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

Status
Not open for further replies.
pastera said:
But as a copy or duplicate of an enumerated weapon the features dont matter.
Click to expand...
I was thinking of a registered pre-2016 lower :). If it's already a similar gun, it's covered under the "pre-2016 non enforcement" or "pre-2016 grandfathering" that has been proposed, as putting parts on it does not make it an AW because it is already one.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I was thinking of a registered pre-2016 lower :). If it's already a similar gun, it's covered under the "pre-2016 non enforcement" or "pre-2016 grandfathering" that has been proposed, as putting parts on it does not make it an AW because it is already one.
Click to expand...
Agree - my point is that under "copies & duplicates" one cannot cure the AW issue by deleting or simply not including banned features.

So under the interpretation in the notice there can be no legal ARs in the state unless grandfathered by the new bill.
And that's why I don't want any level of grandfathering to pass - the Mass AWB is a carbon copy of the federal ban which DID allow for curing of "copies and duplicates" by government approved methods of feature deletion.

So not including the ability to cure copies and duplicates is a change in law and backdating the application is an ex post facto issue.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I was thinking of a registered pre-2016 lower :). If it's already a similar gun, it's covered under the "pre-2016 non enforcement" or "pre-2016 grandfathering" that has been proposed, as putting parts on it does not make it an AW because it is already one.
Click to expand...
Answering twice because I didn't address your actual point.
I agree that if the bill passes with the current grandfathering language in place that the items in question would be the same as pre 94 - freedom guns.
 
Maybe if you were an illegal migrant it would be easier?

IMG_0477.png
app.theepochtimes.com

The Epoch Times | Breaking News, Latest News, World News and Videos

Get the latest breaking news, in-depth reporting, and insightful analysis on a wide range of topics, including politics, culture, and world events | The Epoch Times is a trusted source for real news and information that is free from influence and bias.
app.theepochtimes.com app.theepochtimes.com
 
fred6052000 said:
Massachusetts will become similar to California.
Click to expand...
Worse! Even if a Supreme Court dicision overturns any of this the state of Massachusetts won't care there is president that the states do not have to abide by Supreme Court decision case in point Hawii.
The Court has no teeth and in a one party system it doesn't have any power.
 
Picton said:
Nah. California's had that daft pistol-grip thingie for how long? You know, this thing:

View attachment 863265

That's been law out there for a decade maybe? In all that time, nobody's seriously suggested that here.
Click to expand...
That's one instance. It still seems that a lot MA politicians get their idea's from CA.

I am not just referring to gun laws. Gasoline car sales ban, emission standards...... CA likes to lead and MA likes to follow.

I remember buying my new Camaro in 1979, I ordered it with the 4-speed transmission. You could not order the car with a 4-speed in CA. I thought "that sucks" and was glad I lived in MA and not CA. That was 45 years ago and I thought that that MA would never be as restrictive as CA. Boy was I wrong!!!
 
Rob Boudrie said:
I was thinking of a registered pre-2016 lower :). If it's already a similar gun, it's covered under the "pre-2016 non enforcement" or "pre-2016 grandfathering" that has been proposed, as putting parts on it does not make it an AW because it is already one.
Click to expand...
I registered my M5E1 like 3 years after the edict - which I bought in the fall of 2019 - for shits and giggles - none of my animals were shot and no one came crashing through my windows or doors.
 
Da_lucche said:
I registered my M5E1 like 3 years after the edict - which I bought in the fall of 2019 - for shits and giggles - none of my animals were shot and no one came crashing through my windows or doors.
Click to expand...
The court case against the edict was dismissed not because it is bullshit but because the case was not ripe since no action was taken against anyone.
They got the effect they wanted by edict.
Now they are codifying that edict in a manner that the same courts that rubber stamped the edict will be able to claim is not ex post facto because of the edict - depending on what the state has the balls to do many of us are sitting on felony traps the state openly set.
Scotus will likely remedy the problem and get you out of jail but that won't get you back the time, you family, your money or your job.
 
pastera said:
You just don't get it do you?
That statement protects the SINGLE individual who owned the gun on or before 7/20/16.
THAT SINGLE person can own, possess, or transfer the gun without being prosecuted.
The own or possess are easy to understand - if you keep it, your good.
Now let's look at transfer - the owner might, a big f'ing might, be left alone for transferring an illegal AW under the states public execution of discretion per the notice but it says nothing about extending that discretion to the next owner.

You can try to read what you want into the notice but I am taking a reading that aligns with what was contained in the proposed bills.
You own a bunch of lowers, I get it.
You are fine to keep them
You are fine to transfer them
It is far from clear that the next person to obtain that item is exempt since the notice speaks to the PERSON not the object.
Click to expand...
You seem hell bent against pre Healey AR lowers.

Are people buying and selling POST Healey lowers in better shape?

What about folks selling POST Healey lowers? Should those folks worry more or less than pre Healey lowers?

Hell, even dealers are selling POST Healey lowers and even complete AR's.

Where is your criticism of them?

I think your anger is misplaced.
 
Reptile said:
You seem hell bent against pre Healey AR lowers.

Are people buying and selling POST Healey lowers in better shape?

What about folks selling POST Healey lowers? Should those folks worry more or less than pre Healey lowers?

Hell, even dealers are selling POST Healey lowers and even complete AR's.

Where is your criticism of them?

I think your anger is misplaced.
Click to expand...
I'm not angry- your lowers, your rules

Price them as you see fit but dont argue with me that your lowers possess some magical power to avoid the upcoming legislation. They are no different than other AR platform rifles with respect to that bill. And per your post they weren't reported to the portal before 7/20/2016 so the known grandfathering language does not apply to them, period.
Be truthful in your ad - you already updated it to remove some of the BS - will you update it to say that given the most current known text of the bill they will not be grandfathered upon passage? Probably not.

As for dealers selling post 2016 lowers - good for them as long as they aren't using pant shitting BS to try to get $3k for a $238 lower.
A search in the classifieds shows lots of reasonably priced lowers with only one $1.5k absurdity in the first page but at least that one doesn't have any pre-healy bs in it.

www.northeastshooters.com

Search results for query: stripped lower

www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
 
pastera said:
I'm not angry- your lowers, your rules

Price them as you see fit but dont argue with me that your lowers possess some magical power to avoid the upcoming legislation. They are no different than other AR platform rifles with respect to that bill. And per your post they weren't reported to the portal before 7/20/2016 so the known grandfathering language does not apply to them, period.
Be truthful in your ad - you already updated it to remove some of the BS - will you update it to say that given the most current known text of the bill they will not be grandfathered upon passage? Probably not.

As for dealers selling post 2016 lowers - good for them as long as they aren't using pant shitting BS to try to get $3k for a $238 lower.
A search in the classifieds shows lots of reasonably priced lowers with only one $1.5k absurdity in the first page but at least that one doesn't have any pre-healy bs in it.

www.northeastshooters.com

Search results for query: stripped lower

www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
Click to expand...
There you go again...

Read this:


What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?​


If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault Weapon. The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.
The AGO also will not enforce the law against a gun dealer that possesses or transfers a “copy or duplicate” weapon that was obtained on or before July 20, 2016, provided that transfers, if any, are made to persons or businesses in states where ownership of the weapon is legal.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Assault Weapons Ban Enforcement Notice

www.mass.gov www.mass.gov

weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.

Healey's edict does NOT say registered.

I have proof that my lowers were obtained before July, 20, 2016.
I have copies of the invoice by email and paper from the FFL that has the serial numbers.
My lowers were in state before July 20, 2016 and ownership was mine before that date.

I have "papers" that prove this.

They never needed to be registered as they were only stripped lowers.

Also,

For clarification, here is a letter from Healey's chief gun council, Gary Klein, that states as much and says a non-compliant receiver can be built up into complete rifles and THEN registered at a later date if you retain evidence that it was acquired before July 20, 2016.

Screenshot 2024-03-20 at 2.31.59 AM.jpeg

So now you understand that my lowers are in fact special since they have all the required documentation.

They just need to be in state before July 20, 2016 - NOT REGISTERED.

And, I have the physical proof to show that.

If Healey's edict is in fact codified and is adhered to as in her FAQ (in the link above) my lowers are perfectly legal to build up into a complete rifle and THEN registered. They don't need to be registered previously.
 
pastera said:
You just don't get it do you?
That statement protects the SINGLE individual who owned the gun on or before 7/20/16.
THAT SINGLE person can own, possess, or transfer the gun without being prosecuted.
The own or possess are easy to understand - if you keep it, your good.
Now let's look at transfer - the owner might, a big f'ing might, be left alone for transferring an illegal AW under the states public execution of discretion per the notice but it says nothing about extending that discretion to the next owner.

You can try to read what you want into the notice but I am taking a reading that aligns with what was contained in the proposed bills.
You own a bunch of lowers, I get it.
You are fine to keep them
You are fine to transfer them
It is far from clear that the next person to obtain that item is exempt since the notice speaks to the PERSON not the object.
Click to expand...
You are a very patient man.
 
Reptile said:
There you go again...

Read this:


What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?​


If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault Weapon. The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.
The AGO also will not enforce the law against a gun dealer that possesses or transfers a “copy or duplicate” weapon that was obtained on or before July 20, 2016, provided that transfers, if any, are made to persons or businesses in states where ownership of the weapon is legal.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Assault Weapons Ban Enforcement Notice

www.mass.gov www.mass.gov

weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.

Healey's edict does NOT say registered.

I have proof that my lowers were obtained before July, 20, 2016.
I have copies of the invoice by email and paper from the FFL that has the serial numbers.
My lowers were in state before July 20, 2016 and ownership was mine before that date.

I have "papers" that prove this.

They never needed to be registered as they were only stripped lowers.

Also,

For clarification, here is a letter from Healey's chief gun council, Gary Klein, that states as much and says a non-compliant receiver can be built up into complete rifles and THEN registered at a later date if you retain evidence that it was acquired before July 20, 2016.

View attachment 863548

So now you understand that my lowers are in fact special since they have all the required documentation.

They just need to be in state before July 20, 2016 - NOT REGISTERED.

And, I have the physical proof to show that.

If Healey's edict is in fact codified and is adhered to as in her FAQ (in the link above) my lowers are perfectly legal to build up into a complete rifle and THEN registered. They don't need to be registered previously.
Click to expand...
Nope.

If her edict becomes law as written, pre-edict lowers can indeed be transferred - but not to anyone in MA.

If you possessed the lower pre edict, you would be able to build it out. Nobody else can.

Read what you posted - that’s what it says.
 
allen-1 said:
Nope.

If her edict becomes law as written, pre-edict lowers can indeed be transferred - but not to anyone in MA.

If you possessed the lower pre edict, you would be able to build it out. Nobody else can.

Read what you posted - that’s what it says.
Click to expand...

The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.

TRANSFER

The Enforcement notice will not be applied.
 
Reptile said:
There you go again...

Read this:


What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?​


If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault Weapon. The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.
The AGO also will not enforce the law against a gun dealer that possesses or transfers a “copy or duplicate” weapon that was obtained on or before July 20, 2016, provided that transfers, if any, are made to persons or businesses in states where ownership of the weapon is legal.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Assault Weapons Ban Enforcement Notice

www.mass.gov www.mass.gov

weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.

Healey's edict does NOT say registered.

I have proof that my lowers were obtained before July, 20, 2016.
I have copies of the invoice by email and paper from the FFL that has the serial numbers.
My lowers were in state before July 20, 2016 and ownership was mine before that date.

I have "papers" that prove this.

They never needed to be registered as they were only stripped lowers.

Also,

For clarification, here is a letter from Healey's chief gun council, Gary Klein, that states as much and says a non-compliant receiver can be built up into complete rifles and THEN registered at a later date if you retain evidence that it was acquired before July 20, 2016.

View attachment 863548

So now you understand that my lowers are in fact special since they have all the required documentation.

They just need to be in state before July 20, 2016 - NOT REGISTERED.

And, I have the physical proof to show that.

If Healey's edict is in fact codified and is adhered to as in her FAQ (in the link above) my lowers are perfectly legal to build up into a complete rifle and THEN registered. They don't need to be registered previously.
Click to expand...
Have you read the senate or house bills?
Probably not.
Her edict doesn't have the power of law buy some version of the senate/house bill will.
And the best version of grandfathering in those bills states gun must be lawfully registered by 7/20/16 to be grandfathered.
Your lowers will not qualify with the currently known language in the bill.

Keep fighting and I'll go into why the grandfathering language may not mean anything even for guns registered before the deadline.
 
Reptile said:
The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.

TRANSFER

The Enforcement notice will not be applied.
Click to expand...
Obtained.

You obtained them before that date. You transferring it to me tomorrow means I did not obtain it before that date.

if you replaced obtained with manufacturing, I think you would be correct.

The way I read it, you lowers are no different to the as ones manufactured today as it comes to transferring them.
 
Reptile said:
The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.

TRANSFER

The Enforcement notice will not be applied.
Click to expand...
Okay - let's critically read this.
The state will not pursue criminal charges against the lower so the statement applies to an individual gun owner
Now we ask which particular gun owners the statement applies to - that would be individuals (so dealers are screwed) that had within the window of the statute of limitations from the enforcement notice (remember we are analyzing a document in the past) as referenced on July 20,2016.
What actions are effected
Ownership - this is throwaway language as the ownership of AWB items isn't illegal. One can be a Mass resident and own as many unneutered guns as one wants without fear, what you cannot do is possess them within the Massachusetts
Possession - Here is where Chapt 140 Sect 131m gets you. The Notice has made it clear that the item is a copy or duplicate of an enumerated weapon and therefore is an assault weapon once built out. The notice also states that possession on or before July 20, 2016 would not be prosecuted - so if you possessed a covered a covered weapon before that date you wouldn't be prosecuted for continued possession (maybe since the statement was that you wouldn't be prosecuted for your past possession with no real mention of future possession from 7/20/16)
Transfer - Chapt 140 Sect 131m also criminalizes the transfer of assault weapons so the notice's dispensation for transfers occurring prior to or on 7/20/2016 also apply. However there is no mention of transfers of AW possessed prior to 7/20/16 but transferred after being covered by the voluntary prosecutorial discretion.

So your lowers are legal to possess since they are not actually capable of firing a shot but they have no coverage whatsoever from the notice.
Furthermore once built out, they bring the full wrath of Chapt 140 Sect 131m on the possessor. And if H.4139 is enacted in current form the lower itself becomes an AW and the notice is no longer an interpretation but clear and valid law.

If someone wants to point out where I am wrong in my reading of the legal language in the law and the notice, please explain where and how I am wrong.
However, if all you are going to do is point back to the same wording in the notice that they won't go after things as of 7/20/16, just don't since it's likely embarrassing at this point
 
Last edited:
allen-1 said:
Nope.

If her edict becomes law as written, pre-edict lowers can indeed be transferred - but not to anyone in MA.

If you possessed the lower pre edict, you would be able to build it out. Nobody else can.

Read what you posted - that’s what it says.
Click to expand...
While this is likely true - especially if the selling dealer FA-10'd it as a 0" multi caliber gun - but is not really within the language.
The clarification of the notice currently on Mass' website states that they currently consider just the stripped receiver an AW (not supported in law however) so early relief in court will not be found and you will be into your defense for very deep 6 figure amounts before relief comes if at all.

Attorney Foley argues the point that the notice's dispensation is for acts occurring on or prior to 7/20/2016 is revocable at any time so while it may have some influence on a court it would not bind the state to inaction. However, for acts after 2016 there is no coverage.
 
And wait until mass treats lowers like fed law and every other state that i’m aware of - the receiver IS the firearm. Stripped, serialized, unserialized, assembled, with an upper attached and any other state you can think of.

Now add in the ATF’s attempt to include 80% lowers in that group. Oh yeah - don’t forget pistol braces

MA will do that too , if they want to.

If i could make one overall law change it would be that states could not enact firearms laws more restrictive than the feds
 
Doesnt all this enforcement stuff only speak to ar15 or ak47 style guns? Guns like MCXs, Brens, Vectors, scorpions etc that aren't a copy or replicas...right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2024 Red Flag Report - The Emperor's New Clothes
Replies
1
Views
208
kevin9
kevin9
Germany's Gun-Grab? Saxony-Anhalt Begins Disarming AfD Members
Replies
5
Views
243
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Christmas 2024
2 3
Replies
79
Views
2K
zork51
Z
1977 Colt Python legal to own/get shipped to MA from GunBroker?
Replies
24
Views
707
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Website in MA to view guns you own?
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Back
Top Bottom