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

Status
Not open for further replies.
firestorm said:
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.
Click to expand...
The new law says that those items had to be lawfully possessed before 8/1/2024. As of this moment, they are lawfully possessed. The codified language can't change that before the law goes into effect.
 
safetyfirst2125 said:
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.
Click to expand...

so I run to the Mill and purchase an AR prior to 8/1 - ok
I purchased a Healy pre-ban AR in 2019 from a seller who purchased it prior to 2016 - not ok

I'm confused
 
ProGun said:
Wow, I'm thoroughly confused. Are we all felons as of August 1st? Suppose no one really knows, not even the lawyers. At this point, not even sure I give 2 f**ks anymore.
Click to expand...
The best position is ZFG at this point

Per Guida, post 7/20/16 is fubar
Per a dealer still selling lowers, good to go.

You do you and assume the level of risk you are comfortable with.
 
william_munny said:
The new law says that those items had to be lawfully possessed before 8/1/2024. As of this moment, they are lawfully possessed. The codified language can't change that before the law goes into effect.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it says on Aug 1, 2024, not before Aug 1, 2024. So, the law situation on Aug 1, 2024 matters a lot. If H.4885 is not active on Aug 1, 2024, then lawfully possessed will mean lawfully possessed under current laws. If it is already active on Aug 1, 2024, then a lot of firearms that are lawfully possessed today will not be lawfully possessed on Aug 1, 2024. But I am not a lawyer.
 
rcwhat said:
Ok Johnny high horse. Never said anyone owed me anything. Was just asking a simple question for those people that like to converse with others on a public forum. I wasn’t looking for old boomers yelling at clouds.
Click to expand...
Then don't say you aren't taking the time - that looks bad to those that do...

157 (c) a semiautomatic shotgun that includes at least 2 of the following features: (i) a folding or telescopic stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock or pistol grip; (iii) a protruding grip for the non-trigger hand; or (iv) the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device.
Click to expand...

So the majority of self loaders will be good to go


BTW: this was the 7th instance of the word shotgun in the bills text
 
pro said:
Unfortunately it says on Aug 1, 2024, not before Aug 1, 2024. So, the law situation on Aug 1, 2024 matters a lot. If H.4885 is not active on Aug 1, 2024, then lawfully possessed will mean lawfully possessed under current laws. If it is already active on Aug 1, 2024, then a lot of firearms that are lawfully possessed today will not be lawfully possessed on Aug 1, 2024. But I am not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting point. Also don’t take your rifle out of state for that entire day.
 
souper said:
I think some are overthinking the “lawfully
possessed” wording. Current law:

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished,

How were assault weapons unlawful prior to the ban? I think it’s referring to unlicensed persons, and that context carries through to the new bill.
Click to expand...
No, the issue is that the state reviewed their interpretation of the "copies and duplicates" to be different than the federal interpretation of the same language in 2016. Then stated that they always held that position but wouldn't prosecute anyone for items possessed before the 7/20 date.

They are now putting that "interpretation" into law - it's ex post facto but nothing we can do short term since the lower courts rubber stamp anti-gun garbage
 
pro said:
Unfortunately it says on Aug 1, 2024, not before Aug 1, 2024. So, the law situation on Aug 1, 2024 matters a lot. If H.4885 is not active on Aug 1, 2024, then lawfully possessed will mean lawfully possessed under current laws. If it is already active on Aug 1, 2024, then a lot of firearms that are lawfully possessed today will not be lawfully possessed on Aug 1, 2024. But I am not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
But if h4885 is active on Aug 1 then post 7/20 are by definition a banned copy or duplicate therefore not legally possessed.
If it isn't active then the court needs to determine if the 7/16 declaration had the effect of law - if so then post 7/20 is banned but pre is fine.
If the court follows Loper and Cargill then the declaration is bullshit (what we know) and the new preban date becomes anything in Mass before 8/1/24.

Lots of gray
 
MAJoe said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wish everyone would stop saying this. You guys haven’t figured out the difference between a true pre-ban and a fake pre-ban? It’s all the evil features that none of you guys cared about to begin with. It’s clearly written there. I don’t wear a prophylactic when I f*** a hooker and you guys are just f***ing going full pants shitting.
 
knucklehead said:
I’m going to take a wild guess that any case in court challenging the AWB and Pistol Roster will be dismissed by the courts because the laws have changed. Am I being too pessimistic?
Click to expand...
No current Mass cases I believe.

But AWB and pistol rosters are being challenged in different states in different circuits.

Maryland, Illinois and California all have cases in flight on these topics.
 
CrackPot said:
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.
Click to expand...

And since the ATF has approved SBRs after 7/20/16, and the dealers have been inspected by ATF and police multiple times between 7/20/16 and today, I'd say that School 3 is correct. The ATF would NEVER approve anything that would run foul of state or federal laws.
 
pastera said:
No, the issue is that the state reviewed their interpretation of the "copies and duplicates" to be different than the federal interpretation of the same language in 2016. Then stated that they always held that position but wouldn't prosecute anyone for items possessed before the 7/20 date.

They are now putting that "interpretation" into law - it's ex post facto but nothing we can do short term since the lower courts rubber stamp anti-gun garbage
Click to expand...
Tehcnically speaking it is not ex-post-facto since the law does not proscribe prosecution for possessing such an item prior to 8/1.

This has happened - when bump stocks were banned, it was not "expost facto" since there was not crime of "having possessed a bump stock before the ban".
 
I don’t think you guys are looking at this from their perspective. Maura wanted three things. 1) shut down the Mill and like dealers. 2) stop the sales of all new semi auto detachable magazine rifles. 3) stop the importation of pre 9/94 semi auto rifles and magazines into Mass.

This law accomplished all of these.

It is also my opinion that they want to remove the ability to transfer post 7/16 grey area rifles. That is what the not grandfathered part means.

This means pre 9/94 and pre 7/16 stuff can still be transferred, sold, and be on dealers shelves. The hope is that there are few enough fitting that category that they are almost never seen.

If you want to sell a post 7/16 gun it will need to go out of state.

Now this law is so poorly written that they might have screwed a few of these things up but they get the vast majority of what they want.

I don’t see them pushing lawsuits or offering clarification since the law is too vague and poorly worded. They just need the dealers to fall in line and shut down the “problem” dealers.
 
AmeriKHAN said:
I CALL TOP BUNK!!!
Click to expand...

Already did, and I have a cell mate picked out already

Amputee Marksman said:
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.
Click to expand...

I thought storage places did not allow (yes, you don't need to be allowed, big boy rules and all) gun storage?
 
MGnoob said:
I wish everyone would stop saying this. You guys haven’t figured out the difference between a true pre-ban and a fake pre-ban? It’s all the evil features that none of you guys cared about to begin with. It’s clearly written there. I don’t wear a prophylactic when I f*** a hooker and you guys are just f***ing going full pants shitting.
Click to expand...
Under the current law, agreed. Under the new law, there’s no difference between a 2015 and a 1985 AR. They’re both “preban”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Poll Poll
Which gun to shoot for complete gun n00b?
2
Replies
56
Views
749
Cuz
Cuz
Gun Safes and Byrna products at Eastern Security Safe. Mendon and West Springfield MA.
Replies
0
Views
76
EasternSecuritySafe
E
Gunsmithing Apprenticeship (MA)
Replies
24
Views
517
ARedJuul
ARedJuul
Dealing with the gen z.......I swear some days I just want to say f*** it and head to the woods and be a hermit.
7 8 9
Replies
266
Views
6K
LT5
L
MA Liberals on Reddit Need Firearms and 2A To Defend Against Mean Tweets
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
2K
MickeyD’s
M
Back
Top Bottom