-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
MA Gun Grab 2024: H.4885 - Passed legislature, headed to the governor
- Thread starter GOAL
- Start date
- Status
They were already considered assault weapons, you were already breaking the law. Scroll back a few pages on this thread, there was a whole discussion on this topic
Hey, stupid question:
Did the full capacity magazine restriction go away? I don't see any restriction on them in the bill. Am I missing it?
Did the full capacity magazine restriction go away? I don't see any restriction on them in the bill. Am I missing it?
CrackPot
NES Member
They are in the existing law. This amends the existing law. They did not remove the mag capacity restriction
VTski4x4
NES Member
I'm listing my glocks for 10k. No low ballers. I know what I have.
pinefd
NES Member
While nothing is official yet, from my previous post (Post #744), it looks like assuming grandfathering does make it to this bill, it will only apply to those who are willing to register their guns. No register; no grandfather!
Frank
MaroonedinMA
NES Member
I want to believe this -
But if the criteria for being "legal," after 8/24 or passage of this bill, is being "legally-owned," beforehand, wouldn't that mean that AW's are grandfathered in the condition they are prior to 8/24 and would have to be neutered or pre-94 to be "Legally owned" at the time?
Since raw 80% lowers are the same as “assault weapons” in this bill, can we register an incomplete but serialized lower and do anything we want with it like it was pre-94?
This thinking is actually very wrong. The problem is, each singular portion of this horrible monstrosity will have to be litigated one piece at a time in the courts. The more B.S. that is in it, the longer it will take in court to get each piece overturned. The current amount of nonsense in this bill would probably take 15 to 20 years to fight piece by piece. Letting them pass the worst version is our worst option. It is my opinion that contacting Senator Spilka and asking that Bill S.2572 be tabled until a proper public hearing can be scheduled with proper prior notice is our best hope of stalling it and being heard. Also contact your local Chief, and ask if and why they support disarming their citizens.
That is amendment #23. There is also amendment #11 which does not mention registration. I don't understand how these may conflict with one another. But this is how I read it.
So this would read:
"provided, however, that “assault weapon” shall not include: ... (H) any weapon lawfully possessed in the Commonwealth prior to the passage of this act;
Is it safe to assume that all the folks at the Mill this weekend will be buying AR-15 lowers so they can register them before the ban?
Otherwise they would be worthless.
Otherwise they would be worthless.
Agnotology
NES Member
Just buy current gen 4 and 5.
mpd61
NES Member
Remember, MCOPA has blessed what the Senate did. No gun bill has ever passed w/o MCOPA blessing. Other than three of those guys standing for a photo op, where is this on their website? Where is the letterhead endorsement?
There’s multiple ‘grandfathering’ amendments - there’s also #69 by the bills author
This is all we got so far which says enough for me.
Gillis said his group was won over by "all the conversations, the ability to collaborate with Senate leadership about how a bill should be crafted, what would be effective, what wouldn't be effective." He declined to highlight any specific policies that association prefers in the Senate version to the House version.
"I don't think we're going to get into a back and forth and contrast about what we like in the Senate bill versus what we have issue with in the House bill," Gillis said. "I can say that what we find in the Senate bill makes sense. It's concise. At the end of the day, it has to be enforceable. Whatever this body does has to be carried out by people in our sphere, and when it's distilled down and simple and makes sense, it's going to work. So that's what works for us."
They posted it on their official Facebook account
I missed that one. Thank you for pointing it out.
DarthRevan
NES Member
Time to load up the plastic folks. This phallic device is not going in lubed.
Renegade800
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2013
- Messages
- 51
- Likes
- 61
amendment 75 the voluntary do not sell to me database 
for when your sane self registers your crazy self preemptively?
for when your sane self registers your crazy self preemptively?The fact that federal law prohibits private sales of firearms across state lines. All interstate acquisitions of firearms have to go through an FFL.
Not exactly. Most SBRs in this state were stamped because, well, they are federally SBRs. Not necessarily because of the AWB madness. Are they still screwed? Sure, but functionally no worse than any other AR/AK/whatever owner is under this "new" AWB. Obviously it depends on motive, but most people I know with stamps were not so much concerned about the state's BS.
Because the state likes to insert itself into the ATF business. In that the ATF will usually start licking their ass.
Nothing, well outside of the fact that you're basically describing a federal felony. Most people aren't willing to entertain that.
I have a stripped lower that I bought well before the July 2016 date, it’s registered as a stripped lower and I never finished it. If I registered it as completed now, would it still be a pre-2016 rifle?
Tallahassee
NES Member
If it's already registered, no need to register it again. It's all good.
Agree, confirmed this with my Chief. The lobbyists from the various police chief associations sat down with the legislators, the chiefs didn't have a vote like they did with the House bill.
Remember this shit when they want to bail out public pensions by taxing you further.
That day is coming f*** these people.
That day is coming f*** these people.
And is your chief burning up the phone lines, talking to his own MCOPA board? Bitching at them?
Has your chief issued a public statement on his own account, like some local CoPs did in response to the House bill even before MCOPA came out against it? Nothing is stopping him.
- Status
