New MA legal rifle from B&T

[Varmint]

There's no business case for this, this is just a bunch of B&T engineers poking the Mass bear. I applaud the effort.

 

[Reptile]

'94 pre ban isn't a thing anymore since chapter 135 went into affect, now it's 8/1...

7/20/2016 According to GOAL.

At $4,700, you can buy a Pre Healy Noveske Chainsaw lower, a Noveske Upper with flash hider and still save money.

You'll need another $5,000 for a hearing aid after shooting a B&T.

Gloves are optional.

If I had that B&T for free, I'd never shoot it so I can hear for a few more years.

Good work around though, at $4,700 it should come with a reach around, too.

 

[mpmarino]

'94 pre ban isn't a thing anymore since chapter 135 went into affect, now it's 8/1...

Well, yeah i know. It's all the rage. But my point is that you're better off [over]spending 3k on a pre 94 and sending the rest of the $$ to help get rid of the problem for good - than buying this thing.

 

[wcorey]

7/20/2016 According to GOAL.

Oh here we go again.
Just GOAL adopting pantshitter NRA tactics.
Maybe if you repeat it enough times it will become true...

 

[wcorey]

Well, yeah i know. It's all the rage. But my point is that you're better off [over]spending 3k on a pre 94 and sending the rest of the $$ to help get rid of the problem for good - than buying this thing.

Point taken.

'94 still ads no value over other ASF's, it's 8/1 or it isn't and I face palm/eye roll when I still see people trying to get $2800 for something that no longer has any legal relevance. Unless you think the '26 referendum has a chance of winning, well then maybe...

Also wonder about all the LCFD's I see still being openly advertised in MA... And often at near former top of the market preban prices, even though that's only partially a thing now...

 

[Agnotology]

I'd make some joke about the price, but even if there was no 4885 I'd still be buying budget-tier stuff. Like a guy laughing at Ferrari prices when he can't even buy a Corvette.

 

[Lxpony]

Point taken.

'94 still ads no value over other ASF's, it's 8/1 or it isn't and I face palm/eye roll when I still see people trying to get $2800 for something that no longer has any legal relevance. Unless you think the '26 referendum has a chance of winning, well then maybe...

Also wonder about all the LCFD's I see still being openly advertised in MA... And often at near former top of the market preban prices, even though that's only partially a thing now...

LCFD?

 

[Lxpony]

Then you change out the open handguard and fixed stock. We're all criminals, just embrace it.

99% sure that stock is collapsible/folding

 

[Varmint]

99% sure that stock is collapsible/folding

The article says it’s fixed in Mass. picture could be a non compliant version.

 

[1sern]

 

[MAJoe]

They are hanging their hat on "designed to shield the bearer's hand from heat" to make the hand guard not a feature. Interesting choice. I approve of the innovation if not the price.

Aren’t there two features they need to worry about?

(a) a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features: (i) a folding or telescopic stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock or pistol grip; (iii) a forward grip or second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or similar feature; or (v) a shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.

 

[milktree]

Another AR work-around product for the 2024 laws, like CMMG BR3 Dissent, Sig Predator?, fish fins, which may be short-lived if Mass House passes their follow-up bill H.2361 to ban semi-auto firearms?
Bill H.2361

That bill is dead, look at the language: it all refer as to language that is no longer in law.

Every previous version died before being taken seriously by anyone, because even Linskey knows it would never pass, it’s all just virtue signaling.

 

[milktree]

7/20/2016 According to GOAL.

Stop repeating that GOAL garbage.

There is no corner case where the 7/20/16 language applies and isn’t voided by other language in the bill.

 

[bigred460]

LCFD?

Large Capacity Feeding Device.

 

[Tartakovsky]

 

[not new guy]

Stop repeating that GOAL garbage.

There is no corner case where the 7/20/16 language applies and isn’t voided by other language in the bill.

Why is GOAL’s counsel (Guida, I believe) taking that position then?

I agree that it’s garbage though. Accepting that interpretation would necessitate pushing the date back to 1994, since the 2016 stuff was technically itself just an “enforcement notice.”

 

[greencobra]

real nes men don't pay no heed to stinkin' gun laws, right guys? ....guys?...hey guys....

 

[LakeTrout]

About 4X as much as I’d be willing to pay but love the idea. Does it take AR mags?

 

[MAJoe]

Why is GOAL’s counsel (Guida, I believe) taking that position then?

I agree that it’s garbage though. Accepting that interpretation would necessitate pushing the date back to 1994, since the 2016 stuff was technically itself just an “enforcement notice.”

GOAL has publicly said their opinion on the law is based on the most conservative reading.

 

[not new guy]

GOAL has publicly said their opinion on the law is based on the most conservative reading.

Wouldn’t the most conservative reading put the safe date at ‘94 though? All that happened in 2016 was the state issued an enforcement notice that stated all ARs back to 94 were illegal but possession wouldn’t be prosecuted at that time. So how can the position be that they were legally possessed of pre2016?

I’ve posted all this before and I vaguely recall someone explaining it to me, so sorry to the extent I’m rehashing old bullshit. Getting older sucks.

 

[paul73]

GOAL has publicly said their opinion on the law is based on the most conservative reading.

ah-huh.
1. everything post-94 is illegal.
2. all you have bought was always illegal
3. nothing what was illegal will ever be legal
4. anyone can be incarcerated for anything.

i kinda agree with 4) but as of all the rest, well, meh.

 

[Coyote33]

Everything this state tries to make "safer" accomplishes the exact opposite situation. Heavy trigger pulls, no shielding on hot objects, less stability by making certain grips and butt stocks illegal and so on. Just one of many things that makes me go hmmm.

You forgot they're ignoring the lack of noise suppression.

 

[CMEBoston]

LMAO at this point if a gun shop/individual is selling it and you can afford to buy it, buy it.

Stop asking permission from public servants

 

[Thirwell1216]

Buy ammo for that price while Maura's decree and legislation dies somewhere up the legal foodchain...... I appreciate the innovation. B&T is always expensive, but that price is a bridge too far.

 

[zevana]

Why is GOAL’s counsel (Guida, I believe) taking that position then?

I agree that it’s garbage though. Accepting that interpretation would necessitate pushing the date back to 1994, since the 2016 stuff was technically itself just an “enforcement notice.”

Goal has a self interest in stirring up as much fear as possible to solicit donations.

 

[LakeTrout]

Goal has a self interest in stirring up as much fear as possible to solicit donations.

This. And they’ve never done anything positive for the situation in MA. They need to go the way of the wooly mammoth.

 

[milktree]

Why is GOAL’s counsel (Guida, I believe) taking that position then?

I have no idea. It's baffling because it's such a weird "way too conservative but also not very conservative" interpretation. I get that they want to protect their membership by giving guidance that will (maybe) keep them out of jail, but this is such a weird and bizarre way to make that stand.

There's only two options:

Healey's 7/20/16 tantrum/decree was legally meaningful and everything post 9/13/94 is illegal to possess, even stuff sold between '94 and '16 (regardless of the AG's intention to enforce the ban)

- OR -

Her decree was pure political posturing with no force of law, and anything that meets the definition of "Assault-Style Firearm" that was lawfully possessed in Mass. on 8/1/24 is free from any encumbrances and you can do anything you want with it.

There are no edge or corner cases where a gun might fall into any sort of 7/20/16 trap. None. There is no way that date is meaningful.

If someone can prove me wrong, if someone can come up with some set of circumstances/history/features that makes that date meaningful I'd really love to hear it.

 

[EJFudd]

Check this out. Cape Gun Works and Four Seasons have some on order in 5.56mm, 7.62x51mm, and 9mm.

I'd buy one maybe... if they were on sale at 85-90% off MSRP.

I'd like to admire Toby and CGW for finding new guns that get around this awful state's unconstitutional anti-2A insanity, but at what price? $5K is obscene.

 

[pastera]

Why is GOAL’s counsel (Guida, I believe) taking that position then?

I agree that it’s garbage though. Accepting that interpretation would necessitate pushing the date back to 1994, since the 2016 stuff was technically itself just an “enforcement notice.”

Goal is taking the position for two reasons.

1 - They are taking the most pessimistic view to keep people out of trouble from shitty police departments.

2 - Lawsuits. The 2016 date is by definition an arbitrary and capricious ban on commonly owned arms. Forcing the state to defend every word of the law in court, creating a clear baseline interpretation so that the state can't spew different interpretations between the court and public announcements.

 

[whatluck]

Then you change out the open handguard and fixed stock. We're all criminals, just embrace it.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZG11UBoj-o