One of my friends FA10'd a number of guns and when he submitted a request of his records, some guns didn't show up being registered.
That database is fooked. It's incomplete and riddled with mistakes!
-
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
That database is fooked. It's incomplete and riddled with mistakes!
KH56010
NES Member
It’s not the unregistered guns I cared about. It’s the Mossberg they said I registered. I’ve never even touched a Mossberg.
pastera
NES Member
pastera
NES Member
If it was in the transaction database prior to 7/20/2016
If someone has an M1 Garand on order with the CMP does that mean it better arrive by 8/1.
And if it hasn’t shipped by today the CMP will add it to the no go for MA list like the 1911, even if the date on the receiver says 1942.
And if it hasn’t shipped by today the CMP will add it to the no go for MA list like the 1911, even if the date on the receiver says 1942.
Can we get an FAQ from the AG on this please?
![[puke2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/031.gif "Puke2 [puke2]")
pastera
NES Member
We all agree that the database has massive numbers of errors and commissions.
If you have the electronic copy of your eFA-10 then you'll likely be fine
Otherwise it's your word against their "expert" who is going to say you never e entered it.
No way to register a stripped lower.
There is no such option on the database.
FFL has records, though.
If I get arrested I think I have a good chance to fight it in court.
The state can't enforce this new law without arresting everybody. If someone challenges this, the whole house of cards will collapse.
That would be delightful.Can we get an FAQ from the AG on this please?
Last time she put it in writing that 22 caliber AR's are legal.
One guy who consulted with a well known lawyer got advice that said AR is legal.
Just build up a dozen 22 caliber AR's and you'll be set for life.
In case of Armageddon you can put you 5.56 upper on it and at that point nobody would care.
KH56010
NES Member
So I’m purposely going to play devils advocate for one main reason. I got my LTC in 2010. Looked at the laws and thought “this is stupid”. Came up with the frame transfer idea. Have texts to a friend in TN from 2011 saying he should get an FFL and I should and he should send me frames and I’ll sell them and point the buyer to his upper “parts kit”. I didn’t hear about the Mill till almost 2020. So 16 years after the MA law took over from the Federal AWB. Let’s not wait 16 years again. Let’s brainstorm. You actual rebutted with the opposite of what I was saying.
The way I read that section of the law is stating that a registered 2016 or earlier receiver is NOT an assault rifle. But I want an assault rifle. I did legally possess a receiver that until now was completely legal and under the new law is technically a grandfathered assault rifle receiver. There’s 111 pages of this bullshit. Let’s rip it apart.
pastera
NES Member
What I am saying is that 7/20/2016 and in the database is not considered an "assault-style" weapon even if it is a copy or duplicate. Therefore it can have all of the evil features just like a pre 94.
pastera
NES Member
The text specifically excludes rimfire
But it considers a frame or receiver as a firearm.
So an AR sporting a rimfire upper is technically legal except if you split it then it could be an assault-style rifle.
Clear as mud like all Mass gun laws.
Sounds like a loop hole to possess parts to make a Assault Style Rifle.
Keep it as a 22 and then when WWIII comes, assemble your AR with a 5.56.
It's too late for the state to change that now.
There is your loop hole folks!!!
pastera
NES Member
It doesn't need to arrest everyone, only enough to prove it's point.
The panic here proves that.
I agree they have poked the pooch on this one - Cargill had the dissent admit that AR platform rifles are "commonly available" and therefore meet Heller's test of a covered arm.
The problem lies in getting the argument to the Supreme Court since Mass judges and the 1st Circuit will simply twist their insane logic and find that 25 million plus isn't actually common since it's only around 5% of the estimated population of firearms in circulation.
KH56010
NES Member
Agreed
What I’m waiting for is the arguments that come in stating “well the intent of the law”. This was cooked up in secret by a secret committee. It’s not the Federalist Papers. I would assume that a new law that is over 1,000 percent larger than the prior law is written correctly.
But even if it's a copy or duplicate (and therefore an ASW) it still gets grandfathered in. A lower wouldn't have been registered at any point - it's never been a firearm until this bill. Why can't you finish your post 7/20/16 lower?
pastera
NES Member
Because the only exception to it being considered a copy or duplicate is that it was registered (a transaction entered into the database) prior to 7/20/2016 per the text of the law. Otherwise it would meet the definition of a banned item detailed in the law.
Chapt 140 section 131M makes it illegal to possess an assault-style weapon unless it was legally owned and registered prior to 8/1/2024.
The definition of an assault-style weapon excludes anything legally held AND registered prior to 7/20/2016.
Further the state held that compliance could not be attained by the same methods as used for federal AWB therefore all enumerated weapons plus copies and duplicates were always illegal but the state declined to prosecute for those owned prior to 7/20/2016.
The courts will accept that as prior notice and given the carve out in law for those weapons the state declined to prosecute, we will lose at the state and federal circuit level. Why? Because they hate guns and will use the twisted standard of "commonly held for self defense" standard instead of the correct "commonly held for lawful purpose". Few of the 25 million ARs are actually fired in self-defense so one can argue that they are not commonly employed for that purpose.
If one expands self-defense use to simple deference by mere possession then even the twisted standard protects them.
But we will see little relief without a miracle in the 1st circuit or a case making it's way to the Supreme Court.
As far as registration - that's going to fall quickly since now they are openly looking to create a gun registry expressly violating FOPA it would be hard for even the 1st to squash that part.
The AG's own guidance back in 2016 allowed for already owned lowers to be finished into firearms, lowers that would not have had to be registered (in fact, many argue that even a lower built into a firearm doesn't need to be registered because no transaction took place).
As far as the 8/1/24 date goes, it doesn't say anything about registration - it says "lawfully possessed". So is a lower purchased between 2016 and 2024 considered "lawfully possessed" even though it has not been registered (which it couldn't have been, as the eFA10 doesn't have a provision for that)? Yes, because "copies of duplicates" are grandfathered in under this bill.
Last edited:
KH56010
NES Member
This is the rabbit hole I want to go down. I think they F’D up and potentially legalized a whole bunch of pre 2024 rifles that used to violate the AWB by including legal receivers.
I have a receiver (AR15 stripped lower) on 8/2/2024. It is considered the receiver of an assault weapon making it an assault weapon under the new law. But it was not capable of firing a shot and legal to own prior to 8/1/2024…
pastera
NES Member
pastera
NES Member
This could be true but I seriously doubt any Massachusetts court would find it that way
So it would need to reach the Supreme Court where the idea of an assault-style weapon would be struck down hard under the current court.
KH56010
NES Member
I see a lot of people post things about “court”. I’ve been to court. My lawyer embarrassed the PD and Comm2A picked up my bill to sue the PD in Federal Court. Sometimes it is actually as easy as reading the law and standing your ground.
Now, I doubt Comm2A would jump on my interpretation of the new bill right now. But it’s 111 pages. I want to pick it apart sooner than later.
So they've added that faggotry into the bill? lmao good luck at trying to comply with that.
ETA: good luck at them trying to enforce that too, whats that, a 6 pronged test? what if someone moved here with a compliant gun before that and wasnt legally obligated to register itt? etc, etc ad nauseam.
Last edited:
pastera
NES Member
I believe he is a dealer - not his problem once it's out of his inventory.
But once the clock rolls to 8/1 all of that inventory is worthless in Mass.
pastera
NES Member
Don't compare apples and assault weapons.
I don't know what your issue was but I'm sure it was a clear misapplication of law not a question of constitutionality or legal ambiguities.
There's also a "takings" issue in play there too, I just realized. So they expect people to get rid of their "illegal" stuff out of state in like a week? thats absurd.
pastera
NES Member
Copies and duplicates are exempt if lawfully possessed and "registered " prior to 7/20/2016.
So yes they have openly admitted that the transaction reporting portal is, in effect, a firearm registry.
pastera
NES Member
Yup - why would they care?
They are probably hoping that people just turn the guns in so they can auction them off and put the money into the general fund.
Why else would they force the police to auction turn ins instead of destroying them but to grab some more money?
Charges get dropped on this kind of BS all the time but these are back hall/private discussions between prosecutors and attorneys etc so on. I've heard more than a few stories about
this. Problem is this is never part of the "case" so it doesnt become binding or reliable.
KH56010
NES Member
The PD stated that I used “assault” pepper spray and had an unregistered, off roster and illegal large capacity firearm that never came out of the holster during a defense of a home invasion.
I literally watched a lying police officer try to compare apples and assault weapons on the stand. Luckily, reading the MGL out loud tends to catch liars off guard.
And this new law is about 100 pages too long. They’ve written so much that they’ve opened themselves up to loopholes. I’m not just stuck on this one section… there’s holes.
- Status
