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

[JDL]

I dosent matter Massachusetts will just use the existing fa10 system the way it is and just work around the system failures.
The state couldn't afford to replace the broken finger print readers at the FFL dealer level. There work around just use the pin number now no need for a finger print check now if it will cost money. What kind of work around will the state use when it comes to checking what you have regestered and when even though there is no registry in the state it will be OK to jamb you up.

 

[Amputee Marksman]

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.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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.

QFTMFT

 

[Dadstoys]

They don't need an itemized list of what you own
Just names and addresses to come to .

 

[pastera]

They don't need an itemized list of what you own
Just names and addresses to come to .

They have that from your license

 

[Dadstoys]

They have that from your license

Yup.

 

[Token_Black_Guy]

View: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3WDd1KvCQ0/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Most of the time I'm very suspicious of white women but idk about this one

 

[p..]

Surprise! What an amazing coincidence!

Second Regular Session
Seventy-fourth General Assembly
STATE OF COLORADO
INTRODUCED
LLS NO. 24-0282.03 Jane Ritter x4342 HOUSE BILL 24-1292
A BILL FOR AN ACT CONCERNING PROHIBITIONS ON CERTAIN FIREARMS USED IN PUBLIC MASS SHOOTINGS .

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024A/bills/2024a_1292_01.pdf

"...
The prohibition does not apply to:
[snip some stuff]
- A licensed gun dealer who has remaining inventory of
assault weapons as of August 1, 2024, and sells or transfers
the remaining inventory only to a non-Colorado resident
and the sale or transfer takes place out of state; or
- A peace officer."

Party control of Colorado state government

"Party control of Colorado state government
Colorado has a Democratic trifecta and a Democratic triplex. The Democratic Party controls the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature."

 

[mothybee]

Sounds familiar.

 

[BigGreen2000]

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.

Isn’t that essentially a paraphrase of Solzenitszin from “The Gulag Archipelligo”: “They know they are lying, we know they are lying, and they know we know they are lying”

How appropriate that Mass SJC is now in the same category as the Soviet system

 

[teledor]

I need a sanity check on this. A particular chunk from the senate amendment struck me:

provided, however, that “assault weapon” shall not include:...
(B) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

Ok, bolt action rifles aren't assault weapons.

A few lines later:

....provided further, that a weapon shall be considered a copy or duplicate of a weapon [and therefore an AW] identified in subclauses (a) to (i), inclusive, of clause (i) if:...

"(II) the weapon has internal functional components that are substantially similar in construction and configuration to a weapon identified in said subclauses (a) to (i), inclusive, of said clause (i) [where Colt AR-15, Tec-9, AUG, etc. are listed]

Internal functional components? I suppose that means bolt, trigger group, extractor, etc.

and then a few more lines later:

"...or the weapon has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of a weapon identified in said subclauses (a) to (i), inclusive, of said clause (i);

provided further, that a receiver shall be treated as the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of such an enumerated weapon if it includes or accepts at least 2 operating components that are the same as or interchangeable with those of such enumerated weapon;"

And to prove that this applies to bolt action rifles, this is how the bill defines a "receiver":

"any such part that is identified with an importer's or manufacturer's serial number shall be presumed to be the receiver of the weapon"

A Ruger American Predator in .223 is a bolt action rifle, with a receiver that accepts the following "operating components":

1. AR-style magazines
2. 1/2″x 28 muzzle devices

And plenty more, of course. Is a sight an operating component? A chassis that accepts detachable pistol grips?

I'm lost in the ambiguity of the following phrases as they apply to rifle parts:

• "Substantially similar in construction and configuration"
• Internal functional components
• Operating components

Naturally, I can't imagine that MA would prosecute an owner of this firearm as if it were an assault weapon, but I'm interested in understanding the letter of the law.

But am I reading this properly? Would the linked rifle be an assault weapon? Or does the first quote pre-empt the latter?

 

[Hardwired]

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.

No human required except insert here. Goog Translate image to text.

 

[Picton]

I need a sanity check on this. A particular chunk from the senate amendment struck me:


Ok, bolt action rifles aren't assault weapons.

A few lines later:

Internal functional components? I suppose that means bolt, trigger group, extractor, etc.

and then a few more lines later:


And to prove that this applies to bolt action rifles, this is how the bill defines a "receiver":



A Ruger American Predator in .223 is a bolt action rifle, with a receiver that accepts the following "operating components":

1. AR-style magazines
2. 1/2″x 28 muzzle devices

And plenty more, of course. Is a sight an operating component? A chassis that accepts detachable pistol grips?

I'm lost in the ambiguity of the following phrases as they apply to rifle parts:

• "Substantially similar in construction and configuration"
• Internal functional components
• Operating components

Naturally, I can't imagine that MA would prosecute an owner of this firearm as if it were an assault weapon, but I'm interested in understanding the letter of the law.

But am I reading this properly? Would the linked rifle be an assault weapon? Or does the first quote pre-empt the latter?

Dude, get past all this mental masturbation. You won't find the clarity you seek because the bill is written in such a way that clarity is impossible.

Accept that your overlords desire to harm your rights. Once you understand that, the whole thing becomes obvious. And so should your response.

There's your "sanity check." It's insane to think you can understand this bill and make it make sense, in terms of your rights. Quit trying.

 

[mothybee]

I need a sanity check on this. A particular chunk from the senate amendment struck me:


Ok, bolt action rifles aren't assault weapons.

A few lines later:

Internal functional components? I suppose that means bolt, trigger group, extractor, etc.

and then a few more lines later:


And to prove that this applies to bolt action rifles, this is how the bill defines a "receiver":



A Ruger American Predator in .223 is a bolt action rifle, with a receiver that accepts the following "operating components":

1. AR-style magazines
2. 1/2″x 28 muzzle devices

And plenty more, of course. Is a sight an operating component? A chassis that accepts detachable pistol grips?

I'm lost in the ambiguity of the following phrases as they apply to rifle parts:

• "Substantially similar in construction and configuration"
• Internal functional components
• Operating components

Naturally, I can't imagine that MA would prosecute an owner of this firearm as if it were an assault weapon, but I'm interested in understanding the letter of the law.

But am I reading this properly? Would the linked rifle be an assault weapon? Or does the first quote pre-empt the latter?

Mass. bill, clearity, understand, assume.... Your precious.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

I need a sanity check on this. A particular chunk from the senate amendment struck me:


Ok, bolt action rifles aren't assault weapons.

A few lines later:

Internal functional components? I suppose that means bolt, trigger group, extractor, etc.

and then a few more lines later:


And to prove that this applies to bolt action rifles, this is how the bill defines a "receiver":



A Ruger American Predator in .223 is a bolt action rifle, with a receiver that accepts the following "operating components":

1. AR-style magazines
2. 1/2″x 28 muzzle devices

And plenty more, of course. Is a sight an operating component? A chassis that accepts detachable pistol grips?

I'm lost in the ambiguity of the following phrases as they apply to rifle parts:

• "Substantially similar in construction and configuration"
• Internal functional components
• Operating components

Naturally, I can't imagine that MA would prosecute an owner of this firearm as if it were an assault weapon, but I'm interested in understanding the letter of the law.

But am I reading this properly? Would the linked rifle be an assault weapon? Or does the first quote pre-empt the latter?

It’s a feature, not a bug.

 

[Rocky Mosasaurus]

When Jim says the work done to make the House bill better, is the House bill truly all that much better? It still bans a ton of things the only difference is the coveted grandfathering since it also bans manufacture of frames and other things so what am I missing here?

 

[p..]

PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. 299 PRINTER'S NO. 2577
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE BILL
No. 336 Session of 2023

AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, AS AMENDED, FEBRUARY 6, 2024

AN ACT
Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous
articles, prohibiting certain assault weapons.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOC...d=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0336&pn=2577

Party control of Pennsylvania state government

"Party control of Pennsylvania state government
Pennsylvania has a divided government. The Democratic Party controls the offices of governor, attorney general, and the lower chamber of the state legislature, while the Republican Party controls the office of secretary of state and the upper chamber of the state legislature."

 

[Tallahassee]

Wednesday bump.

Is my poverty pony grandfathered?

 

[Tallahassee]

When Jim says the work done to make the House bill better, is the House bill truly all that much better? It still bans a ton of things the only difference is the coveted grandfathering since it also bans manufacture of frames and other things so what am I missing here?

Better = compromising.

Still sucks sideways.

 

[aphextwin11]

PRIOR PRINTER'S NO. 299 PRINTER'S NO. 2577
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE BILL
No. 336 Session of 2023

AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, AS AMENDED, FEBRUARY 6, 2024

AN ACT
Amending Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes, in firearms and other dangerous
articles, prohibiting certain assault weapons.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOC...d=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0336&pn=2577

Party control of Pennsylvania state government

"Party control of Pennsylvania state government
Pennsylvania has a divided government. The Democratic Party controls the offices of governor, attorney general, and the lower chamber of the state legislature, while the Republican Party controls the office of secretary of state and the upper chamber of the state legislature."

I'll save you some time:

California
Colorado
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Minnesota
New Mexico
Delaware
Illinois
Connecticut
New york
New Jersey
Hawaii
Maryland

These states are either currently considering bills beefing up an AWB similar to what MA is doing, or already have something close to it in place. Let me know if I missed any.

 

[pastera]

I need a sanity check on this. A particular chunk from the senate amendment struck me:


Ok, bolt action rifles aren't assault weapons.

A few lines later:

Internal functional components? I suppose that means bolt, trigger group, extractor, etc.

and then a few more lines later:


And to prove that this applies to bolt action rifles, this is how the bill defines a "receiver":



A Ruger American Predator in .223 is a bolt action rifle, with a receiver that accepts the following "operating components":

1. AR-style magazines
2. 1/2″x 28 muzzle devices

And plenty more, of course. Is a sight an operating component? A chassis that accepts detachable pistol grips?

I'm lost in the ambiguity of the following phrases as they apply to rifle parts:

• "Substantially similar in construction and configuration"
• Internal functional components
• Operating components

Naturally, I can't imagine that MA would prosecute an owner of this firearm as if it were an assault weapon, but I'm interested in understanding the letter of the law.

But am I reading this properly? Would the linked rifle be an assault weapon? Or does the first quote pre-empt the latter?

The bolt exclusion short circuits the rest of the stuff

 

[pastera]

When Jim says the work done to make the House bill better, is the House bill truly all that much better? It still bans a ton of things the only difference is the coveted grandfathering since it also bans manufacture of frames and other things so what am I missing here?

The Senate bill is a much abbreviated version of the house bill - Goal was working in the background to effect many of those changes.
Its still a shit sandwich, but instead of a triple helping of shit it's only a double helping

 

[LittleCalm]

I need a sanity check on this. A particular chunk from the senate amendment struck me:


Ok, bolt action rifles aren't assault weapons.

A few lines later:

Internal functional components? I suppose that means bolt, trigger group, extractor, etc.

and then a few more lines later:


And to prove that this applies to bolt action rifles, this is how the bill defines a "receiver":



A Ruger American Predator in .223 is a bolt action rifle, with a receiver that accepts the following "operating components":

1. AR-style magazines
2. 1/2″x 28 muzzle devices

And plenty more, of course. Is a sight an operating component? A chassis that accepts detachable pistol grips?

I'm lost in the ambiguity of the following phrases as they apply to rifle parts:

• "Substantially similar in construction and configuration"
• Internal functional components
• Operating components

Naturally, I can't imagine that MA would prosecute an owner of this firearm as if it were an assault weapon, but I'm interested in understanding the letter of the law.

But am I reading this properly? Would the linked rifle be an assault weapon? Or does the first quote pre-empt the latter?

I don't think you are reading it right. I think operating components is like BCG. There is some level of ambiguity in every statute. I would not get worried about your bolt guns. You have enough other stuff to worry about.

 

[teledor]

I don't think you are reading it right. I think operating components is like BCG. There is some level of ambiguity in every statute. I would not get worried about your bolt guns. You have enough other stuff to worry about.

If this is the case, then ban-state compliance products like the Kali Key and JC Arms' lowers will be completely off the table.

 

[Tallahassee]

If this is the case, then ban-state compliance products like the Kali Key and JC Arms' lowers will be completely off the table.

I don't see an issue with this.

 

[DW357]

Let's hope so. I just spent $2750 on a firearm so I hope it legal to keep once all this shut hits fan

I just dropped over $3300 yesterday on a firearm. Ooooooooof. So financially irresponsible but I figured it’s now or never. Most expensive gun I’ve purchased thus far. Hopefully it arrives next week

 

[chris_1001]

I just dropped over $3300 yesterday on a firearm. Ooooooooof. So financially irresponsible but I figured it’s now or never. Most expensive gun I’ve purchased thus far. Hopefully it arrives next week

Awaiting pics!!

I’m trying to buy an expensive one but it’s out of stock from the distributors. So I’m on hold until it becomes available.

Might buy a few Glocks just because…

 

[Sparky1911]

I just dropped over $3300 yesterday on a firearm. Ooooooooof. So financially irresponsible but I figured it’s now or never. Most expensive gun I’ve purchased thus far. Hopefully it arrives next week

Well…..what is it. I have to know.

 

[EddieZoom]

I just dropped over $3300 yesterday on a firearm. Ooooooooof. So financially irresponsible but I figured it’s now or never. Most expensive gun I’ve purchased thus far. Hopefully it arrives next week

Gotta see a pic of what a $3300 gun looks like when it arrives.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Awaiting pics!!

I’m trying to buy an expensive one but it’s out of stock from the distributors. So I’m on hold until it becomes available.

Might buy a few Glocks just because…

Gun Broker.