that after that process the owner does not have to record that transaction to the state when it is now put together and capable of shooting? Not understanding what you are saying here.

 

[Broc Tuah]

You all are worse then my grandmother's sewing group at Old Fellows Home in Worcester.

You should see us dancing

 

[DW357]

So the owners went in and used the Registration option on the portal after the dealer/seller reported a transfer through their account?

It’s not a firearm so dealers dont file a FA10. A 4473 form is filled out, that’s it.
It’s on the buyer to “register” the firearm within 7 days, once it’s capable of firing a shot.

It could have been worded better but I think btnh was saying there have been plenty of assembled firearms (acquired via frame transfer) that have been registered.

 

[btnh6668]

It’s not a firearm so dealers dont file a FA10. A 4473 form is filled out, that’s it.
It’s on the buyer to “register” the firearm within 7 days, once it’s capable of firing a shot.

It could have been worded better but I think btnh was saying there have been plenty of assembled firearms (acquired via frame transfer) that have been registered.

Correct. That is what I was saying. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[pastera]

My understanding is that when buying a frame you are doing the 4473 to record the firearm transfer/sale as defined federally. Are you implying that after that process the owner does not have to record that transaction to the state when it is now put together and capable of shooting? Not understanding what you are saying here.

Chapt 140 Section 128A requires dealers and private individuals to report the transfer or sale of a gun through the CJIS portal.
Chapt 140 Section 128B requires any Mass resident that purchases or obtains a gun, or any non-resident that obtains a gun within Mass to report in writing to CJIS the same data

Obtain - "To acquire; to get hold of by effort; to get and retain possession of "
Manufacture - The primary meaning of this word is “making with the hand,” but this definition is too narrow for its present use. Its meaning has expanded as workmanship and art have advanced, so that now nearly all artificial products of human industry, nearly all such materials as have acquired changed conditions or new and specific combinations, whether from the direct action of the human hand, from chemical processes devised and directed by human skill, or by the employment of machinery, are now commonly designated as “manufactured.”

Until this bill, or similar, is passed a frame is not a firearm, rifle or shotgun since it cannot fire a shot. You have obtained a frame and unregulated parts.
Once you have obtained the components, you then manufacture a firearm, rifle or shotgun by assembling the parts, with or without physical change or manipulation, into an item capable of firing a shot.

Now it's time for BBR* - Are you obtaining a firearm or manufacturing one? If manufacturing, does 140§128A or 140§128B require the reporting of such action?

* Big Boy Rules - the risk incurred in interpreting the law is your own responsibility to assess and accept.

 

[pastera]

It’s not a firearm so dealers dont file a FA10. A 4473 form is filled out, that’s it.
It’s on the buyer to “register” the firearm within 7 days, once it’s capable of firing a shot.

It could have been worded better but I think btnh was saying there have been plenty of assembled firearms (acquired via frame transfer) that have been registered.

Are you certain that 140§128A or 140§128B requires this?

 

[pastera]

Part 3 under registration covers that. By having a transaction reported, there is a trail in FRB for that gun

The topic that I am discussing isn't compliance with reporting a transfer or sale.
It is the breadth and scope of the Copies & Duplicates grandfathering in the Senate bill - I am positing that the scope could be interpreted to be much more narrow than what some people believe and that narrow scope is what Mass Courts would find is controlling.

 

[pastera]

Are they changing the definition of firearm as well? Is that frame now a firearm that needs to have been registered? I don’t really care just curious.

Yes - they are redefining such that frames, receivers and "Unfinished Frames or Receivers" as a firearm
S2584

212 “Firearm”, a stun gun, pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or
213 unloaded, that will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to, discharge a shot or bullet
214 other than by compressed air and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16
215 inches or, in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured, is less than 18 inches; provided,
216 however, that “firearm” shall also include the completed or unfinished frame or receiver of any
217 such weapon.

324 (b) No person shall knowingly import, purchase, sell, offer for sale or transfer ownership
325 of any completed or unfinished frame or receiver unless the completed or unfinished frame or
326 receiver is: (i) deemed to be a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 921 and regulations promulgated
327 thereunder; and (ii) imprinted with a valid serial number.

Edit - copied the wrong section