pastera
NES Member
Depends on your reading of the two exemption dates.Can a post-94 ban configured firearm, lets use an AR as an example, owned before 8/1/24, be reconfigured with "pre-ban" features.
Since it's already an ASW, because of copy, feature count, and possibly name, adding more features won't make it "more of " an ASF.
Correct?
Pre 7/20/16 (fa-10 in the database) by any reading is the same as pre-94. The 8/1 exemption covers ASFs and the 7/20/16 exemption makes copies and duplicates expressly not an ASF if they were in the transaction database by that date.
Post 7/20/16 copies and duplicates are in an odd legal state (exempt and banned) until the courts sort it out (my interpretation on deconflicting the two different exemption dates using the legislature's stated intent and the Supreme Court's rules of interpretation, bit I'm not a lawyer)
Anything not a copy or duplicate will be an exempt assault-style weapon on 8/1
Copies and duplicates between 7/20/16 and 8/1/24 were intended to be banned but they screwed up the language in 131M so by intent they are banned but since it's ambiguous, it goes to the courts. Given Loper and Cargill that should mean that pre 7/20 is double exempt (it can't be an ASF but would be legal even if it were) but lower courts are very unlikely to properly apply any of the controlling SC doctrine.1526 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.