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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now’s the time to sell ammo, not buy it.

The magazine thing is definitely worth doing. If you don’t have enough guns. Already i don’t know what to tell you... if you’re scrambling for a Glock, you might gay….
 
Does anyone know how/when we will get clarification on what’s grandfathered? Who is the authority on that info?

Zero pants shi**ing btw I stopped caring years ago.

Also- can someone explain to my why in the F ebt cards can buy ammo now? 🤣
 
Yeah, but be honest: using your firearm defensively in this state has always been a risk, even under the status quo. This new legislation does what? Adds a preban-mag charge that won't end up mattering in light of the legal shitstorm you'll face anyway.

Carrying an SD firearm here has always been a risky thing to do, given the attitude of our state government. I don't see that this, or any other legislation they might pass in the future, makes it any safer nor, really, any more risky.
Has there been an LTC carrier that has successfully defended themselves and had ‘gun insurance’ in Mass?
 
Temporarily - this shitshow is guaranteed to get attention from scotus if Illinois or Maryland doesn't short circuit it first.
I hope you’re right.
But I’m not holding my breath.

Any court in blue states (including fed district and court of appeals) seem to slow ride this stuff as much as possible…
 
Does anyone know how/when we will get clarification on what’s grandfathered? Who is the authority on that info?
Laws mean what the courts say they mean.
One can make an educated guess based on prior interpretations of similar laws and verbiage
One can add copious amounts of hopium to help with the feelz
Or one can open their wallet and pay an attorney specializing in 2a law.
But none of that counts until the courts speak out on it.


Also- can someone explain to my why in the F ebt cards can buy ammo now? 🤣
Have you seen the pitiful displays of ammo in the police gun bust pictures?
Boyz need some help.
And we have an election coming up - living in mom's basement doesn't pay those antifa soyboys enough to afford ammo on their own - cant have anarchy going unarmed can we?
 
You better make sure you don't have the original followers in the safe though. That's part of it.
Actually, any magazine parts you exchanged to get the magazine down to 10 rounds. BloomingTurd's lawyers wrote that section to cover all bases. 🥸

Yet another provision that makes zero practical sense in the real world for real gunowners with lots of magazines and lots of spare magazine parts. 🤔
 
Ruined? No. f***ed short term? Kinda.

All it takes is dimples making it law and a lawsuit filed by the Orgs for an injunction and wait for the courts to rule. This one is pretty egregious in violation of Heller, MacDonald, and Bruen so I would be supremely shocked if it’s not overturned.

If the left wants to over react in the short term? Let them.
Nothing would shock me with this Supreme Court. Conservatives can't be counted on for 2a rights consistently.
 
Where is the discussion around ammo purchases?. Goals summary says very little. In reading the bill it now appears dealers will have to "register the transfer or purchase of" all ammo sales to include all details about the purchaser. That registration is held locally however, no central system. Was this discussed 100 pages ago?
 
A law largely written specifically to target people who are complying with the current law.

A shame the general public will never know their government is passing a law not so they can solve a problem, but rather so they can punish the lawful.


🐯
The only people sympathetic to gun owners in MA are gun owners, and even then, you have the group that thinks banning everything but shotguns is fine.
 
Let's say you're an older person like me and you have unfortunately lived in MA for a long long time. So you have an M1 Carbine or maybe an M1A that you have legally owned since 1980 or earlier. Firearm has never been "registered" because there was never any requirement to do so. It sounds to me like in order to be legal you now need to go into the portal and eFA10 the thing before 8/1. Sure sounds to me like any older guy/gal who has one of these rifles and has not kept up with current with the new law could get jammed up if LEO finds out they have the firearm.
 
Let's say you're an older person like me and you have unfortunately lived in MA for a long long time. So you have an M1 Carbine or maybe an M1A that you have legally owned since 1980 or earlier. Firearm has never been "registered" because there was never any requirement to do so. It sounds to me like in order to be legal you now need to go into the portal and eFA10 the thing before 8/1. Sure sounds to me like any older guy/gal who has one of these rifles and has not kept up with current with the new law could get jammed up if LEO finds out they have the firearm.
What guns ? Is my answer.
 
So which types of guns would have had to have been owned or registered or whatever prior to her 2016 decree, according to the Guida interpretation? ARs and AKs but what else? Uzis? Were there other guns?
 
Last edited:
Let's say you're an older person like me and you have unfortunately lived in MA for a long long time. So you have an M1 Carbine or maybe an M1A that you have legally owned since 1980 or earlier. Firearm has never been "registered" because there was never any requirement to do so. It sounds to me like in order to be legal you now need to go into the portal and eFA10 the thing before 8/1. Sure sounds to me like any older guy/gal who has one of these rifles and has not kept up with current with the new law could get jammed up if LEO finds out they have the firearm.
Then you’ve reached the nothing to lose point of terrestrial life. Live. Laugh. Love. Lick my balls, Maura.
 
The only people sympathetic to gun owners in MA are gun owners, and even then, you have the group that thinks banning everything but shotguns is fine.
I regularly encounter people in this state who think average Joe's can just walk into the store and buy a fully auto machine gun for short money.

The lack of education on the topic and propaganda is the biggest problem.
 
It is very annoying we have two threads on this topic @drgrant Here is a post I made in the other. Thankfully I’ll never see @pastera response.



My perspective

It’s amazingly simple on the grandfathering. I honestly am baffled why people are confused.



First, is the object an ASW: Under the new law pre Healey are not copies or duplicates of ASWs so are evaluated solely on features under the new law to determine if they are ASWs. This is important. All the 2016 language in the new law does is exempt pre Healey from being copies or duplicates. That is the totality of what it does. It even has two flaws saying they have to be “registered” and that it’s before 7/20;2016. Since MA does not as of 2016 have registration, just recorded transfers, AND the system is fundamentally incomplete and flawed, this is a problem. But let’s pretend this is ok and a fa10 means registered. All the language does is exempt from copy or duplicate. You still have to evaluate based on features. Also the pre Healey language only covers the person who bought it and owned and registered it before 7/20/16. Worth noting that a lot of people bought ON 7/20/2016 and this does not help them. But in practice this language is useless since all the guns fail the feature test under the new law.

Post Healey are copies or duplicates so therefore most are now ASWs based on the feature test and being copies or duplicates. That barrel shroud language wipes everything out.

Second, is it lawfull for you to possess. If it’s not an ASW, yes. If it is an ASW, was it lawfully possessed on 8/1/24. If it was lawfully possessed on 8/1/24 then it continues to be lawful to possess.

That is what the law says. There is no ex post facto anything going on. Nothing is retroactive or changes what WAS legal or not. It’s not hard to understand what the law says and means about ASWs.

Now the practical.

But we still have a couple challenges. If the law takes effect before 8/1, then NOTHING is grandfathered and everything gets evaluated based on the new law. That causes a huge constitutional problem as a taking. But because of the new ASW definition for rifles with the barrel shroud feature, most are toast.

If the law takes effect after 8/1 you can still buy stuff but it won’t be grandfathered is a concern. BUT if the dealer lawfully possessed on 8/1 then it meets the grandfather criteria. It does not say you, just that it was lawfully possessed ON 8/1 by LTC holder or state dealer.

The final issue is about right now. Are post Healey ARs lawful to possess right now. If no, then still no. If yes, then yes after new law. The argument about Healey is not that it was written into the new law, but whether the 2016 press conference meant something. People who say post Healey BECOME illegal under the new law are wrong. Post Healey are only illegal under the new law if they are already illegal.

This is not that hard. We are seeing a lot of people with logic failure and/or confirmation bias. A number of GOAL lawyers believe post Healey are already illegal so they come up with arguments that new law codifies this. It does not. It just exempts pre Healey as not a copy or duplicate.

All the new law language about pre Healey is a total ho-hum. It just makes some guns extra legal. It changes nothing. Because of before 7/20/2016 and the new criteria for features, it just doesn’t matter. Everyone relies on the 8/1 lawfully possessed language.

So bottom line, if post Healey are illegal now, they remain illegal. If they are legal now based on features, they remain legal.
 
What happens to all those $400 preban 15 and 17 round FML Glock mags? Are they suddenly illegal or are you still allowed to load them up to TEN, not a bullet more like connecticuck
 
It is very annoying we have two threads on this topic @drgrant Here is a post I made in the other. Thankfully I’ll never see @pastera response.



My perspective

It’s amazingly simple on the grandfathering. I honestly am baffled why people are confused.



First, is the object an ASW: Under the new law pre Healey are not copies or duplicates of ASWs so are evaluated solely on features under the new law to determine if they are ASWs. This is important. All the 2016 language in the new law does is exempt pre Healey from being copies or duplicates. That is the totality of what it does. It even has two flaws saying they have to be “registered” and that it’s before 7/20;2016. Since MA does not as of 2016 have registration, just recorded transfers, AND the system is fundamentally incomplete and flawed, this is a problem. But let’s pretend this is ok and a fa10 means registered. All the language does is exempt from copy or duplicate. You still have to evaluate based on features. Also the pre Healey language only covers the person who bought it and owned and registered it before 7/20/16. Worth noting that a lot of people bought ON 7/20/2016 and this does not help them. But in practice this language is useless since all the guns fail the feature test under the new law.

Post Healey are copies or duplicates so therefore most are now ASWs based on the feature test and being copies or duplicates. That barrel shroud language wipes everything out.

Second, is it lawfull for you to possess. If it’s not an ASW, yes. If it is an ASW, was it lawfully possessed on 8/1/24. If it was lawfully possessed on 8/1/24 then it continues to be lawful to possess.

That is what the law says. There is no ex post facto anything going on. Nothing is retroactive or changes what WAS legal or not. It’s not hard to understand what the law says and means about ASWs.

Now the practical.

But we still have a couple challenges. If the law takes effect before 8/1, then NOTHING is grandfathered and everything gets evaluated based on the new law. That causes a huge constitutional problem as a taking. But because of the new ASW definition for rifles with the barrel shroud feature, most are toast.

If the law takes effect after 8/1 you can still buy stuff but it won’t be grandfathered is a concern. BUT if the dealer lawfully possessed on 8/1 then it meets the grandfather criteria. It does not say you, just that it was lawfully possessed ON 8/1 by LTC holder or state dealer.

The final issue is about right now. Are post Healey ARs lawful to possess right now. If no, then still no. If yes, then yes after new law. The argument about Healey is not that it was written into the new law, but whether the 2016 press conference meant something. People who say post Healey BECOME illegal under the new law are wrong. Post Healey are only illegal under the new law if they are already illegal.

This is not that hard. We are seeing a lot of people with logic failure and/or confirmation bias. A number of GOAL lawyers believe post Healey are already illegal so they come up with arguments that new law codifies this. It does not. It just exempts pre Healey as not a copy or duplicate.

All the new law language about pre Healey is a total ho-hum. It just makes some guns extra legal. It changes nothing. Because of before 7/20/2016 and the new criteria for features, it just doesn’t matter. Everyone relies on the 8/1 lawfully possessed language.

So bottom line, if post Healey are illegal now, they remain illegal. If they are legal now based on features, they remain legal.

I totally agree, and this is precisely how I read this too. As you point out, timing of the effective date will be incredibly important.

I don’t understand why the GOAL lawyers interpret this differently.
 
I regularly encounter people in this state who think average Joe's can just walk into the store and buy a fully auto machine gun for short money.

The lack of education on the topic and propaganda is the biggest problem.
Same here - they refuse to believe facts
 
I totally agree, and this is precisely how I read this too. As you point out, timing of the effective date will be incredibly important.

I don’t understand why the GOAL lawyers interpret this differently.

I just wish they wouldn’t publicly post that interpretation if there’s any legit issue with it. It’s tactically stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom