Heard on morning news that the conference committee starts their reconciliation of the two bills today 
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
MA Gun Grab 2024: H.4885 - Passed legislature, headed to the governor
- Thread starter GOAL
- Start date
- Status
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.
Search results for query: stripped lower
www.northeastshooters.com
His $3k “pre-Healey” Noveske is totally worth more than twice as much as a true pre-94 lower that you can do whatever you want with.
Amputee Marksman
NES Member
If you ignore the "once an AW always an AW" verbiage here is the solution for anyone who is worried.
Because a bolt-action is not an “assault weapon.”
The Kali Key bolt-action charging system lets you keep, transport, and import the rifle you love, with all its features, in “assault weapon” jurisdictions. You can quickly and easily build your ideal hunting rifle or the quietest suppressed rifle, and it also benefits your long-range precision shooting.
The Kali Key is a true drop-in solution: No milling, no aesthetic modifications, and no turning off your gas system is necessary.
Kali Key installation is simple and hassle-free.
Kali Key - The drop in Bolt Action AR solution
THE KALI KEY BOLT-ACTION SYSTEM (B.A.S.)
Because a bolt-action is not an “assault weapon.”
The Kali Key bolt-action charging system lets you keep, transport, and import the rifle you love, with all its features, in “assault weapon” jurisdictions. You can quickly and easily build your ideal hunting rifle or the quietest suppressed rifle, and it also benefits your long-range precision shooting.
The Kali Key is a true drop-in solution: No milling, no aesthetic modifications, and no turning off your gas system is necessary.
Kali Key installation is simple and hassle-free.
Kali Key - The drop in Bolt Action AR solution
Heard on morning news that the conference committee starts their reconciliation of the two bills today
Welp, I guess I’m not getting that custom action I ordered months ago.
pastera
NES Member
Anything not specifically mentioned by name that doesn't share significant internal components with a named weapon is not by default an AW
The MCX seems to be able to use an AR trigger group and magazines but it is objectively not a copy of an AR so who knows.
pastera
NES Member
The issue with this is with the new bill the lower is considered an AW on its own separate from the functional firearm
The state would need to dig deep to successfully prosecute but that doesn't preclude the persecution they enjoy to serve to lawful gun owners.
DarthRevan
NES Member
I can’t believe @pastera has continued to reply to reps posts.
f***ing saint.
f***ing saint.
pastera
NES Member
No, the person whom you sell to did not acquire prior to 7/20/16 - you can build out since YOU acquired the lower prior to the cut off.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.
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.
And there is nothing binding in that letter - their position is stated as "had been" not "is".
And you didn't include the question you asked so I can't really determine what the answer truly means.
The Gen 1 and Gen 2 MCXes had a different trigger than an AR. The new Spear LT does use the same trigger though. I’m mad that these power mongers at the state house are forcing me to make such a ridiculous distinction.
DarthRevan
NES Member
Best to ignore them anyways.
Assuming your risk tolerance allows.
pastera
NES Member
I reply so that newbie's don't think I have conceded to his position - He might be right in that the government chooses not to pursue charges on people who purchase reseller lowers post 7/20/16 but their is ZERO evidence that the state is precluded from doing so AND the text of the new bill codifies that those unregistered lowers become uncurable felonies once passed.
pastera
NES Member
BBR man BBR applies always
Big Boy Rules = do what you are comfortable with and no pant shitting "can I" posts.
Coda
NES Member
You are a very patient man.
Anybody that has been here awhile or is in the know realizes how ridiculous it is to try and sell a lower for $3000.
But the newbie’s that come here are vulnerable. It is a shame that someone could come here seeking some solid advice only to get ripped off on a 3K lower.
Some of these posts are less about the thread title and more about how is this going to hurt my “investment”.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2024
- Messages
- 219
- Likes
- 396
I agree with you 100%. At this moment, we need to unite and find a constructive solution or support to overcome this matter, rather than being selfish. If one of the Democratic senators accidentally reads our thread here, they may pass much worse laws against the Second Amendment. Or maybe they have someone here to evaluate our thoughts and mentality!!
1903Collector
NES Member
For me, the one good thing to come out of this is that it has ramped up the "leaving MA" conversations big time, even my daughters are starting to come around, Mrs.1903 has been looking at property in the Carolina's/Kentucky/Tennessee. Don't know if there will be follow thru but I'm hopeful.
Not in this case.
Individual big boy rules don’t apply when it is illegal for dealers to transfer the action to you when the law says it is now a firearm and has to be on the approved firearm roster. The point is that it literally won’t be able to be transferred to me, no matter how much risk I’m willing to take. I wouldn’t even be able to buy it in another state because it’s not yet a rifle according to the feds. So no out-of-state transfers.
It’s just a bolt action… action. As simple as it comes. But it will be a firearm under the new law, even though it can’t fire a shot. And as such, it will need to be on the approved firearm roster. And no company (especially small custom action companies) are going to get a rifle action onto the approved firearm roster. They actually probably can’t even if they wanted to, because the action by itself wouldn’t be able to even be tested since it’s not a functioning firearm.
Once this law passes, … this chunk of metal with a bolt will be too dangerous for consumers to buy in MA:
pastera
NES Member
If that is what you are looking to buy it has zero features and is definitively not a copy or duplicate of an enumerated weapon
In other words, I don't see any way an FFL couldn't transfer it to you.
Because the new law will almost certainly state that bare frames and receivers are firearms. The whole “needs to be able to fire a shot to be a firearm” will be gone. Therefore, every receiver/frame will be a firearm and need to be on one of the approved firearm rosters.
This has nothing to do with the AWB.
pastera
NES Member
The roster is for handguns ("firearms") - Since there is no approve roster, nor test criteria for long guns there would be an immediate run to SCOTUS as the state would be extinguishing the right at the level of the DC ban struck down in Heller, then reiterated in Caetano.
But it wouldn’t be a rifle. It would be a firearm. It does not have a barrel over 16”. Yes, it will fall under the approved firearm regulations.
pastera
NES Member
You are mixing Federal stupidity with Mass stupidity and resulting in Retard² - one does not go full retard, retard squared is not even contemplated in polite company.
No, I’m not. In MGL if a rifled gun has a barrel 16”+, it is a rifle. If not, it is a firearm. The new bill they’re working out is, in part, trying to stop people from doing frame transfers by making all frames and receivers firearms. Hence, they will need to be on one of the three approved firearm rosters in order to be transferred. This bare bolt action receiver would become a firearm according to the new bill being sorted at the state house.
MGL Ch 140 Section 121
”''Firearm'', a stun gun or a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured; provided, however, that the term firearm shall not include any weapon that is: (i) constructed in a shape that does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun including, but not limited to, covert weapons that resemble key-chains, pens, cigarette-lighters or cigarette-packages; or (ii) not detectable as a weapon or potential weapon by x-ray machines commonly used at airports or walk- through metal detectors.”
“''Rifle'', a weapon having a rifled bore with a barrel length equal to or greater than 16 inches and capable of discharging a shot or bullet for each pull of the trigger.”
Essentially, they’re getting rid of the “capable of discharging a shot” stipulation. But since the bare receiver does not have a barrel greater than 16”, it will just be a “firearm”.
Last edited:
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
Same here as well
pastera
NES Member
Contact Com2a to see if they share your interpretation - if so maybe you can be the plaintiff needed to file against that part of the law.
No, I’m not. In MGL if a rifled gun has a barrel 16”+, it is a rifle. If not, it is a firearm. The new bill they’re working out is, in part, trying to stop people from doing frame transfers by making all frames and receivers firearms. Hence, they will need to be on one of the three approved firearm rosters in order to be transferred. This bare bolt action receiver would become a firearm according to the new bill being sorted at the state house.
MGL Ch 140 Section 121
”''Firearm'', a stun gun or a pistol, revolver or other weapon of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which a shot or bullet can be discharged and of which the length of the barrel or barrels is less than 16 inches or 18 inches in the case of a shotgun as originally manufactured; provided, however, that the term firearm shall not include any weapon that is: (i) constructed in a shape that does not resemble a handgun, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun including, but not limited to, covert weapons that resemble key-chains, pens, cigarette-lighters or cigarette-packages; or (ii) not detectable as a weapon or potential weapon by x-ray machines commonly used at airports or walk- through metal detectors.”
“''Rifle'', a weapon having a rifled bore with a barrel length equal to or greater than 16 inches and capable of discharging a shot or bullet for each pull of the trigger.”
Essentially, they’re getting rid of the “capable of discharging a shot” stipulation. But since the bare receiver does not have a barrel greater than 16”, it will just be a “firearm”.
Com2a et al will need a number of clean plaintiffs willing to participate in legal actions against the different sections of the bill
I'm not 100% certain that an unbarreled bolt action would be an issue but haven't really concerned myself with those issues
Well, maybe you should concern yourself with the issues and educate yourself on them before calling me a retard. I get you‘ve been whipped into some sort of frenzy trying to battle reptile. But you’re barking up the wrong tree on this one. I know what I’m talking about.
pastera
NES Member
Really - you haven't been here long if you think I was calling you a retard The reference is common vernacular here to the insane and retarded laws in Mass and the inability for even those that wrote them to interpret their meanings
Sorry if you misinterpreted my post but asking me to educate myself on a section of law that only inconveniences a small handful of people when there will be thousands of people facing felony issues is a little self important. If you notice how I responded you'll see I recommended getting another opinion from a trusted group on what your niche issue might mean with respect to the proposed language - I didn't say you were right nor wrong, just that you should get another opinion since the whole issue of frames will be new to the GCAB's list of responsibilities and they may actually take action that isn't Mass retard level stupid.
I still am not sure if your issue is actually an issue that will endure - given the very unique nature the GCAB would very likely be persuaded to add the manufacturer to the approved roster since the current roster only handles pistols/revolvers. Leaving precision rifles off an approved list would very quickly open that list to further judicial scrutiny which is the last thing the state wants after enacting any iteration of the current bills.
Edit: if you think about your quandary from outside the box The solution is simply to pick a receiving FFL that is also a manufacturer. Action gets received you hand over the rest of the parts, pay for an initial assembly and now you have a bolt action rifle.
Take it home disassemble and do the final gunsmithing to set headspace and bed the action.
Last edited:
Grendizer138
NES Member
I’m reading all this and just thinking I need an excuse to buy a Sig Spear.
You’re the one interjecting your uneducated thoughts about my post. I didn’t ask your opinion. You came out saying I was wrong without knowledge on that section of law. Here’s the thing, I usually don’t post unless I know what I’m talking about.Sweet Jesus, yes you did. You said big boy rules apply to my situation, when they don’t. You told me you thought an FFL should be able to transfer it to me, when I was saying they couldn’t. You said I was confusing MA and Federal laws. That is absolutely telling me I’m wrong.
You didn’t recommend finding another opinion until after I provided evidence. But PS, telling me to seek another opinion is also a form of questioning whether I’m right or wrong.
How long does reconciliation take?Heard on morning news that the conference committee starts their reconciliation of the two bills today
If it takes a week, for example, how soon after will we get to see what they came up with?
I presume that right after, Healey will sign it and it will go into effect a few months later.
No more hearings or discussions.
It will be what it is and that's the end of it.
- Status
