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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone have actual insight on these two questions:

1. Is the pre 94 grandfathering just for ownership, or also for sale/transfer?
2. Once Gov signs it, will there be 90 days afterwards until its law?
- outside of an emergency provision, are there any other ways this 90 day period is not granted?
 
Anyone have actual insight on these two questions:

1. Is the pre 94 grandfathering just for ownership, or also for sale/transfer?
2. Once Gov signs it, will there be 90 days afterwards until its law?
- outside of an emergency provision, are there any other ways this 90 day period is not granted?
Asking the real questions, I think a page or two back someone was claiming the pre 94 will be left intact as the specific code isn't referenced and I guess that's was goal implied by stating no grandfathering except for pre 94?
 
any numbers they attempt to derive lack any sort of statistical significance. you might as well pull out a magic 8-ball.

no, the thing that made me laugh out loud was this:

"
But U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpí, who was appointed by President Biden, pointed out that even if the law is upheld, Rhode Islanders can still legally defend themselves by carrying 15 guns with 10-round magazines each. “My experience is you can take them out and put them in very quickly,” he said. “And you can shoot one gun and have another in the other hand if you’re ambidextrous like in a cowboy movie.”
"
how do you know it wasn’t one guy with 6 guns?

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MsuH1msEkvM
 
Asking what is legal and what isn’t prior this actually going into effect is a waste of time. Read it and draw your own conclusions.

If people spent 1/20th of their time calling/emailing their reps/senators, showing up for hearings or doing something useful other than posting on a forum this may have had a slight chance of not moving forward. Going online and ranting about it after the fact does absolutely nothing other than make people feel better.

You reap what you sow.....................
Ohh look a brandy new account here to educate us all on what we should have done better.
 
Anyone have actual insight on these two questions:

1. Is the pre 94 grandfathering just for ownership, or also for sale/transfer?
2. Once Gov signs it, will there be 90 days afterwards until its law?
- outside of an emergency provision, are there any other ways this 90 day period is not granted?
Well I don't think that past actions are indicative of current probabilities if I was going to bet money I would bet against the emergency provision happening because it weakens the anti-position considerably upfront legally. Not to mention they've only been yapping about this garbage since before Bruen was decided, another 90 days isn't going to really make a difference. Although given that this is a virtue signaling action anything is possible.
 
So my understanding is if I was born pre 94 im grandfathered into the 2nd amendment?

O grandfathering, grandfathering, wherefore art thou grandfathering?

Depends on how many evil features you have. Actually, I guess if you’re born pre-94 you can have unlimited evil features.
 
I don't see how Maura Healey signing anything translates to law. She has a mental illness and isn't fit to even hold office. To me this will be void & null.
 
I don't see how Maura Healey signing anything translates to law. She has a mental illness and isn't fit to even hold office. To me this will be void & null.

If only that was how things worked.

This is an actual new law being passed by the legislature, to be signed by the governor. the Healey decree is only relevant because they’re presumably using it to help with their takings argument.
 
If people spent 1/20th of their time calling/emailing their reps/senators, showing up for hearings or doing something useful other than posting on a forum this may have had a slight chance of not moving forward. Going online and ranting about it after the fact does absolutely nothing other than make people feel better.

You reap what you sow.....................
Thank you for doing all the legwork while the entire rest of the 2A community sat on their asses .
We'll give you a parade when the weather gets better.
1706914264257.png
 
Isn't the mag tube on a semi-auto shotgun that holds >5 already against the current AWB?
 
I don't understand how they can say "if you didn't own if before a certain date (several years in the past) it is now illegal".

If the justification for setting a date like 2016 is that people couldn't buy them, then why didn't the State do anything after whatever date in 2016?

Anyway, what I care about is how fast something like that could be rushed to the courts. Any idea how that works?
 
Late to the party today

What the f*** will this do for anything beyond crippling law abiding people (preaching to the choir)

Is there a list of who was for and against it?
 
I don't understand how they can say "if you didn't own if before a certain date (several years in the past) it is now illegal".

If the justification for setting a date like 2016 is that people couldn't buy them, then why didn't the State do anything after whatever date in 2016?

Anyway, what I care about is how fast something like that could be rushed to the courts. Any idea how that works?
It takes a couple hundred thousand dollars to get it into the circuit court for a injunction that will be denied. It could be done but you need NAGR/GOA/FPC to see that it's worth them taking up.

The first circuit is super liberal so an injunction is not likely.
 
I don't understand how they can say "if you didn't own if before a certain date (several years in the past) it is now illegal".

If the justification for setting a date like 2016 is that people couldn't buy them, then why didn't the State do anything after whatever date in 2016?

Anyway, what I care about is how fast something like that could be rushed to the courts. Any idea how that works?

When you're basically making new law out of whole cloth literally none of that matters. They're not designing any of this law in consideration with on the ground legal decisions
etc, obviously. It's not like they are concerned with whether or not it makes sense, whether it withstands a constitutional test, or respects other laws or legal determinations.

I think the 2016 reference to grandfathering was like "something we felt like putting in there because were f***ing stupid and dont know any better" etc, so on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom