Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

[chris_1001]

Fixed mag as long as never manufactured or remanufactured to take a detachable mag are not ASWs for pistols and rifles

Pistol braces have never been a MA issue. If you can pass the feature test or not be a copy or duplicate then you can count features. New features don't care about 50oz but do care about copy or duplicate which takes out a lot of stuff

Wait, so now a MP5 sold as a pistol (owned on 8/1) is legal to keep as a pistol, no need to SBR it?

AR pistol build also (lower owned on 8/1)?

in both the above a pistol brace is good to go?

Some serious unintended consequences....

 

[Atlantis]

The lower is lawfully possessed so by definition it is not an assault style weapon. When you build it do you need to follow any old rules assuming you build after 10/22/24? The way the law is written, anything lawfully possessed on 8/1 whether a pre94 or a brand new lower is grandfathered. This says build as you like.

The primary lawyer I speak to is aligned with that interpretation but none of us think acting on it is without risk here in MA

Someone’s gotta go first I guess

 

[jerryhipp]

let's say someone bought 4 lowers pre-Healey. but only built one before the 7/16 deadline. and the other 3 have just been paperweights in their safe since. they are too afraid to build now due to potential consequences. what are they supposed to do with them?

 

[KH56010]

let's say someone bought 4 lowers pre-Healey. but only built one before the 7/16 deadline. and the other 3 have just been paperweights in their safe since. they are too afraid to build now due to potential consequences. what are they supposed to do with them?

Put them in the classifieds. They’ll sell in about 3 minutes.

 

[MaroonedinMA]

let's say someone bought 4 lowers pre-Healey. but only built one before the 7/16 deadline. and the other 3 have just been paperweights in their safe since. they are too afraid to build now due to potential consequences. what are they supposed to do with them?

Step 1. Put them in the classifieds for a reasonable price so they sell quickly and you don't miss the window.

Step 2. Complete the deal in time, FTF

Step 3. Use money for reading glasses and then read the law again and realize that even the most conservative reading indicates pre 7/20 are completely good to go.

Step 4. Have Regerts

 

[DJBrad]

Pistol braces have never been a MA issue.

If the ATF rule was still in play wouldn’t braces be an issue in Ma since they default to ATF rules?

 

[Jenska22]

Step 1. Put them in the classifieds for a reasonable price so they sell quickly and you don't miss the window.

Step 2. Complete the deal in time, FTF

Step 3. Use money for reading glasses and then read the law again and realize that even the most conservative reading indicates pre 7/20 are completely good to go.

Step 4. Have Regerts

in for #2

 

[TLB]

let's say someone bought 4 lowers pre-Healey. but only built one before the 7/16 deadline. and the other 3 have just been paperweights in their safe since. they are too afraid to build now due to potential consequences. what are they supposed to do with them?

Rejoice they are legally owned and will show on a trace from a time long enough ago that the statute of limitations has expired on not filling an FA-10 if you built them right away back then (assuming that is even required - purchase or obtain). Build whenever and shut up, IMO.

 

[2A TOMMY]

Thanks for clarifying. Been spending like crazy. anyone know if this will ruin getting 80% lowers?

 

[SushiGlock]

Imagine trying to track every single round of ammo sold and used at an indoor range during a typical business weekend lol. What, 4473’s for every box sold? No way that law can be enforced lol. Imagine a highly competitive shooter in USPSA or IDPA who goes through hundreds ( or thousands ) of rounds per month.

 

[CrackPot]

I think this was always a problem as it's a 7+1 shotgun?

Correct. 7rd semi autos have always been illegal.

 

[chris_1001]

Correct. 7rd semi autos have always been illegal.

I thought non pistol grip tube fed semi shotguns were ok.

I’ve seen the mossberg JM pros and another brand (can’t remember) being sold openly.

 

[DJBrad]

I thought non pistol grip tube fed semi shotguns were ok.

I’ve seen the mossberg JM pros and another brand (can’t remember) being sold openly.

I’m reading this in section 21


“however, that “large capacity feeding device” shall not include: (a) any device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells; (b) an attached tubular device designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or (c) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm or on a pump shotgun.”

 

[chris_1001]

I’m reading this in section 21


“however, that “large capacity feeding device” shall not include: (a) any device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells; (b) an attached tubular device designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or (c) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm or on a pump shotgun.”

I think there is a bit more to this, but I’m not sure.

Was thinking there was a feature test in addition to the above.

Let’s not tell them about mini shells. Shhhhh…

 

[drgrant]

I thought non pistol grip tube fed semi shotguns were ok.

I’ve seen the mossberg JM pros and another brand (can’t remember) being sold openly.

This was literally the most controversial issue in MA gun law. Most shops just ignored capacity on tube fed shotguns simply because of the nuances. Plus there was a gliddenism at the time where he claimed a tube could not be an lcafd off the gun because most would not actually "hold" ammunition in that state. Regardless nobody ever got whacked on it, so it became a "thing" that even box stores allowed.

 

[chris_1001]

This was literally the most controversial issue in MA gun law. Most shops just ignored capacity on tube fed shotguns simply because of the nuances. Plus there was a gliddenism at the time where he claimed a tube could not be an lcafd off the gun because most would not actually "hold" ammunition in that state. Regardless nobody ever got whacked on it, so it became a "thing" that even box stores allowed.

Can I pin and weld a tube on my shotgun? Lol.

So the feds said no hunting water fowl with more than 3 rounds in the gun.

Most if not all shotguns come with removable limiters.

So even the feds had limits that can be undone as long as not used for hunting.

 

[drgrant]

Can I pin and weld a tube on my shotgun? Lol.

So the feds said no hunting water fowl with more than 3 rounds in the gun.

Most if not all shotguns come with removable limiters.

So even the feds had limits that can be undone as long as not used for hunting.

Yeah, that was another gap. The state never said wether a wooden dowel could simply be used to bring it into compliance. A lot of large shotguns come with that 3rd blocker preinstalled.

 

[drgrant]

@CrackPot what about the transferability of AW stuff in mass after 8/1?

-Can dealers still move pre 8/1 inventory? (I think this is a yes, at least up until 10/23 enactment date)
-Can people privsale the pre 8/1 AW guns they have after 8-1 but before 10/23?

 

[chris_1001]

Yeah, that was another gap. The state never said wether a wooden dowel could simply be used to bring it into compliance. A lot of large shotguns come with that 3rd blocker preinstalled.

Well… since we are going there…

The whole mag block debate could hinge on this.

If the feds can put a block in, why can’t we?

 

[drgrant]

Well… since we are going there…

The whole mag block debate could hinge on this.

If the feds can put a block in, why can’t we?

That's a different type of a magazine block though; legally... not really related to possession of the firearm but rather a limitation when engaged in the act of hunting. In other words that block requirement is part of the migratory bird act.

 

[chris_1001]

That's a different type of a magazine block though; legally... not really related to possession of the firearm but rather a limitation when engaged in the act of hunting. In other words that block requirement is part of the migratory bird act.

I guess I mean if it’s ok to prevent going (cough) afoul of fed laws we can use a stick to prevent having 4 in the (shot) gun, why would limiting our mags with something similar to prevent going against state laws?

If I neuter a 30 to a 10 (like they do with the m&p 15-22 mags it should be ok.

Just clarifying

 

[KH56010]

I guess I mean if it’s ok to prevent going (cough) afoul of fed laws we can use a stick to prevent having 4 in the (shot) gun, why would limiting our mags with something similar to prevent going against state laws?

If I neuter a 30 to a 10 (like they do with the m&p 15-22 mags it should be ok.

Just clarifying

The new law hasn't changed much, almost seems to specifically spell out what any dealer who's given me a mag blocked feeding device has said. If you don't have the original base plate in your possession it can't be readily converted to hold a higher capacity. And this is what was added:
"any part or combination of parts from which a device can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or control of the same person"

And this part shuts down the long standing Shotgun Tube debate:
"Large Capacity Feeding Device shall not include (c) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm or on a pump shotgun."

Prize of the year goes to the company that gets a semi auto shotgun that also works by a switch as a pump shotgun on the roster.

 

[chris_1001]

The new law hasn't changed much, almost seems to specifically spell out what any dealer who's given me a mag blocked feeding device has said. If you don't have the original base plate in your possession it can't be readily converted to hold a higher capacity. And this is what was added:
"any part or combination of parts from which a device can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or control of the same person"

And this part shuts down the long standing Shotgun Tube debate:
"Large Capacity Feeding Device shall not include (c) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm or on a pump shotgun."

Pretty sure the first part is iffy. I’m all for it!!!! But iffy. Just saying it should be 100% legitimate using the fed laws as a reference

On the second part I’m asking about a semi auto shotgun. That’s still grey.

 

[DJBrad]

@CrackPot what about the transferability of AW stuff in mass after 8/1?

-Can dealers still move pre 8/1 inventory? (I think this is a yes, at least up until 10/23 enactment date)
-Can people privsale the pre 8/1 AW guns they have after 8-1 but before 10/23?

Gtg for privsale and dealer sales to LTC holders in 131M (b), (c)


“Section 131M. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 122; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C.
(c) Subsection (a) shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 only if such possession is: (i) on private property owned or legally controlled by the person in possession of the large capacity feeding device; (ii) on private property that is not open to the public with the express permission of the property owner or the property owner’s authorized agent; (iii) while on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purpose of lawful repair; (iv) at a licensed firing range or sports shooting competition venue; or (v) while traveling to and from these locations; provided, that the large capacity feeding device is stored unloaded and secured in a locked container in accordance with sections 131C and 131L. A person authorized under this subsection to possess a large capacity feeding device may only transfer the device to an heir or devisee, a person residing outside the commonwealth, or a licensed dealer.”


The retarded thing is in (c):

“Subsection (a) shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994”

And

“A person authorized under this subsection to possess a large capacity feeding device may only transfer the device to an heir or devisee, a person residing outside the commonwealth, or a licensed dealer.”

Wut?

 

[CrackPot]

If the ATF rule was still in play wouldn’t braces be an issue in Ma since they default to ATF rules?

Braces only matter in Ma as it relates to the AWB since we use federal definitions for the AWB. But almost all uses in Ma current,y result in the object being an AW.

 

[CrackPot]

@CrackPot what about the transferability of AW stuff in mass after 8/1?

-Can dealers still move pre 8/1 inventory? (I think this is a yes, at least up until 10/23 enactment date)
-Can people privsale the pre 8/1 AW guns they have after 8-1 but before 10/23?

Before 10/23 all current laws apply. Nothing has changed.

Post 10/22 new law applies. Transfer of ASWs lawfully possessed by dealer or LTC holder are legal. Dealers are limited by roster. Private sales are not.

Yes to question 1 and post 10/22 is roster limited to no for now
Yes to question 2 but beyond 10/22 also

 

[CrackPot]

I thought non pistol grip tube fed semi shotguns were ok.

I’ve seen the mossberg JM pros and another brand (can’t remember) being sold openly.

No. If they had a pistol grip it would be an assault weapon. But just the 7rd tube alone is a felony. It’s a LCFD. The confusion arises because a 7rd tube on a pump is legal. It’s the why that matters. The definition of large capacity weapon excludes pump, lever and bolt guns. How can you charge someone with a LCFD when the LCFD is permanently attached to a non LCW? So pumps are ok. People don’t know the way and think semis are ok. They are not. Straight up illegal possession of a large capacity feeding device.

This remains true in the new law.

 

[CrackPot]

Wait, so now a MP5 sold as a pistol (owned on 8/1) is legal to keep as a pistol, no need to SBR it?

AR pistol build also (lower owned on 8/1)?

in both the above a pistol brace is good to go?

Some serious unintended consequences....

You need to possess it lawfully on 8/1. This means as a SBR or as a receiver. But on 10/23 it can be a pistol and be legal, yes.

Massive unintended consequences. As I keep saying, laws copy and pasted by five year olds don’t work out as expected.

 

[chris_1001]

No. If they had a pistol grip it would be an assault weapon. But just the 7rd tube alone is a felony. It’s a LCFD. The confusion arises because a 7rd tube on a pump is legal. It’s the why that matters. The definition of large capacity weapon excludes pump, lever and bolt guns. How can you charge someone with a LCFD when the LCFD is permanently attached to a non LCW? So pumps are ok. People don’t know the way and think semis are ok. They are not. Straight up illegal possession of a large capacity feeding device.

This remains true in the new law.

Thanks for the clarification.. sucks. But thanks.

I asked above on the 50 ounce rule for pistols (e.g. mp5/ar pistols.

Thoughts? (Answered above)

Thank you for all your time answering questions and helping us navigate this shit storm.

ETA: You answered before I posted.

I’ll leave my post up.

 

[DJBrad]

You need to possess it lawfully on 8/1. This means as a SBR or as a receiver. But on 10/23 it can be a pistol and be legal, yes.

Massive unintended consequences. As I keep saying, laws copy and pasted by five year olds don’t work out as expected.

Well, I know where to go to get my MP5 on 10/24.