Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

[CrackPot]

I can’t believe nobody has been taken to court over this yet.

That would be a MUCH better way to spend effort than the damn petition

 

[milktree]

Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926

Thank you.

I've been looking for that for a long time, and only came up with ... not that.

 

[Beretta92FS]

That would be a MUCH better way to spend effort than the damn petition

This should be an easy thing to go after immediately when the new law takes effect.

 

[Rocky Mosasaurus]

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?

 

[not new guy]

It sounds like it has something to do with the new law overwriting/killing off the pistol weight thing in MA. If it's a pistol you wouldn't need the form 1, right?

 

[sjohnston0311]

You don't form 1 an AR pistol. That's the point of an AR pistol.

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?

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926

Thank you for diggin that up. That’s what I remember.

Bob

 

[pastera]

It’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.

Thanks for confirming that - had strong push back when I stated that and directly cited the relevant code

 

[DJBrad]

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?

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.

 

[Rocky Mosasaurus]

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.

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

 

[PappyM3]

Thanks for confirming that - had strong push back when I stated that and directly cited the relevant code

It’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.

 

[Rockrivr1]

That would be a MUCH better way to spend effort than the damn petition

Interesting as there are several FFLs at the mill collecting signatures for the petition.

 

[pastera]

It’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.

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

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.

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

 

[MaroonedinMA]

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

No worries. In my experience, you’ll be happier long-term with a collapsible/folding stock than you will a brace.

Plus, every time you and the ATF mint another SBR in MA, the baby Jesus grins. Tikkun Olam is fulfilled and Allah smiles on your sincere and just deed.

So there’s that.

 

[PappyM3]

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

You didn’t quote the confusing parts.

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 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.

 

[Coyote33]

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?

 

[pastera]

You 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.

The full section

(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.

Do you see the next 'nor' clause?
That calls back to then previous clauses disallowing any of the proscribed systems of firearms ownership recording.

Even if it only disallows recording of the 4473 information, that data is what is placed in any registration scheme. So it still disallows state registration.

If you believe that Mass is allowed to create a registry because it doesn't actually copy information from a 4473 then I give up, you win as I'm simply not going to argue that level of silliness.

 

[MAJoe]

Interesting as there are several FFLs at the mill collecting signatures for the petition.

I thought it was only one.

 

[pastera]

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?

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"

 

[Coyote33]

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"

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.

 

[pastera]

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.

And that's why I put it in quotes - the majority of people in Mass have no actual idea what is in either Constitution.
And even if they read it they don't actually understand why it was written the way it is.
How many people ask if there is a law telling them they CAN do something?
Even we fall victim by referring to repeals of bans as making things legal instead of removing a prohibition.

 

[pthomas65]

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

 

[MaroonedinMA]

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

Ha, ha, ha, ha ...No!

 

[DJBrad]

@CrackPot

While suppressors are not legal to own except for properly licensed dealers what is the best option for a .300BO pistol build for night hunting? Just stay under an OAL of 26”? Any experience using your setup for yotes?

Hunting regs still need to be updated to reflect the new law on ma.gov. Big change is of course the non resident and youth hunter restrictions.

 

[straightshooterjake]

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?

 

[milktree]

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?

It's there to protect the shooter from heat. That seems like a "barrel shroud or handguard" to me.

 

[MAJoe]

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.

Knowing how risk averse 4S is, they probably have checked with their counsel and/or the state on this. They are already taking the stance that a pinned and welded brake which removes the threads as a feature under the current law is not acceptable.

 

[JimO]

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.

(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.

 

[pastera]

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.

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.

 

[JimO]

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.

I don't disagree with your last statement. I do hope the whole thing gets ruled as unconstitutional.

However... the states and subdivisions is referring back to facilities. That is, the records can not be transferred to any facility owned by the federal government or any state or political subdivision.