CrackPot
NES Member
That would be a MUCH better way to spend effort than the damn petitionI can’t believe nobody has been taken to court over this yet.
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***
That would be a MUCH better way to spend effort than the damn petitionI can’t believe nobody has been taken to court over this yet.
Thank you.
That would be a MUCH better way to spend effort than the damn petition
Can someone please elaborate on this mythical AR pistol build situation that magically is enabled post 10/23? What is going on and can we build what we want with a brace and stuff as long as we form-1 it?
Thanks for confirming that - had strong push back when I stated that and directly cited the relevant codeIt’s not relevant anytime soon. Compliance with 121B, registration, is likely over two years away. They have a year to implement and we have a year to register guns to get into compliance. Ask again in two years. Registration is in direct violation of federal law so by that point they might have lost in federal court.
There is no longer a 50 oz rule for pistols after 10/23. Any unfinished or finished lower in virgin form can be built into a pistol with any features you want. Mag limit of 10 is lawful.Can someone please elaborate on this mythical AR pistol build situation that magically is enabled post 10/23? What is going on and can we build what we want with a brace and stuff as long as we form-1 it?
Already had the engraving done by him, excellent job. Recommended to others for sure.There is no longer a 50 oz rule for pistols after 10/23. Any unfinished or finished lower in virgin form can be built into a pistol with any features you want. Mag limit of 10 is lawful.
Preban mags must be secured in a locked container when traveling to and from and cannot be carried.
Any fixed mag ar pistol owned on 8/1 can be brought back to fully featured status. The frames, lowers, and any other build is an “Assault Style Firearm” on 10/23/24 per the new definitions. You can build fully featured ar pistols from ar pattern lowers. If they were already logged into EFA10 as a rifle they cannot legally become a pistol.
Having owned and possessed lawfully on 8/1 they are all ASFs so whether you want to keep your fixed mag ar pistol fixed or make detachable it doesn’t matter on 10/23, they are all ASFs under the new law on that date and grandfathered on 8/1.
You Form 1 an SBR which an AR pistol is not. It is the easiest avenue towards an SBR when you decide to do so.
Btw @EddieCoyle did a great job laser engraving some lowers for me. Seek him out.
Thanks for confirming that - had strong push back when I stated that and directly cited the relevant code
That would be a MUCH better way to spend effort than the damn petition
It's not confusingIt’s not perfectly clear cut. It definitely bans a federal registration. But it can be interpreted as preventing information collected on 4473s from being used by states for a registration. But not preventing states from collecting their own data for a registration.
The confusion is if FOPA applies to the information itself, that happens to be on a 4473 too, or if it only applies to whether the 4473 itself is used to pull information for the states.
I’d love a federal court to rule against this MA law as a violation of FOPA, but I think the worse interpretation is more likely.
No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
Already had the engraving done by him, excellent job. Recommended to others for sure.
But, of course, being the numb nuts that I am, have already EFA10’d my shit. I’m going to build an SBR and Form-1 and call it a day
It's not confusing
Quick link to @Coyote33 post that pulls up the relevant info
![]()
MA Gun Grab 2024: H.4885 - Passed legislature, headed to the governor
By that much. Ok Maxwell.www.northeastshooters.com
What part of "any State or any political subdivision thereof" is ambiguous or unclear
Nor is the second bolded part unclear
It's directly in the damn law as "or firearms transactions or disposition"
Please show where confusion can come from those very plain words in the second clause starting with " nor that any"
I get it talks about what regulations the AG can create - but the AG cannot direct states to create or maintain a registry so the parts referring to states or political subdivisions is meaningless if the law only applies to the AG.
Sorry about the multiple edits - on travel with shitty internet so saving often helps not to lose posts
No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records/b], be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
The full sectionYou didn’t quote the confusing parts.
The confusing part is if they’re talking about preventing information obtained from 4473s to be transferred, or if it’s preventing any of the information found on a 4473, even if it wasn’t taken from the 4473.
Though the second bolded section, not sure if it only applies to federal or includes states or political subdivisions that were explicitly mentioned in the previous part of the statement but not in this one.
Do you see the next 'nor' clause?(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including—
(1) regulations providing that a person licensed under this chapter, when dealing with another person so licensed, shall provide such other licensed person a certified copy of this license;
(2) regulations providing for the issuance, at a reasonable cost, to a person licensed under this chapter, of certified copies of his license for use as provided under regulations issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection; and
(3) regulations providing for effective receipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from persons described in subsection (d)(8) or (g)(8) of section 922.
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
I thought it was only one.Interesting as there are several FFLs at the mill collecting signatures for the petition.
The Mass legislature doesn't care about constitutionality of what they write - nothing they do will come back to cost them a thing AND they get to blame the courts for striking down the "will of the people"Here was my reply there:
Wow. So, should the whole thing that they are proposing also be deleted from these bills (the one that just passed in MASS), to "fall inline with record deletion requirements"?
The Mass legislature and senate don't want to be breaking the law with their new proposals.
How come Comm2A or GOAL never pushed forward on that one?
True they don't care because no skin off their backs.The Mass legislature doesn't care about constitutionality of what they write - nothing they do will come back to cost them a thing AND they get to blame the courts for striking down the "will of the people"
And that's why I put it in quotes - the majority of people in Mass have no actual idea what is in either Constitution.True they don't care because no skin off their backs.
Untrue about "will of the people". That is EXACTLY what the U.S. and MA Constitutions are about. This needs to be driven in, hard.
Got a flyer from 4 Season's this morning, looks like the NY Complient M1A's with the non-threaded barrel are now MA complient along with the Ruger Mini 14's
Got a flyer from 4 Season's this morning, looks like the NY Complient M1A's with the non-threaded barrel are now MA complient along with the Ruger Mini 14's
I just looked at this same flyer. For anyone without a picture of the NY compliant M1A, it is just like any other M1A, but without a threaded barrel. The description from Four Seasons says these models are compliant because they have no banned features. I would like to believe this statement, but I am not sure I do. I think the top of the stock that covers the barrel may be a barrel shroud or handguard.
I also think that for a handguard which is not at all shaped like an AR15, the definition is unclear. Do people here have thoughts about whether an unthreaded M1A will have no features under the new rules?
If the stock is not defined as a “a forward grip or second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand” then it only potentially has one feature.I just looked at this same flyer. For anyone without a picture of the NY compliant M1A, it is just like any other M1A, but without a threaded barrel. The description from Four Seasons says these models are compliant because they have no banned features. I would like to believe this statement, but I am not sure I do. I think the top of the stock that covers the barrel may be a barrel shroud or handguard.
I also think that for a handguard which is not at all shaped like an AR15, the definition is unclear. Do people here have thoughts about whether an unthreaded M1A will have no features under the new rules?
(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including— ....
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
However by reading as limited to the AG the wording incorporating states and subdivisions have no meaning. Any SCOTUS requires a law to be interpreted as every word was added to a law for purpose.I believe you are misreading what it actually says. If you edit the full section to remove the numbered clauses..... It becomes clear that the Attorney General may not prescribe a rule or regulation establishing any system of registration. Has nothing to do with what anyone else may or may not do.
I don't disagree with your last statement. I do hope the whole thing gets ruled as unconstitutional.However by reading as limited to the AG the wording incorporating states and subdivisions have no meaning. Any SCOTUS requires a law to be interpreted as every word was added to a law for purpose.
Either way, registration requirement doesn't meet text, history and tradition.
I don't believe there are any examples of early states or colonies requiring an inventory of private arms.