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

[1903Collector]

So they moved 9/94 to 8/24?

Who the f*** knows at this point lol.

 

[1903Collector]

Screw this, I'm out for tonight, catch ya'll in prison sometime.

 

[chris_1001]

So they moved 9/94 to 8/24?

two weeks!

 

[souper]

So they moved 9/94 to 8/24?

Not really, but kind of. Pre 94 is still a thing in that the law doesn’t consider them a ASW. But from what I can tell there’s no other difference between pre and post 94 rifles.

 

[chris_1001]

Screw this, I'm out for tonight, catch ya'll in prison sometime.

I already called my cell mate. Good luck

 

[1903Collector]

two weeks!

I had too, we need a little humor here.

 

[MAJoe]

Pre 94 is mentioned and codified according to this- unless I’m mistaken. Can you elaborate?

It’s only Appendix A, not all pre-94.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/vw/appendix-a-guns-list.pdf

 

[MAJoe]

Unless they now consider post 2016 not legally possessed

That would be interesting. They may be trying to say that but it’s going to be an interesting case if someone is charged with having something that was registered post-2016 that follows the AG guidance (like a rimfire AR).

 

[Picton]

Yeah.

Look, God bless you guys who are spending all this time parsing everything out. Really. And I understand, I suppose, the worry of those of you who are trying so hard to learn about the ins and outs of this new law, presumably so that you can follow it.

But I'm done. I'm following more than enough laws already; I don't intend to follow more. Good luck out there, everybody, and stay frosty.

 

[DW357]

MS Access time !!!!

;-)

Lmao the 20+ year old database I use at the state agency I work for, is MS Access. It’s terrible

 

[p.tice]

Not really, but kind of. Pre 94 is still a thing in that the law doesn’t consider them a ASW. But from what I can tell there’s no other difference between pre and post 94 rifles.

So they moved 9/94 to 8/24?

It also seems they've worked in that anything post 2016 is considered a copy, even though they never were until this bill. That's the part thats really anyones guess at this point.

 

[Gunowner80]

So before 8/1/24, I can go buy a lower, build it to MASSIFIED specs, “register” it through the EFA10 process, and be allowed to keep it after 8/1/24???

 

[chris_1001]

It also seems they've worked in that anything post 2016 is considered a copy, even though they never were until this bill. That's the part thats really anyones guess at this point.

2016 was not a law.

 

[p.tice]

2016 was not a law.

That's what im saying. This bill reads it as if it were (even though it wasn't) by considering both 8/1 and 7/16, which is why it's so confusing. IANAL so take my opinions with a grain of salt.

 

[chris_1001]

That's what im saying. This bill reads it as if it were (even though it wasn't) by considering both 8/1 and 7/16, which is why it's so confusing. IANAL so take my opinions with a grain of salt.

Yes. All this is by design to confuse us more.

 

[souper]

It also seems they've worked in that anything post 2016 is considered a copy, even though they never were until this bill. That's the part thats really anyones guess at this point.

They’re just trying to help Healey save face by hard coding her BS. But doesn’t matter because all duplicates and copies are legal to possess anyway (by 8/1/24).

 

[CrackPot]

So they moved 9/94 to 8/24?

So before 8/1/24, I can go buy a lower, build it to MASSIFIED specs, “register” it through the EFA10 process, and be allowed to keep it after 8/1/24???

Different dates for different purposes.

9/13/94 is still true preban and preban firearms are still good to go as they always were

8/1/24 grandfathers any gun LAWFULLY possessed by a LTC holder or MA Dealer. So your AWB (1994/1998 AWB) compliant rifle thst you owned lawfully before 8/1 remains lawful. All post 8/1 need to be compliant with the new ASW definition

6/20/16 is a cut off for “not a copy or duplicate” in the ASW definition. The only way this matters is if Healey was law so post 6/20/16 copies or duplicates would be deemed not lawfully possessed. But that language also says “registered” which is not a thing so a mess at all levels.

 

[AJK129]

Yes. All this is by design to confuse us more.

Or..

 

[chris_1001]

Or..

View attachment 898158

I’m soooo confused! And while we’re here.

Bite me! lol

 

[Palladin]

Have I mentioned lately, that I'm so glad I moved.
I luv NH

 

[CrackPot]

Different dates for different purposes.

9/13/94 is still true preban and preban firearms are still good to go as they always were

8/1/24 grandfathers any gun LAWFULLY possessed by a LTC holder or MA Dealer. So your AWB (1994/1998 AWB) compliant rifle thst you owned lawfully before 8/1 remains lawful. All post 8/1 need to be compliant with the new ASW definition

6/20/16 is a cut off for “not a copy or duplicate” in the ASW definition. The only way this matters is if Healey was law so post 6/20/16 copies or duplicates would be deemed not lawfully possessed. But that language also says “registered” which is not a thing so a mess at all levels.

I’ll add more color and constraint.

The definition of ASW does not care about 8/1/24 or 9/13/94. It is unlawful to import into MA any ASWs or LCFD. So they are either here already or you can’t have them.

131M does not permit possession of ASWs unless lawfully possessed by a LTC holder or MA dealer before 8/1/24. Again no mention of 9/13/94 for guns. BUT a preban could have had evil feature and been lawfully possessed and that remains true. There is no need to mention the date for preban guns.

Preban mags the date is mentioned because post pan and pre 8/1/24 can’t be lawfully possessed except by people still exempt.

Mags are restricted in use and unsellable. Guns can still be sold and bought. It only says lawfully possessed by LTC or dealer, not lawfully possessed by the current person possessing.

Preban guns still good, just can’t bring more into the state. Preban mags less good but still useable on private property and range.

 

[Atlantis]

Just so I understand… this thread is mostly comprised of people who currently have guns. People who are wondering how this law is going to impact their ability to continue to possess these guns. It’s almost like we’re forgetting why we have guns in the first place. If you think it’s for punching holes in paper…. Just hand them over I guess. Literally I don’t care. And if you’re a LEO reading this, I hope you’re thinking “yes, this guy gets it” because the alternative is stacking up. Good luck

Edit to add: in all seriousness I appreciate crackpot and others for the insights

 

[MaroonedinMA]

Different dates for different purposes.

9/13/94 is still true preban and preban firearms are still good to go as they always were

8/1/24 grandfathers any gun LAWFULLY possessed by a LTC holder or MA Dealer. So your AWB (1994/1998 AWB) compliant rifle thst you owned lawfully before 8/1 remains lawful. All post 8/1 need to be compliant with the new ASW definition

6/20/16 is a cut off for “not a copy or duplicate” in the ASW definition. The only way this matters is if Healey was law so post 6/20/16 copies or duplicates would be deemed not lawfully possessed. But that language also says “registered” which is not a thing so a mess at all levels.

Even the GOAL Summary appears to confuse the issue by mentioning only "Grandfathering if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016. with no mention of the 8/1/date.

 

[LakeTrout]

Wut?

Him who?

Mura

Oh shit I’m a retard lol. I completely brain farted out Maura and was think cucky baker.

 

[spt_1955]

You cant efa10 a receiver. It’s not a gun.

It is now.

Actually the system wont let you efa-10 it unless you specify a barrel length of at least 16 inches.

 

[souper]

Even the GOAL Summary appears to confuse the issue by mentioning only "Grandfathering if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016. with no mention of the 8/1/date.

They haven’t gotten to section 131M yet.

 

[CrackPot]

Even the GOAL Summary appears to confuse the issue by mentioning only "Grandfathering if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016. with no mention of the 8/1/date.

The if registered language comes from copies or duplicate in sec 121 ASW definition. 131M which is where ASWs become illegal has the 8/1/24 date. The only way 7/20/16 matters is in a world where Healey was more than a press conference. Sounds like Guida is “helping” GOAL.

 

[Gunowner80]

Sounds like the language is so that from the time of Healy till 8/1/24 all those firearms would have to be turned in.

 

[MaroonedinMA]

They haven’t gotten to section 131M yet.

Occam's razor. I actually get it, now.

 

[william_munny]

Even the GOAL Summary appears to confuse the issue by mentioning only "Grandfathering if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016. with no mention of the 8/1/date.

Yeah, this is what concerns me. Technically we were legally in possession of those things until this new law passed. The 2016 enforcement notice was not a law itself, this new bill just codifies its language as law. I don't see how they can apply that retroactively but IANAL.