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

[DJBrad]

I DO NOT WISH

 

[Yazz]

I kinda read the inheritance info as…

If I kill you or find you dead on the street and take your gun for myself I need to use that option…. right?

View attachment 852094

Now I have to hide from all you MF'rs!

 

[CMEBoston]

Because I’ve heard this horseshit over and over. Maybe you need to write it better or I need to read it better. Regardless ,until you cut to the chase and admit that any cop that doesn’t say out loud “I will quit, give up my pension and paycheck before I enforce this unconstitutional/illegal garbage AND puts their proverbial money where their mouth is once the rubber hits the road…..I’m done listening to any of this and calling it out for what it is. Garbage

Fair enough

 

[Roadglide]

Fair enough

Nothing personal. Everyone has their own theories and comfort level. Its just this subject has become one of my bugaboos lately.

 

[oldguy68]

Most police officers are decent people.
But so was everyone in Germany during the 1930's.
It's a slippery slope of power and not wanting to loose said power over others.

A ten round magazine is a total restriction of our 2A rights as is any rifle, shotgun or pistol with any laws restricting private ownership.
Citizens do not need a permit to buy, own, carry or possess firearms of any kind. All laws as such are against our constitution.
We are meant to be able to carry them everywhere a civilian is allowed to enter as well.
Shall not be infringed is an easy to understand phrase. But those in power could distort the meaning of a single letter, they are so corrupt!

The police should be restricted to ten round magazines while on duty and have no "assault type weapons".
So they cannot misuse them against their sworn to protect civilian population!

Limits for them and NOT the people. That was the intent of our constitution!
If they don't approve, they can all just quit, trust me, plenty of non firearm guys will join the force!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The police should be restricted to ten round magazines while on duty and have no "assault type weapons".
So they cannot misuse them against their sworn to protect civilian population!

Want them on our side? Just remove any "off duty" rights except for certain specialized assignments - and none of this "a cop is always on duty" to justify immunity from laws the commoners are subjected to.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

It says it is the 1986 "FOPA". Is that the same as the "Brady Bill"? For some reason, I don't think so.

H.R 1025 Became public law NO 103-159 on November 30, 1993 so I guess it is doubly illegal. Not only does it prohibit the government from making a registry it SPECIFICALLY reguires the DESTRUCTION of transfers to eligible individuals.



“Requires the destruction of records pertaining to any transfer to an eligible individual.”

“Prohibits any Government entity from using the system to establish any system for the registration of firearms, except with respect to persons prohibited from receiving a firearm.”

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/1025

 

[Roadglide]

Want them on our side? Just remove any "off duty" rights except for certain specialized assignments - and none of this "a cop is always on duty" to justify immunity from laws the commoners are subjected to.

Just remove qualified immunity

 

[Picton]

Just remove qualified immunity

This might be the single most pro-liberty thing our government could realistically do, at the stroke of a pen.

Meaning, it won't happen.

 

[PappyM3]

Want them on our side? Just remove any "off duty" rights except for certain specialized assignments - and none of this "a cop is always on duty" to justify immunity from laws the commoners are subjected to.

Has anybody tried suing the state due to this violation of the equal protections of the 14th amendment?

I know there’s no forcing them to be subject to our anti-gun laws on duty, but the off-duty exemption is a flagrant violation of the 14th.

 

[pavlin]

Don't forget the Beretta 92, it is technically a Semi-Auto version of the 93R (which was based on the 92)

NO, it's 93R is a full auto version of 92. 92 predates 93R

 

[42!]

Didn’t Massachusetts weasel their way into its registry by the claim that it’s just a registry of transfers and not ownership?

Also, the ATF continues to maintain and grow its digital database. Scanning in swaths of 4473s. Now FFLs can no longer throw them away after 20 years and ALL 4473s will get to the ATF one way or another. Whether it is because the FFLs run out of storage space, go out of business, are shut down (due to minor administrative mistakes), or the ATF just decides to come in and take pictures of the entire bound book.

But, they told the courts that it’s not really a database because they turned off the ability to search it …

There was a lot of talk about this back when the ATF started doing it. They avoid the registry/database issue by scanning the 4473s as images, not OCR to DB fields. So there is no way to search the information on the 4473. The best you can do is pull all the images for a given FFL within a date range. Then a human would need to actually look at the images to see what is on them.

But tech marches on, if they ever link an AI into the this system it would be able to reduce the number of relevant images from 100s to just a few pretty quickly.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

There was a lot of talk about this back when the ATF started doing it. They avoid the registry/database issue by scanning the 4473s as images, not OCR to DB fields. So there is no way to search the information on the 4473. The best you can do is pull all the images for a given FFL within a date range. Then a human would need to actually look at the images to see what is on them.

But tech marches on, if they ever link an AI into the this system it would be able to reduce the number of relevant images from 100s to just a few pretty quickly.

They still run afoul of H.R 1025 (public law NO 103-159) which SPECIFICALLY requires the DESTRUCTION of transfers to eligible individuals. Clearly those are still being recorded and not destroyed as required by law.

“Requires the destruction of records pertaining to any transfer to an eligible individual.”

 

[Picton]

But tech marches on, if they ever link an AI into the this system it would be able to reduce the number of relevant images from 100s to just a few pretty quickly.

So... by Wednesday, then?

 

[SS1]

All it boils down to is
They have no fear of the pheasants

 

[VTski4x4]

All it boils down to is
They have no fear of the pheasants

 

[Darksideblues42]

NO, it's 93R is a full auto version of 92. 92 predates 93R

I am aware, however, if there is a full-auto version of a firearm, the folks who make these laws COULD argue that the 92 can now be considered a semi-auto version of an automatic firearm, even if the 93R was derived from the 92, because that is how these lawmaking A-holes think.

 

[PappyM3]

There was a lot of talk about this back when the ATF started doing it. They avoid the registry/database issue by scanning the 4473s as images, not OCR to DB fields. So there is no way to search the information on the 4473. The best you can do is pull all the images for a given FFL within a date range. Then a human would need to actually look at the images to see what is on them.

But tech marches on, if they ever link an AI into the this system it would be able to reduce the number of relevant images from 100s to just a few pretty quickly.

Yeah, having them be images is a non-issue for current software. Hell, there was software 15 years ago that could parse images for text.

 

[Atlantis]

Okay, now I'm confused. I thought I understood this but now I'm not so sure how it works.

It's state law to record a transaction, so if I buy a long gun from an FFL out of state and bring it in, I'm required to use the "register" option (instance 1).

If I buy a frame from an in-state FFL and assemble a non NFA item myself, I'm required to "register" it within 7 days of it being able to fire a shot (instance 2).

If I don't follow that law, I'm subject to a fine for the first offense. I started off with carbon copy FA-10s that I mailed in, and since then we've transitioned to where we are now with online MIRCs.

So the first instance matched (or at least did not run afoul of) federal law, but the second one was actually voluntary and not required by law?

Someone please set me straight.

Yeah, quoted because I have the same question.

Seems like if you someone were charged for failing to “register” a new build that you had 4473’d a frame, and that was the only thing you got charged with, it would be a slam dunk case against the state / law. How can you require a registration if registration is outlawed?

 

[DarthRevan]

Yeah, having them be images is a non-issue for current software. Hell, there was software 15 years ago that could parse images for text.

I was about to say have they used adobe acrobat in the last ten years? We’re already there.

 

[pastera]

Okay, now I'm confused. I thought I understood this but now I'm not so sure how it works.

It's state law to record a transaction, so if I buy a long gun from an FFL out of state and bring it in, I'm required to use the "register" option (instance 1).

If I buy a frame from an in-state FFL and assemble a non NFA item myself, I'm required to "register" it within 7 days of it being able to fire a shot (instance 2).

If I don't follow that law, I'm subject to a fine for the first offense. I started off with carbon copy FA-10s that I mailed in, and since then we've transitioned to where we are now with online MIRCs.

So the first instance matched (or at least did not run afoul of) federal law, but the second one was actually voluntary and not required by law?

Someone please set me straight.

Mass courts don't care and the 1st circuit hates guns.and gun owners more than Mass courts.
They know it's illegal but say that you are only recording the acquisition transaction not that you currently possess it so it's not an actual registration.
They know their lying, we know their lying, they know that we know their lying
But they DGAS because it doesn't cost them anything to infringe and they've bet correctly so far that scotus won't take up a registration case.

 

[p..]

Mass courts don't care and the 1st circuit hates guns.and gun owners more than Mass courts.
They know it's illegal but say that you are only recording the acquisition transaction not that you currently possess it so it's not an actual registration.
They know their lying, we know their lying, they know that we know their lying
But they DGAS because it doesn't cost them anything to infringe and they've bet correctly so far that scotus won't take up a registration case.

Okay, I'm not confused then. My understanding of the MA registration system is correct. It's illegal, but they don't care. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Roadglide]

All it boils down to is
They have no fear of the pheasants

 

[mothybee]

All it boils down to is
They have no fear of the pheasants

Well, there is the bird flu.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Didn’t Massachusetts weasel their way into its registry by the claim that it’s just a registry of transfers and not ownership?

Also, the ATF continues to maintain and grow its digital database. Scanning in swaths of 4473s. Now FFLs can no longer throw them away after 20 years and ALL 4473s will get to the ATF one way or another. Whether it is because the FFLs run out of storage space, go out of business, are shut down (due to minor administrative mistakes), or the ATF just decides to come in and take pictures of the entire bound book.

But, they told the courts that it’s not really a database because they turned off the ability to search it …

NES members don't need the gov when they voluntarily create threads posting pics of their acquisitions.

 

[Broc Tuah]

There was a lot of talk about this back when the ATF started doing it. They avoid the registry/database issue by scanning the 4473s as images, not OCR to DB fields. So there is no way to search the information on the 4473. The best you can do is pull all the images for a given FFL within a date range. Then a human would need to actually look at the images to see what is on them.

But tech marches on, if they ever link an AI into the this system it would be able to reduce the number of relevant images from 100s to just a few pretty quickly.

Extracting words from pics is easy and has been around for a while. Nothing new. You don't need a human to sit down and look at every 4473 for a given date range.

 

[SS1]

NES members don't need the gov when they voluntarily create threads posting pics of their acquisitions.

So that's why Nikki wants a registration for the internet

 

[Taipan01]

NES members don't need the gov when they voluntarily create threads posting pics of their acquisitions.

You mean like this?



or with the other 2/3thrds?

 

[42!]

Extracting words from pics is easy and has been around for a while. Nothing new. You don't need a human to sit down and look at every 4473 for a given date range.

Have you ever worked on any large scale digitization of records? It doesn't just happen, the whole system needs to be built around that objective. And with 100Ks of hand written records with no consistency in clarity, quality, penmanship, or writing instrument the error rate is going to be phenomenal. This isn't just a guy sitting at his PC scanning a dozen pages with Adobe. The big stuff can take in bound, stapled, and paperclipped, single and dual sided stacks of documents and spit out 3 piles of "should be good", "moderate error rate", and "low error rate"... no pile for zero errors.

 

[HARRYM]

Certified Lead Auditor of ISO Quality Systems. Part of a team that built systems for 2 companies. Everyone has chicken scratch how to do things notes in their locker or desk. Half of it is wrong. Compiling data and writing and re-writing until it's clear. Sounds easy but compiling documentation and presenting it so a newbie understands it will try your patience. Takes months.