Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

[milktree]

See how it is calling out only possession.

Right. But not ownership. You can possess, but not own. How's that going to work? Borrow? Nope, that's a transfer.
You can possess a pre-ban magazine while transporting it, but it's a felony to own the magazine. That's absolute nonsense.

(c) is obviously talking about more than just possession. If it didn't, then (c) has absolutely no meaning at all, and (a) would be an outright ban.

Therefore (c) isn't just talking about possession. It's talking about other things in (a) in addition to possession.

Which things? The final paragraph says transfer is illegal, but doesn't say anything else is illegal; therefore (c) applies to everything in (a) except transfer.

They had plenty of time to write this. This is what they came up with. Is it what they want? Probably not. But it is what they wrote, voted on, and got signed into law.

 

[MAZ]

Are you selling magazines, or assault-style firearms?

Neither, I posted on the wrong thread

 

[pastera]

Right. But not ownership. You can possess, but not own. How's that going to work? Borrow? Nope, that's a transfer.
You can possess a pre-ban magazine while transporting it, but it's a felony to own the magazine. That's absolute nonsense.

(c) is obviously talking about more than just possession. If it didn't, then (c) has absolutely no meaning at all, and (a) would be an outright ban.

Therefore (c) isn't just talking about possession. It's talking about other things in (a) in addition to possession.

Which things? The final paragraph says transfer is illegal, but doesn't say anything else is illegal; therefore (c) applies to everything in (a) except transfer.

They had plenty of time to write this. This is what they came up with. Is it what they want? Probably not. But it is what they wrote, voted on, and got signed into law.

Yes, the law says own.
And you can ignore that because the state CANNOT regulate your property rights to an item outside the state.
Standard magazines are not outright banned, period. Therefore you have a right to own them. Massachusetts only can ban them within its political boundaries. It has zero power to tell other states you cannot possess an item in another state.

You are wrapped around the term "own"
Even Massachusetts courts understand they cannot regulate their citizens property rights outside the state.

And (c) has two clauses
One for possession and one for transfers.

So it doesn't exclusively speak to transfers - this would be absurd since in order to legally transfer one must be able to possess even if only under limited circumstances.

 

[milktree]

Yes, the law says own.
And you can ignore that because the state CANNOT regulate your property rights to an item outside the state.
Standard magazines are not outright banned, period. Therefore you have a right to own them. Massachusetts only can ban them within its political boundaries. It has zero power to tell other states you cannot possess an item in another state.

You are wrapped around the term "own"
Even Massachusetts courts understand they cannot regulate their citizens property rights outside the state.

And (c) has two clauses
One for possession and one for transfers.

So it doesn't exclusively speak to transfers - this would be absurd since in order to legally transfer one must be able to possess even if only under limited circumstances.

I don't understand why you're still on about "out of Mass". we all know Mass law has no power there.

Maybe I don't understand what you're getting at.

(a) says "you can't own, possess, sell, offer to sell, give away, transfer, or import into Mass. any full cap magazine"

Right?

(c) says, "(a) doesn't apply to pre-ban magazines in any of these places (list of places) or when traveling to and from them"

Right?

Then there's a paragraph at the end of (c) that says, "people who can possess a pre-ban mag cannot transfer it except out of state, to an heir, or to a dealer"

Right?

Therefore: as long as the transfer happens outside Mass. (because that final paragraph has no bearing outside mass) then nothing in (a) has been violated, as long as you stick to the conditions in (c): (unloaded in a locked container traveling to one of the listed places, like your house)

 

[drgrant]

Accurate video summary of new H4885 preban LCAFD law:


View: https://youtu.be/Bf5njRw5Dmk?si=lRe8J2UUsNmZKNVh

 

[pastera]

I don't understand why you're still on about "out of Mass". we all know Mass law has no power there.

Maybe I don't understand what you're getting at.

(a) says "you can't own, possess, sell, offer to sell, give away, transfer, or import into Mass. any full cap magazine"

Right?

(c) says, "(a) doesn't apply to pre-ban magazines in any of these places (list of places) or when traveling to and from them"

Right?

Then there's a paragraph at the end of (c) that says, "people who can possess a pre-ban mag cannot transfer it except out of state, to an heir, or to a dealer"

Right?

Therefore: as long as the transfer happens outside Mass. (because that final paragraph has no bearing outside mass) then nothing in (a) has been violated, as long as you stick to the conditions in (c): (unloaded in a locked container traveling to one of the listed places, like your house)

No the exemptions in (c) are the only things in (a) that are allowed
Possession within Mass under the enumerated conditions
And
Transfer within Mass to a dealer, inheritance or export out of Mass.

Import has ZERO exemptions so you cannot legally take a LCFD from outside Mass into Mass regardless of your ownership of that item(s).

Are you going to get caught importing preban magazines into Mass? Very unlikely. And you are extremely unlikely to be convicted of importing unless you are dumb as a box of hammers.

 

[milktree]

No the exemptions in (c) are the only things in (a) that are allowed

I don't even understand what you're saying here.

"Subsection (a) shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 only if such possession is:"

Are you getting hung up on it only allowing possession because of the "such possession" term above?

If you think (c) only allows possession, because only the word "possession" is in that clause, then why do you think ownership is OK?

It doesn't say, "only if such possession or ownership is:" If you think that it only applies to possession because that's the only word used, then it doesn't apply to ownership, because ownership isn't listed. If ownership isn't legal, the whole subsection is meaningless.

Import has ZERO exemptions so you cannot legally take a LCFD from outside Mass into Mass regardless of your ownership of that item(s).

Why do you keep saying that? Where in (c) does it exclude or include any particular part of (a)?

(c) exempts all of (a) as long as the magazine is pre-ban and possessed in any of the listed places.

Some examples:

You're in your house possessing a pre-ban magazine: You meet the conditions of (c)(i), therefore (a) doesn't apply.

You're at a gun range possessing a pre-ban magazine: you meet the conditions of (c)(iv), therefore (a) doesn't apply.

You're in your car driving to your house from Nashua Fish and Game, possessing a pre-ban magazine unloaded in a locked container: You meet the conditions of (c)(v), therefore (a) doesn't apply.

Not "select bits of (a) don't apply", but "(a) doesn't apply".

Are you going to get caught importing preban magazines into Mass? Very unlikely. And you are extremely unlikely to be convicted of importing unless you are dumb as a box of hammers.

Yes, I totally agree. (unless you get your LTC after 10/22, then it's less obvious)

 

[pastera]

I don't even understand what you're saying here.

"Subsection (a) shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 only if such possession is:"

Are you getting hung up on it only allowing possession because of the "such possession" term above?

No, I am using the proper and logical method of interpretation of a statute

If you think (c) only allows possession, because only the word "possession" is in that clause, then why do you think ownership is OK?

Because the state CANNOT regulate your property rights for items not located in Mass - it can barely regulate property rights of items in Mass without constitutional issues.

Why do you think they didn't just ban them outright? Because they can't without payment or else it's a taking under the federal constitution.

There are a shit ton of laws and parts of laws on the books that are meaningless because they run afoul with federal or constitutional issues.
The "own" in 131m(a) is one of them.

It doesn't say, "only if such possession or ownership is:" If you think that it only applies to possession because that's the only word used, then it doesn't apply to ownership, because ownership isn't listed. If ownership isn't legal, the whole subsection is meaningless.

131m bans the possession, sale, and import of ASF and LCFD in Mass unless expressly exempted.

Why do you keep saying that? Where in (c) does it exclude or include any particular part of (a)?

(c) exempts all of (a) as long as the magazine is pre-ban and possessed in any of the listed places.

Some examples:

You're in your house possessing a pre-ban magazine: You meet the conditions of (c)(i), therefore (a) doesn't apply.

You're at a gun range possessing a pre-ban magazine: you meet the conditions of (c)(iv), therefore (a) doesn't apply.

You're in your car driving to your house from Nashua Fish and Game, possessing a pre-ban magazine unloaded in a locked container: You meet the conditions of (c)(v), therefore (a) doesn't apply.

Not "select bits of (a) don't apply", but "(a) doesn't apply".




Yes, I totally agree. (unless you get your LTC after 10/22, then it's less obvious)

No, the only parts of (a) that don't apply are possession and ownership.
Ownership because it simply doesn't matter.

Hypothetically if you had permission to be on a property that touches or extends across the Ma/NH border by your interpretation you could walk from one side to the other always on private property not open to the public and circumvent the import ban. Or hand a magazine to another ma**h*** on the NH side and that person could then import it under a (c) exemption.
But that's not how it works

(C) exempts possession - who owns the item(s) is not material.
(C) also exempts a small subset of transfers
Nothing exempts sales, offers of sales or import into mass

 

[Breacherman34]

This continues to be a gray area. Some dealers will not sell “assault style firearms” (AR) to active Leo. However, some FFL will do the transfer. I am active fed LEO and would like to purchase an AR asap. I spoke to the FRB today and they reported they have not identified a change with active LEO, so we remain exempt. However, retired Leo might not be exempt. From your perspective am I able to purchase AR with all features either in MA or outside?

 

[headednorth]

"Looking to stomp on yalls necks pretty soon to preserve my pension but I've been slacking on acquiring the tools of the trade. Please help. ps- im just doing my job."

 

[chris_1001]

This continues to be a gray area. Some dealers will not sell “assault style firearms” (AR) to active Leo. However, some FFL will do the transfer. I am active fed LEO and would like to purchase an AR asap. I spoke to the FRB today and they reported they have not identified a change with active LEO, so we remain exempt. However, retired Leo might not be exempt. From your perspective am I able to purchase AR with all features either in MA or outside?

I hope no one will sell you one and you get to experience the tyranny that is bestowed upon us mere mortals.

Why are you special outside of your job?

ETA. Nice first Jack Booted Thug post.

 

[Horatio Alger Jr]

This continues to be a gray area. Some dealers will not sell “assault style firearms” (AR) to active Leo. However, some FFL will do the transfer. I am active fed LEO and would like to purchase an AR asap. I spoke to the FRB today and they reported they have not identified a change with active LEO, so we remain exempt. However, retired Leo might not be exempt. From your perspective am I able to purchase AR with all features either in MA or outside?

No. You are not allowed to buy an AR here or another state.

 

[Breacherman34]

Ok thanks for the input. Appreciate it.

 

[chris_1001]

Ok thanks for the input. Appreciate it.

 

[Len-2A Training]

This continues to be a gray area. Some dealers will not sell “assault style firearms” (AR) to active Leo. However, some FFL will do the transfer. I am active fed LEO and would like to purchase an AR asap. I spoke to the FRB today and they reported they have not identified a change with active LEO, so we remain exempt. However, retired Leo might not be exempt. From your perspective am I able to purchase AR with all features either in MA or outside?

Be aware that even though you might be legally entitled to buy and own it in MA, the day that you retire or leave the agency, you no longer are legal in MA. Retirees in MA (I was one, now safely in NH) do not rate those same privileges. If there is a chance that you might be transferred to another location out of MA during your tenure, it might be wise to just wait for that to happen. A very good friend is with DHS and as soon as he got transferred back to VA, he ordered a couple of (ASW) rifles and an SBR.

To some of you folks that hate everyone who wears a badge: There are some bad apples just like in any line of work, but most are decent folks. Any that venture here and expose themselves are very likely "gun people" like the rest of us and aren't at all likely to be "jack booted thugs".

 

[pastera]

This continues to be a gray area. Some dealers will not sell “assault style firearms” (AR) to active Leo. However, some FFL will do the transfer. I am active fed LEO and would like to purchase an AR asap. I spoke to the FRB today and they reported they have not identified a change with active LEO, so we remain exempt. However, retired Leo might not be exempt. From your perspective am I able to purchase AR with all features either in MA or outside?

Some animals are more equal...

 

[DJBrad]

This continues to be a gray area. Some dealers will not sell “assault style firearms” (AR) to active Leo. However, some FFL will do the transfer. I am active fed LEO and would like to purchase an AR asap. I spoke to the FRB today and they reported they have not identified a change with active LEO, so we remain exempt. However, retired Leo might not be exempt. From your perspective am I able to purchase AR with all features either in MA or outside?

The new law is clear wrt the carve out for special classes. But is it really clear? Leo or retired leo can possess and transfer but not own, offer for sale nor sell. You might only find priv sales for pre 8/1 stuff only now. No Licensee (FFL) can bypass 131M after 10/23 for inbounds to MA residents who are properly licensed nor to leo or retired leo.

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.

(e) This section shall not apply to transfer or possession by: (i) a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified retired law enforcement officer, as defined in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C, respectively, as amended; (ii) a federal, state or local law enforcement agency; or (iii) a federally licensed manufacturer solely for sale or transfer in another state or for export.

 

[VigilantesLiberi]

To some of you folks that hate everyone who wears a badge: There are some bad apples just like in any line of work, but most are decent folks.

Decent people would not get into that job.

Any that venture here and expose themselves are very likely "gun people" like the rest of us and aren't at all likely to be "jack booted thugs".

Like a nazi who loves listening to classical music, there is beauty inside all of us.

 

[milktree]

To some of you folks that hate everyone who wears a badge: There are some bad apples just like in any line of work, but most are decent folks. Any that venture here and expose themselves are very likely "gun people" like the rest of us and aren't at all likely to be "jack booted thugs".

You're right, "not all cops". But that doesn't change the fact that police organizations don't ever speak out against gun control... unless it affects them. As soon as they get a carve out, they always endorse and support the laws.

Observationally, most cops don't give a crap about guns or gun law at all, and are perfectly happy to enforce any draconian law because it's the law. And then there's the outspoken ones who actively support draconian laws (as long as it doesn't affect them), and then there's the ones who are "gun guys" who openly brag about being able to get and have stuff that little people can't.

 

[VigilantesLiberi]

the ones who are "gun guys" who openly brag about being able to get and have stuff that little people can't.

I'm guessing the fed who posted here is this guy. He really wants ALL THE FEATURES lol

 

[Dominator11]

I hope no one will sell you one and you get to experience the tyranny that is bestowed upon us mere mortals.

Why are you special outside of your job?

ETA. Nice first Jack Booted Thug post.

If it's not department issued, they shouldn't have it either

 

[Spartan65]

I hope no one will sell you one and you get to experience the tyranny that is bestowed upon us mere mortals.

Why are you special outside of your job?

ETA. Nice first Jack Booted Thug post.

He came out of the closet on his first post. Let’s see how it works out for him.

 

[pastera]

The new law is clear wrt the carve out for special classes. But is it really clear? Leo or retired leo can possess and transfer but not own, offer for sale nor sell. You might only find priv sales for pre 8/1 stuff only now. No Licensee (FFL) can bypass 131M after 10/23 for inbounds to MA residents who are properly licensed nor to leo or retired leo.

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.

(e) This section shall not apply to transfer or possession by: (i) a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified retired law enforcement officer, as defined in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C, respectively, as amended; (ii) a federal, state or local law enforcement agency; or (iii) a federally licensed manufacturer solely for sale or transfer in another state or for export.

The "own" language is hopium on the part of the state. That would be a taking to tell you you cannot own an item since that item may be in a location outside their jurisdiction.

131m(e) allows LEO and retired full privilege except to import and sell/offer for sale.
I need to look into exemption at the dealer level for transfer to an exempt person.

 

[chris_1001]

To some of you folks that hate everyone who wears a badge: There are some bad apples just like in any line of work, but most are decent folks. Any that venture here and expose themselves are very likely "gun people" like the rest of us and aren't at all likely to be "jack booted thugs".

I'm not Anti Cop for the most part. I'm anti special privileges and exemptions. Why should LEO off duty get to have what we cannot? Why are they special in this regard?

They stood against this new law until they got an exemption (in the beginning) and it did not apply to them. So there..

 

[Len-2A Training]

I'm not Anti Cop for the most part. I'm anti special privileges and exemptions. Why should LEO off duty get to have what we cannot? Why are they special in this regard?

They stood against this new law until they got an exemption (in the beginning) and it did not apply to them. So there..

The brass (chiefs, specifically MCOPA) are the ones speaking up, demanding stuff, etc. If the rank and file could speak without serious repercussions to their career, their position would be very different. I've never had a lot of respect for "desk jockeys" and have always been an advocate of getting rank and file opinions (the true sign of "leadership" as opposed to "bosses")!

 

[EJFudd]

I think every infraction, or damn near, results in the same possible sentence up to 2-1/2 years. Shocking for sure.

If this state has its way a parking ticket will have a 2-1/2 maximum in order to disenfranchise as many people as possible.

I used to joke that given some time, MA will make jaywalking a felony. I'm convinced that any new law they create will be a felony, just to screw the maximum number of people.

Exactly true. Gotta make as many PP’s as they can for the “good of the country”.

Re-quoted for extreme truthfulness and further thought. I'm trying to think of another time and place in history where such silly, worthless, nonsensically stupid (not to mention factually unconstitutional) laws could result in life-altering fines, court costs, imprisonment and branding as a felonious criminal for life.

These certainly are strange times in Massachusetts... and much more strangeness yet to follow. Our system of government is badly broken... possibly beyond repair.

 

[Horatio Alger Jr]

The brass (chiefs, specifically MCOPA) are the ones speaking up, demanding stuff, etc. If the rank and file could speak without serious repercussions to their career, their position would be very different. I've never had a lot of respect for "desk jockeys" and have always been an advocate of getting rank and file opinions (the true sign of "leadership" as opposed to "bosses")!

I don't think you are making a good argument. If they are not going to stand up and say the bill is unconstitutional before it is law, they are admitting my god-given rights are allowed to be stripped away from me , for fear of repercussions.

They will side with the state and deprive me of my rights so they do not get in trouble. f*** that.

 

[CrackPot]

Be aware that even though you might be legally entitled to buy and own it in MA, the day that you retire or leave the agency, you no longer are legal in MA. Retirees in MA (I was one, now safely in NH) do not rate those same privileges. If there is a chance that you might be transferred to another location out of MA during your tenure, it might be wise to just wait for that to happen. A very good friend is with DHS and as soon as he got transferred back to VA, he ordered a couple of (ASW) rifles and an SBR.

To some of you folks that hate everyone who wears a badge: There are some bad apples just like in any line of work, but most are decent folks. Any that venture here and expose themselves are very likely "gun people" like the rest of us and aren't at all likely to be "jack booted thugs".

New MGL 140 131M

(e) This section shall not apply to transfer or possession by: (i) a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified retired law enforcement officer, as defined in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C, respectively, as amended

So unambiguously it applies to retired law enforcement as defined under LEOSA. For reference the definition of retired law enforcement officer under 926C is

(c)As used in this section, the term “qualified retired law enforcement officer” means an individual who—
(1)separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer;
(2)before such separation, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest or apprehension under section 807(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 7(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice);
(3)
(A)before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or
(B)separated from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;
(4)during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;
(5)
(A)has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or
(B)has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);
(6)is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(7)is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

So to be qualified retired LEO you must annually qualify with your handgun for carry under LEOSA to remain a qualified retiree as now referenced in MGL 140 131M (e)

 

[milktree]

The brass (chiefs, specifically MCOPA) are the ones speaking up, demanding stuff, etc. If the rank and file could speak without serious repercussions to their career, their position would be very different. I've never had a lot of respect for "desk jockeys" and have always been an advocate of getting rank and file opinions (the true sign of "leadership" as opposed to "bosses")!

If you were using this argument as to why Walmart staff has to enforce stupid Walmart management policies, I'd agree with you.

But this isn't the return policy on a TV or how long coupons are good for. This is about putting people in jail and removing their rights.

Also, if I believed that rank and file officers had a history of and were likely to just say, "f*** this, I'm not enforcing that law" and look the other way, you'd have a point.

But I haven't seen any evidence that is the case. People get jacked up for paperwork violations all the time, way too often to feel comfortable that "cops in general are on our side"

 

[not new guy]

They're on our side right up until it matters - either when they need to speak up (they didn't) or when they need to decide not to enforce unconstitutional bullshit (they won't). So what's that worth in the end? False comfort, i.e. less than nothing.