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

[Rob Boudrie]

SECTION 46. Surrender of Firearms
• If a license is suspended/revoked all firearms can only be surrendered to law enforcement who can now only transfer them to a licensed retailer that is a bonded warehouse.
• If stored firearms are not returned to the owner shall be sold and the proceeds to go to the state.


Nothing like a little state sponsored theft of private property. Time to throw the tea in the harbor

This law is terrible, however, that does not mean that every line read in isolation depicts a very worse case scenatio.

The law says the police "may transfer" to a bonded warehouse.

It also says:

SECTION 48. Said chapter 140 is hereby further amended by striking out section 129D, as so appearing, and inserting in place thereof the following section:-

Section 129D. a) Upon revocation, suspension or denial of an application for any license or permit issued pursuant to sections 124 to 124B, inclusive, the person whose application was so revoked, suspended or denied shall, without delay, deliver or surrender to the licensing authority where the person resides all firearms or ammunition which are registered to the person or that the person then possesses and shall report such delivery or surrender to the electronic firearms registration system pursuant to section 122. The person or the person’s legal representative shall have the right, at any time up to 1 year after the delivery or surrender, to transfer the firearms and ammunition, notwithstanding the limits on private firearm transfers in section 127B, to a licensed dealer or to a person legally permitted to purchase or take possession of the firearms and ammunition and, upon notification in writing by the purchaser or transferee and the former owner, the licensing authority shall within 10 days deliver the firearms and ammunition to the transferee or purchaser and the licensing authority shall observe due care in the receipt and holding of any such firearm or ammunition; provided, however, that the purchaser or transferee shall affirm in writing that the purchaser or transferee shall not transfer the firearms or ammunition to the former owner; provided, however, that such transfer shall not be permitted if the firearm may be evidence in any pending criminal investigation. The licensing authority shall at the time of delivery or surrender inform the person in writing of their right to request a transfer in accordance with this paragraph.

There is still the risk the PD will play the "get then to the bonded thefthouse before the owner arrives", but many police departments do cooperate.

A "catch" is the definition of "legally permitted....". The argument can easily be made that a person other than the grandfathered individual is not legally permitted to take possession of >10 round mags or so-called AWs.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

(c) Subsection (a) shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 only if such possession is: (i) on private property owned or legally controlled by the person in possession of the large capacity feeding device; (ii) on private property that is not open to the public with the express permission of the property owner or the property owner’s authorized agent; (iii) while on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purpose of lawful repair; (iv) at a licensed firing range or sports shooting competition venue; or (v) while traveling to and from these locations; provided, that the large capacity feeding device is stored unloaded and secured in a locked container in accordance with sections 126B and 126C. A person authorized under this subsection to possess a large capacity feeding device may only transfer the device to an heir or devisee, a person residing outside the commonwealth, or a licensed dealer.

Yikes!!! I always pre-load my 20 round mags with 15 rounds the night before a match when prepping my gear. And a locked case for magazines?

And note that the exemption does not cover carry of >10 round mag in a loaded gun carried for defense.

 

[Lank]

Yikes!!! I always pre-load my 20 round mags with 15 rounds the night before a match when prepping my gear. And a locked case for magazines?

And note that the exemption does not cover carry of >10 round mag in a loaded gun carried for defense.

Do we have a LAWFARE strategy planned?

 

[CrackPot]

There seems to be some very different schools of thought on how to deal with the copy/duplicate language and the 7/20/16 date.

School 1:

• Healey press conference was meaningful
• All post 7/20/16 ARs/AKs are copies/duplicates and therefore were not lawfully possessed
• Oops, it says registered which is not a thing, but we mean FA10ed
• 8/1/24 does not mean anything for ARs/AKs because all that matters is if they were registered by 7/20/16
• There is no "taking" under the new law because Healey told you they were illegal and you bought them anyway
• And if her press conference was not "real", then the new law makes this retroactively true. That does not bother us constitutionally.
• HAHA, we told you this all along

School 2:

• Healey press conference was not meaningul
• BUT the new law makes clear that ARs/AKs had to be registered by 7/20/16 to be grandfathered.
• This sucks, but what can you do? I think I will try and return my gun to the dealer who sold it to me and lied to me
• I don't understand what a taking is, I think retroactive laws are a thing and ill just take it.

School 3:

• Healey is not a thing
• The 7/20/16 not a copy or duplicate language is interesting but really does not matter because all it does is determines if the object is an ASW
• OK, its an ASW. But it was AWB compliant prior to 8/1/24 so the fact that it is now an ASW is nice, but not relevant
• It is grandfathered because 131M says "lawfully possessed by LTC holder or licensed dealer" before 8/1/24.
• I am fine and all the people blathering about Healey are statist cucks or bed wetters or who knows what. The law clearly states 8/1/24 lawfully possessed
• You cant retroactively change the law and what WAS legal in the past, only what is legal going forward.

I guess we will wait for the courts to settle this out. What a mess. The fact that the state got Healey lawsuits dismissed as no standing since no one was harmed, protected speech, and now they will try and claim it actually meant something is pretty typical. This is the state that argued you could possess a pistol on a FID in federal court.

 

[LakeTrout]

So much pant shitting.

There is good reason. This isn’t going to end well.

 

[pro]

So, basically: if you bought a semi auto rifle after July 20, 2016 you are a felon on Aug 1, 2024.

Here is my analysis, understanding and interpretation of this question as it pertains to pre-ban 1994 rifles. I am not a lawyer.

Right now, before H.4885 has taken effect per the time of this writing, it is lawful to possess a pre-ban (1994) rifle with any evil features you want, assuming it was in the assault weapon configuration prior to the ban. Under the current laws, it doesn't matter when you acquired it: before or after Healy 2016. Healy 2016 is currently not a law.

Assuming there is no emergency preamble on H.4885, the new law H.4885 will not replace the existing laws prior to Aug 1, 2024. Therefore, the existing laws will be active on Aug 1, 2024, and any pre-1994 rifle you lawfully possess under the current laws will be grandfathered on Aug 1, 2024 from the perspective of H.4885 (assuming you eFA-10 it before Aug 1, 2024). In other words, your pre-ban Colt will still be lawfully possessed on Aug 1, 2024, regardless of when it was acquired, so it is grandfathered in and you are untouchable.

But, if we assume that there is an emergency preamble, then the law H.4885 becomes active today. It has no protections for pre-1994 pre-bans that were acquired after Healy 2016 up until today. It becomes an illegal copycat that is not lawfully possessed today under H.4885. In other words, if your pre-ban (1994) Colt rifle is acquired after Healy 2016, then it immediately becomes "not lawfully possessed". Then it will not be lawfully possessed on Aug 1, 2024 in order to be grandfathered under the new language. Followingly, this would create issues for thousands of people who acquired pre-1994 preban rifles like Colt SP1, that immediately start being considered as illegal "copycats" (as defined in H.4885).

If anyone with a good knowledge and perspective can comment on my interpretations, it will be much appreciated.

 

[Bmcl322]

Absolutely. Just not sure they can just transfer over the info. It will be a shit show for sure

Unfortunately, the current system is simply a relational database with data elements: Name, gun type, make, caliber, etc... easy to roll over data elements/info. to another database. ...or print a summary report.

 

[M125X]

We are definitely all felons in waiting. But think of it this way. We all now have major street cred.

Hey if “Trumps a CoNviCtEd FeLoN” and can run for President, then…

 

[2/1Marine]

I wonder if my wife is going to be even more attracted to me once I become a felon. I always knew I had that bad boy vide going for me, my purgatory built (2016-present) AR-15 and AR-10 now cement that. Who's down for some face tattoos?

 

[LT5]

I already called my cell mate. Good luck

The all new NES Patriot package consisting of soap on a rope and a carton of cigarettes.

5 grand and I know what I got!!!!!

 

[inerlogic]

Can you guys print to PDF for those that don't like grabbing docx files?

 

[Redsox802]

There seems to be some very different schools of thought on how to deal with the copy/duplicate language and the 7/20/16 date.

School 1:

• Healey press conference was meaningful
• All post 7/20/16 ARs/AKs are copies/duplicates and therefore were not lawfully possessed
• Oops, it says registered which is not a thing, but we mean FA10ed
• 8/1/24 does not mean anything for ARs/AKs because all that matters is if they were registered by 7/20/16
• There is no "taking" under the new law because Healey told you they were illegal and you bought them anyway
• And if her press conference was not "real", then the new law makes this retroactively true. That does not bother us constitutionally.
• HAHA, we told you this all along

School 2:

• Healey press conference was not meaningul
• BUT the new law makes clear that ARs/AKs had to be registered by 7/20/16 to be grandfathered.
• This sucks, but what can you do? I think I will try and return my gun to the dealer who sold it to me and lied to me
• I don't understand what a taking is, I think retroactive laws are a thing and ill just take it.

School 3:

• Healey is not a thing
• The 7/20/16 not a copy or duplicate language is interesting but really does not matter because all it does is determines if the object is an ASW
• OK, its an ASW. But it was AWB compliant prior to 8/1/24 so the fact that it is now an ASW is nice, but not relevant
• It is grandfathered because 131M says "lawfully possessed by LTC holder or licensed dealer" before 8/1/24.
• I am fine and all the people blathering about Healey are statist cucks or bed wetters or who knows what. The law clearly states 8/1/24 lawfully possessed
• You cant retroactively change the law and what WAS legal in the past, only what is legal going forward.

I guess we will wait for the courts to settle this out. What a mess. The fact that the state got Healey lawsuits dismissed as no standing since no one was harmed, protected speech, and now they will try and claim it actually meant something is pretty typical. This is the state that argued you could possess a pistol on a FID in federal court.

Perfect roundup. Hoping for scenario 3 but people might need to tweak some things to cover themselves under the other two senarios… guess it depends on your circumstances in life and risk tolerance

 

[Lxpony]

this thread ABSOLUTELY needs to be retired once the law comes out and @CrackPot or someone else writes a definitive and clear/concise assessment of what is the law and what we need to do to adhere to it (if you so choose).

 

[Amputee Marksman]

The climate controlled storage rooms I was looking at in Southern NH a few months ago are starting to look like a viable option for the immediate near future.

 

[M125X]

this thread ABSOLUTELY needs to be retired once the law comes out and @CrackPot or someone else writes a definitive and clear/concise assessment of what is the law and what we need to do to adhere to it (if you so choose).

I agree, way too much speculation in here. So many differing opinions etc

 

[MaroonedinMA]

this thread ABSOLUTELY needs to be retired once the law comes out and @CrackPot or someone else writes a definitive and clear/concise assessment of what is the law and what we need to do to adhere to it (if you so choose).

The infuriating part is that it isn't a matter of clear-eyed reading of the text. It's ambiguous, per usual, and some of our questions will not be answered until some sort of litigation occurs. With regard to the 2016 v 2024 issue, there may not be a definitive answer for some time to come.

 

[Spartan65]

The infuriating part is that it isn't a matter of clear-eyed reading of the text. It's ambiguous, per usual, and some of our questions will not be answered until some sort of litigation occurs. With regard to the 2016 v 2024 issue, there may not be a definitive answer for some time to come.

And if and when a test case comes up all of NES will say,

“What an idiot” “what a loser” “he’s going to jail haha”

Instead of ponying up to help pay for thier defense against this unconstitutional law.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Does anyone have a link to the updated bill?

I can't read through all the diarrhea in this thread.

 

[El_Guapo77]

Does anyone have a link to the updated bill?

I can't read through all the diarrhea in this thread.

There's so much Bs in this bill, goal has a summary of some things but not sure about the rest

 

[firestorm]

I think it goes for the 2016 non-law opinion also.

ex post facto​

The Latin translation of ex post facto is “from a thing done afterward.”
In a legal context, ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:

• Article 1, § 9
  • This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
• Article 1 § 10.
  • This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.

Another angle of attack for FPC and GOA.

They'll get eaten alive for that. The enforcement notice in 2016 was not a law and this new law is ex post facto if they choose to enforce it that way.

This is a misinterpretation of the concept of "Ex post facto". They can absolutely criminalize your continued possession of a thing that was legal yesterday and no longer is, what they can't do is punish you for your prior possession of those items. You have the option of coming into compliance with the law by getting rid of the offending items, and should you choose not to do so they are charging you under the new law. Ex post facto would only come into play if they looked at their records, saw that you had these newly banned guns before the law was in place, and charged you for it even though you no longer possessed the banned items.

This law is bullshit, and compliance with it seems like a fools errand, but this is not an angle that will help us in any way.

 

[AJK129]

Does anyone have a link to the updated bill?

I can't read through all the diarrhea in this thread.

The thread fits the diarrhea that is the bill itself pretty well though

 

[safetyfirst2125]

Here is my analysis, understanding and interpretation of this question as it pertains to pre-ban 1994 rifles. I am not a lawyer.

Right now, before H.4885 has taken effect per the time of this writing, it is lawful to possess a pre-ban (1994) rifle with any evil features you want, assuming it was in the assault weapon configuration prior to the ban. Under the current laws, it doesn't matter when you acquired it: before or after Healy 2016. Healy 2016 is currently not a law.

Assuming there is no emergency preamble on H.4885, the new law H.4885 will not replace the existing laws prior to Aug 1, 2024. Therefore, the existing laws will be active on Aug 1, 2024, and any pre-1994 rifle you lawfully possess under the current laws will be grandfathered on Aug 1, 2024 from the perspective of H.4885 (assuming you eFA-10 it before Aug 1, 2024). In other words, your pre-ban Colt will still be lawfully possessed on Aug 1, 2024, regardless of when it was acquired, so it is grandfathered in and you are untouchable.

But, if we assume that there is an emergency preamble, then the law H.4885 becomes active today. It has no protections for pre-1994 pre-bans that were acquired after Healy 2016 up until today. It becomes an illegal copycat that is not lawfully possessed today under H.4885. In other words, if your pre-ban (1994) Colt rifle is acquired after Healy 2016, then it immediately becomes "not lawfully possessed". Then it will not be lawfully possessed on Aug 1, 2024 in order to be grandfathered under the new language. Followingly, this would create issues for thousands of people who acquired pre-1994 preban rifles like Colt SP1, that immediately start being considered as illegal "copycats" (as defined in H.4885).

If anyone with a good knowledge and perspective can comment on my interpretations, it will be much appreciated.

Yeah that's my point: if you have a semi-auto considered a "copy", even without the "evil features" since 2016, you are a felon in 2 weeks.

IE: A DDv5 purchased last year even if pinned and welded, makes you a felon in 2 weeks.

 

[Spartan65]

Yeah that's my point: if you have a semi-auto considered a "copy", even without the "evil features" since 2016, you are a felon in 2 weeks.

IE: A DDv5 purchased last year even if pinned and welded, makes you a felon in 2 weeks.

You would think they would raid the dealers and seize records if that was the case though.

That would make the dealers the most prolific criminals in the history of the state.

(spoiler: they won’t)

 

[pro]

Yeah that's my point: if you have a semi-auto considered a "copy", even without the "evil features" since 2016, you are a felon in 2 weeks.

IE: A DDv5 purchased last year even if pinned and welded, makes you a felon in 2 weeks.

Do you think there a difference for pre-1994 pre-bans acquired between Healy 2016 and today?

 

[not new guy]

This is a misinterpretation of the concept of "Ex post facto". They can absolutely criminalize your continued possession of a thing that was legal yesterday and no longer is, what they can't do is punish you for your prior possession of those items. You have the option of coming into compliance with the law by getting rid of the offending items, and should you choose not to do so they are charging you under the new law. Ex post facto would only come into play if they looked at their records, saw that you had these newly banned guns before the law was in place, and charged you for it even though you no longer possessed the banned items.

This law is bullshit, and compliance with it seems like a fools errand, but this is not an angle that will help us in any way.

Right. It is a taking though.

 

[not new guy]

Do you think there a difference for pre-1994 pre-bans acquired between Healy 2016 and today?

They were legal post 2016 and will continue to be.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

You would think they would raid the dealers and seize records if that was the case though.

That would make the dealers the most prolific criminals in the history of the state.

(spoiler: they won’t)

Meh, they have the reg records. If they really want to get all Bolshevik on us they can just send the jackboots to inspect, arrest and confiscate based on the records.

 

[sig shooter]

 

[Dennis in MA]

Shocked my sen - Pacheco - voted NO. I can't believe it. It didn't matter and he's out in January, so. . . . .

 

[MAJoe]

Do you think there a difference for pre-1994 pre-bans acquired between Healy 2016 and today?

Based on how the law is written, there is no pre-94 exemption for copies and duplicates. So if you’re following the 7/20/16 guidance, the way it is written it doesn’t matter if it was a true preban or not. Not owned prior to 7/20/16 = bad. But, it doesn’t specify by who so if it was owned and registered by someone else, that’s the same as a legal 2015 rifle. Think of it like preban mags. You didn’t need to own them in 1994.