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

[pastera]

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".

But the reinterpretation was ex post facto but moot since one would need to be prosecuted to gain standing but they declined to prosecute in order to stop any court action

Since they can't ban any of these guns under Bruen's tests trying to push the takings issue for post 7/20"gun is counter productive.

 

[firestorm]

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.

Sure, but I am just addressing the incorrect use of ex post facto where in some cases people believe it means if you own something they can't make it illegal. They can, and only charge you for continued possession. As noted by not new guy It would be a taking. Overall its a trash pile and there is no telling how they will enforce or interpret it, or how it will fare in court the day after it is implemented and a lawsuit can be filed.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

But the reinterpretation was ex post facto but moot since one would need to be prosecuted to gain standing but they declined to prosecute in order to stop any court action

Since they can't ban any of these guns under Bruen's tests trying to push the takings issue for post 7/20"gun is counter productive.

Retroactive - yes. Ex post facto has a specific legal definition and, if that definition is used, it does not meet the criteria. It's still dirty pool and an underhanded shot.

The real goal was to do as much as they could to take down high cap magazines and AWs without triggering confiscation. When I talked to Linskey (encounterd him on a sidewalk - he didn't have a protective detail so at least he was "walking the walk" of being personally unarmed) he told me the big issue for the conference committee was "how to deal with high cap magazines".

This creates a pricing quandry for dealers - raise prices because of last minute buying, or lower them to clear out inventory while they can.

 

[VTski4x4]

Don't forget - Sotomayer just slipped up and said ARs are in common use

 

[Coyote33]

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

I must have missed it. Is there a list of the YES and NO votes on here or anywhere?

 

[souper]

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.

Healey only cared about becoming AG under Clinton. If her edict resulted in FFLs bending the knee then it would have just been icing on cake.

 

[Drix]

I must have missed it. Is there a list of the YES and NO votes on here or anywhere?

Absolutely not- that's not how this state rolls.

 

[kalash]

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.

How many people have been prosecuted for AWB violations in MA? I wonder if the state's goal is to scare people and particularly dealers into compliance, while avoiding prosecutions that might end up before SCOTUS.

 

[Gunowner80]

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.

So if one wanted to grab a Lower and build it out before 8/1 you’re saying one can do so, but you can never sell it to someone in Massachusetts?

 

[Picton]

How many people have been prosecuted for AWB violations in MA? I wonder if the state's goal is to scare people and particularly dealers into compliance, while avoiding prosecutions that might end up before SCOTUS.

 

[MAJoe]

When I talked to Linskey (encounterd him on a sidewalk - he didn't have a protective detail so at least he was "walking the walk" of being personally unarmed) he told me the big issue for the conference committee was "how to deal with high cap magazines".

This creates a pricing quandry for dealers - raise prices because of last minute buying, or lower them to clear out inventory while they can.

Yeah because if they can’t sell them later on…. They’re going to be worth pennies to free staters.

 

[Drockcity86]

Nah. Here is a perspective. Healey says once an assault weapon always an assault weapon. Healey says the receiver if an assault weapon is an assault weapon.

By this logic all ar receivers are assault weapons. The atf stopped processing form 1s after Healey. They then evaluated her statements and the law and resumed processing form 1s. The atf CANNOT process a form 1 for a gun you cannot lawfully posses either in its current state or final state.

Also the state argued in federal court that her guidance harmed no one and essentially its protected speech. The court dismissed because in fact no one was harmed. The AG told DAs to take no action on her guidance.

So if now someone acts like it meant something, all hell breaks loose including the ATF issuing tax stamps for unlawful guns (which they would never do)

Very well said and very clarifying.

 

[graphite]

Healey only cared about becoming AG under Clinton. If her edict resulted in FFLs bending the knee then it would have just been icing on cake.

She's got bigger ambitions now - she wants to be the next Dem POTUS.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yeah because if they can’t sell them later on…. They’re going to be worth pennies to free staters.

Not really - unused new stock will find a ready market from dealers in other states if the MA dealer stuck with inventory offers the produce for 10% under dealer wholesale.

 

[pastera]

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?

Not if the correct questions were asked...

 

[inerlogic]

Is ignorance of the law an excuse yet?

only for lawmakers

 

[MGnoob]

Under the current law, agreed. Under the new law, there’s no difference between a 2015 and a 1985 AR. They’re both “preban”.

I didn’t know they repeal the old law but I understand they modernize it is piece of shit, but I don’t see it changing the old one so how it works honestly haven’t really looked into it that much other than try to apply common sense to a law that completely retarded

 

[Amputee Marksman]

I thought storage places did not allow (yes, you don't need to be allowed, big boy rules and all) gun storage?

Depends on the facility. Also if you want to get technical separate the lower from the upper and store in 2 different locked containers and you have "parts". Heck, store the lower and keep the upper at home if you feel better that way. I agree with you on this, put on your big boy pants and do what you think is right for you.

What is not in question is storage of ammo is forbidden. If you read the terms and agreements for any of the storage places, storage of flammable stuff is prohibited. They specifically mention things like solvents, fertilizer, ammo, oil based paints, etc.

 

[GOAL]

Updated breakdown is available. Not exhaustive, but in process.

goal.org

 

[VitalDude]

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.

That’s not how it’s written.

The term “assault weapon” is getting completely struck and replaced with “assault style weapon”.

In the description of an assault style weapon, it clearly states the same pre-1994 language as it appeared previously that exempted pre-1994 Colt AR-15s and their “copies or duplicates” from being considered a banned weapon.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

A couple of points GOAL should include if it has not already done so:

• Grandfather provision for >10 round mags does not include defensive carry in public
• Suc h mags may be transported only to specific locations (shooting range, gunsmith, etc.) and must be transported unloaded in a locked container

 

[inerlogic]

Updated breakdown is available. Not exhaustive, but in process.

goal.org

 

[CrackPot]

Updated breakdown is available. Not exhaustive, but in process.

goal.org

SECTION 71 summary has a mistake. The lawfully possessed language is lawfully possessed ON 8/1/24. You summarize as before 8/2/24. This is not the same thing.

I like your version a lot better because EVERYTHING I have ever sold *I* lawfully possessed even if it was not lawful for the person who ultimately had it at a later time.

 

[GeoffM24]

So if one wanted to grab a Lower and build it out before 8/1 you’re saying one can do so, but you can never sell it to someone in Massachusetts?

Maybe. I don’t know how this thing plays out. That is just my opinion for what they were trying to do and what they were trying to write. Whether they actually accomplished this is another story.

 

[CrackPot]

Updated breakdown is available. Not exhaustive, but in process.

goal.org

Also

SECTION 37

There is a big miss in your summary. (o) is the requirements for guns to get on the roster. It is the drop test and melting temperature and other stuff that must be done by a lab before getting on a roster. This applies to "firearms" which means ALL GUNS under the new law. So not only are handguns subject to the roster, so are stun guns, rifles, shotguns, machine guns.

This is either a massive FCK YOU by the legislature or a huge oops. The day this goes into effect, no dealer can lawfully sell or transfer ANYTHING that does not pass these tests which means just on roster handguns.

 

[kevin9]

A couple of points GOAL should include if it has not already done so:

• Grandfather provision for >10 round mags does not include defensive carry in public
• Suc h mags may be transported only to specific locations (shooting range, gunsmith, etc.) and must be transported unloaded in a locked container

At what point does the inability to legally use an item become effectively the inability to possess?
Asking for a friend.

 

[Gunowner80]

Maybe. I don’t know how this thing plays out. That is just my opinion for what they were trying to do and what they were trying to write. Whether they actually accomplished this is another story.

Yeah, even with goals updated interpretations, they even say that there’s a conflict in dates.

 

[Da_lucche]

Different dates for different purposes.

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

So this means I still have a chance to sell my preban 94 lower (that's still up in Classifieds) to someone in MA for Ma**h*** pricing?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Comments on GOAL's summary (my comments in red)

"Must have a License to Carry in order to use 3-dimensional printer or computer numerical control milling machine to manufacture or assemble any firearm. Bans the sale of 3-D printers and CNC milling machines that have the primary or intended function of manufacturing or assembling firearms." Any advertisement of 3d printer or CNC milling machine stating it can maks guns meets the "intended function" requirement. No mention of what happens if the manufacturer starts such advertising after you own such a machine.

(not sure which section covers my comment). Technical change to use new definition of “Firearm” - We lose the "not a firearms, rifle or shotgun" loophole for stripped frames and lowers.

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. The law also allows transfer to any person who can legally receive the gun, but it silent as to how this is handled for non-transferrable guns and magazines. It appears to apply a 1 year time limit on redemption of the guns. If a dealer takes the guns, they must be a bonded warehouse (I don't think any law defines "warehouse" or "bonded" as it applies to dealers .... the term is in the law because it sounds good)

Makes changes the law to include locked consoles and glove boxes in the definitionof “Secured in a locked container” - Blind pig found a truffle.

SECTION 13. Sets an objective standard OUI at 0.08 blood alcohol content in the hunting laws to include target shooting. Blind pig finds another truffel. Existing court precedent is that any level of BAC may be considered impairment and that being < .08 provides no protection against a PP creating conviction.

SECTION 9. Amends the o6-road vehicle law to now allow the carrying of firearms. It puts the section of law in line with general transportation laws. - Another truffle.

Changes the law to officially allow a firearm to be stored is a “Secured in a locked container” while the vehicle is unattended - wow, they legalized what was already legal.

September 13, 1994 only grandfathers large capacity feeding devices thatare:..... - Note this exemption does not include defensive carry. Law also mandates transport of >10 round mags be unloaded and in a locked container.

I didn't see new the new "LTC not valid" zones - Government owned buildings used for the administraton of government. My plain text reading is that this includes town halls, police stations, but possibly not fire stations or libraries unless fighting fires and loaning books is "administration of government". My guess is that this distinction will be acknowledged to the same extent as the "on one's person" qualifier of 269-10j. This is a key point in the new law (and significantly dilluted from the original draft) ... very surprised it missed the analysis.

 

[pastera]

I didn’t know they repeal the old law but I understand they modernize it is piece of shit, but I don’t see it changing the old one so how it works honestly haven’t really looked into it that much other than try to apply common sense to a law that completely retarded

Never try to apply common sense to Mass gun laws