Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

[pastera]

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?

Depends on your reading of the two exemption dates.
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

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.

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.

 

[milktree]

@CrackPot your entire argument rests on the interpretation that 121B refers to the NEW state database that has not been created yet, correct?

"The department of criminal justice information services shall develop and maintain a real time electronic firearms registration system."
"...shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024...provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C."

Here's the thing: C.140§121B, that covers registration IS NOT IN CURRENT LAW. C.140§121B DOES NOT EXIST until October 23rd.

So, it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to "register in accordance with section 121B" because section 121B DOES NOT EXIST.

FA10 is 100% irrelevant because it's not in §121B (which doesn't exist)

 

[Old Mart]

OK, riddle me this:

• Am MA resident with LTC-A
• Have property in NH, part-time resident there per the Feds
• Make an 80% lower in NH years ago, built into rifle. Shot, had fun.

Now, the question is: what should I do to maximize options under new police state?

1. Disassemble rifle, bring stripped 80% lower in to MA today / tomorrow, NO E-FA-10 (I didn't just "obtain" it, I've had it for years...)
2. Disassemble rifle, bring stripped 80% lower in to MA today / tomorrow, YES E-FA-10
3. Bring the whole rifle into MA today / tomorrow (in '94-ban-compliant configuration), NO E-FA-10
4. Bring the whole rifle into MA today / tomorrow (in '94-ban-compliant configuration), YES E-FA-10
5. Make a new 80% for some reason, but I assume "capable of firing a shot" doesn't apply if it was capable in NH? Either way, New 80% NO E-FA-10
6. New 80% YES E-FA-10

So, brain trust, wat do???

Edit: I have lowers that are unbuilt but completed long ago too, in NH, if that matters.

 

[pastera]

@CrackPot your entire argument rests on the interpretation that 121B refers to the NEW state database that has not been created yet, correct?

"The department of criminal justice information services shall develop and maintain a real time electronic firearms registration system."
"...shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024...provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C."

I honestly can't tell from reading the bill which way it could be interpreted. Both GOAL and Guida (lol) have interpreted that this is likely referring to the existing EFA10 portal, or at least that's what a court would likely find. You are saying it refers to a new registry that hasn't been created yet. Meanwhile gun stores are literally handing out Guida quote screenshots and telling people to register.

So, if you register a lower now, you are potentially in violation of Maura's 2016 edict (which Guida says has the force of law) and get in trouble for that. If you don't register now, you are potentially in violation of the 8/1 rule and at best, can't transfer the firearm in the future, and at worst, get in trouble for that.

Is this the situation we're in now?

The only interpretation of the language in the definition of "assault-style firearm" that follows the Supreme Court's rules of interpretation says that the transaction portal IS a registry for that purpose (remember there is the option to volunteer to register in that portal).
I disagree with Guida’s assertion that the edict had force of law at the time.
But it does now that it's incorporated into law so all they need to do is give you notice and a reasonable compliance period and they can ban items procured in the past.
Hopefully the entire shitshow garners enough attention that SCOTUS consolidates all of the ban cases and writes a clear opinion on what limits a state can impose (none on non-voilent adults)

 

[silversquirrel]

OK, riddle me this:

• Am MA resident with LTC-A
• Have property in NH, part-time resident there per the Feds
• Make an 80% lower in NH years ago, built into rifle. Shot, had fun.

Now, the question is: what should I do to maximize options under new police state?

1. Disassemble rifle, bring stripped 80% lower in to MA today / tomorrow, NO E-FA-10 (I didn't just "obtain" it, I've had it for years...)
2. Disassemble rifle, bring stripped 80% lower in to MA today / tomorrow, YES E-FA-10
3. Bring the whole rifle into MA today / tomorrow (in '94-ban-compliant configuration), NO E-FA-10
4. Bring the whole rifle into MA today / tomorrow (in '94-ban-compliant configuration), YES E-FA-10
5. Make a new 80% for some reason, but I assume "capable of firing a shot" doesn't apply if it was capable in NH? Either way, New 80% NO E-FA-10
6. New 80% YES E-FA-10

So, brain trust, wat do???

Change your underwear.

 

[FancyGunz]

Here's the thing: C.140§121B, that covers registration IS NOT IN CURRENT LAW. C.140§121B DOES NOT EXIST until October 23rd.

So, it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to "register in accordance with section 121B" because section 121B DOES NOT EXIST.

FA10 is 100% irrelevant because it's not in §121B (which doesn't exist)

Right, I understand this point. It doesn't change the fact that the dates are hard coded into the bill, and doesn't change the fact that they can potentially try to go after someone for not complying with an impossible deadline.

The only interpretation of the language in the definition of "assault-style firearm" that follows the Supreme Court's rules of interpretation says that the transaction portal IS a registry for that purpose (remember there is the option to volunteer to register in that portal).
I disagree with Guida’s assertion that the edict had force of law at the time.
But it does now that it's incorporated into law so all they need to do is give you notice and a reasonable compliance period and they can ban items procured in the past.
Hopefully the entire shitshow garners enough attention that SCOTUS consolidates all of the ban cases and writes a clear opinion on what limits a state can impose (none on non-voilent adults)

And we are full circle again. Two strong and completely opposing interpretations of the same text, both with their legal pitfalls. Catch-22, damned if you don't, damned if you do, etc.

 

[pastera]

Here's the thing: C.140§121B, that covers registration IS NOT IN CURRENT LAW. C.140§121B DOES NOT EXIST until October 23rd.

So, it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to "register in accordance with section 121B" because section 121B DOES NOT EXIST.

FA10 is 100% irrelevant because it's not in §121B (which doesn't exist)

Concur for the 8/1 exemption date one only needs lawful possession.
And that's the problem - the state asserts that copies and duplicates of enumerated firearms were never lawful after Sept 13, 1994.
This is the part the courts need to sort out - what is the date when the states new and stricter definition of copy and duplicate becomes effective (Oct 23, 2024 or July 20, 2016)
But that's a fools errand since we don't want to ask a question that assumes the state has authority to ban anything.
We assert that NO commonly possessed arm can be banned regardless of date of possession or manufacture.

 

[pastera]

Right, I understand this point. It doesn't change the fact that the dates are hard coded into the bill, and doesn't change the fact that they can potentially try to go after someone for not complying with an impossible deadline.



And we are full circle again. Two strong and completely opposing interpretations of the same text, both with their leg pitfalls. Catch-22, damned if you don't, damned if you do, etc.

Not full circle
The issue is not with the act of registration in 131M - the law is clear
Shall register is a future act
Otherwise is would be "shall have been registered" or "if having been registered " or similar language speaking to the past.

The key wording is "lawfully possessed"
They admit that you cannot comply with the 121b registration requirement by making it a future requirement (no actual registration was required)
They admit that there exists post 1968 firearms that did not have to be serialized with the future requirement to serialize 121C

What is in contention is the stated intent of banning all post 7/20/16 firearms that fit the new definition of a copy or duplicate as the legislature's clear assumption is that copies and duplicates could never be made compliant and therefore couldn't be lawfully possessed.

 

[milktree]

Right, I understand this point. It doesn't change the fact that the dates are hard coded into the bill, and doesn't change the fact that they can potentially try to go after someone for not complying with an impossible deadline.

Take a deep breath:

131M(b): (banning ASFs)

§131M(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.

The green part is a whole clause. It must be lawfully possessed in Mass on 8/1/24.

Then there's the second bit, in black. in this case "shall" means "will be in the future, when the registration database exists", and not "as of 8/1/24. That big red semicolon is really important. It separates the green part which has a specific date attached, from the black part, which doesn't.

When §121B and §121C become law on 10/23, only then is the black part relevant. Not 8/2, but 10/24. And even then, the system of registration laid out in §121B doesn't have to exist for up to a year, and then registration doesn't have to happen until a year after that.

Read this:

SECTION 157. The department of criminal justice information services shall establish the electronic firearms registration system established pursuant to section 121B of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as inserted by section 32, not later than 1 year after the effective date of this act; provided, that all firearms shall be registered in accordance with this act and not later than 1 year after said electronic firearms registration system is completed and publicly available.

The new law says it has to be lawfully owned on 8/1. You got that covered. It also says it has it has to be registered under §121B... eventually.

 

[Old Mart]

Change your underwear.

I always carry an extra pair!

Pre-H4885 it's not even clear to me whether an 80% built and possessed legally out of state for a while would be E-FA-10'd. I know there's some debate about whether a privately manufactured firearm completed in MA meets the standard of "obtained", but people generally report them. But I definitely didn't "obtain" something I've owned for years.

 

[MAJoe]

Not full circle
The issue is not with the act of registration in 131M - the law is clear
Shall register is a future act
Otherwise is would be "shall have been registered" or "if having been registered " or similar language speaking to the past.

The key wording is "lawfully possessed"
They admit that you cannot comply with the 121b registration requirement by making it a future requirement (no actual registration was required)
They admit that there exists post 1968 firearms that did not have to be serialized with the future requirement to serialize 121C

What is in contention is the stated intent of banning all post 7/20/16 firearms that fit the new definition of a copy or duplicate as the legislature's clear assumption is that copies and duplicates could never be made compliant and therefore couldn't be lawfully possessed.

They were objectively, by all accounts, lawfully possessed by a licensed dealer under section 122? Unless you acquired out of state or manufactured. It’s not only lawfully possessed by an LTC holder.

 

[pastera]

OK, riddle me this:

• Am MA resident with LTC-A
• Have property in NH, part-time resident there per the Feds
• Make an 80% lower in NH years ago, built into rifle. Shot, had fun.

Now, the question is: what should I do to maximize options under new police state?

1. Disassemble rifle, bring stripped 80% lower in to MA today / tomorrow, NO E-FA-10 (I didn't just "obtain" it, I've had it for years...)
2. Disassemble rifle, bring stripped 80% lower in to MA today / tomorrow, YES E-FA-10
3. Bring the whole rifle into MA today / tomorrow (in '94-ban-compliant configuration), NO E-FA-10
4. Bring the whole rifle into MA today / tomorrow (in '94-ban-compliant configuration), YES E-FA-10
5. Make a new 80% for some reason, but I assume "capable of firing a shot" doesn't apply if it was capable in NH? Either way, New 80% NO E-FA-10
6. New 80% YES E-FA-10

So, brain trust, wat do???

Edit: I have lowers that are unbuilt but completed long ago too, in NH, if that matters.

Easy
You are a Mass resident so you don't get the reporting exemption for moving into Mass as a new resident with a gun.

You manufacture (machine the 80%) the firearm in NH then assemble it into a fireable condition in Mass - FA-10 within 7 days (federally you imported a firearm)
You manufacture the firearm in Massand assemble into fireable condition - you didn't purchase or obtain so no FA-10.

Or you just don't GAS and live your life.

 

[pastera]

They were objectively, by all accounts, lawfully possessed by a licensed dealer under section 122? Unless you acquired out of state or manufactured. It’s not only lawfully possessed by an LTC holder.

Agree - that could place copies and duplicates (the only guns in contention) back into lawfully possessed since dealers could possess them but not sell them in state to anyone other than Police (and other exempt possessors).
However the key to this interpretation is who was in possession ON that date.
A dealer is unquestionably lawfully possessing on 8/1/2024 but once they sell it to you, you are now in possession and your possession must be lawful on 8/1.
So if they never could lawfully transfer the gun to you since you were never able to possess it, then it's not exempt.

I am looking at this from the point of view of Mass courts that are going to hurt themselves trying to find for the state. There is zero chance the Supreme Court would agree since they won't even take these questions (they will answer the simpler question of whether a state can ban a common arm at all)

 

[MAJoe]

Agree - that could place copies and duplicates (the only guns in contention) back into lawfully possessed since dealers could possess them but not sell them in state to anyone other than Police (and other exempt possessors).
However the key to this interpretation is who was in possession ON that date.
A dealer is unquestionably lawfully possessing on 8/1/2024 but once they sell it to you, you are now in possession and your possession must be lawful on 8/1.
So if they never could lawfully transfer the gun to you since you were never able to possess it, then it's not exempt.

I am looking at this from the point of view of Mass courts that are going to hurt themselves trying to find for the state. There is zero chance the Supreme Court would agree since they won't even take these questions (they will answer the simpler question of whether a state can ban a common arm at all)

Yes I forgot the “ON” wording when I replied. Of all grey areas, I hope this is less so because audits of dealers who sold lowers I would assume would have included if they were sold to a special class or not. MA would have loved to have shut down a dealer for that, especially at the Mill.

I also recall the DSI fixed mag pistol case I think from Dedham where someone was jammed up for a 100% lawful weapon. Even if charges don’t stick, people are going to get jammed up for lawful or “grey area” items.

 

[Old Mart]

Easy
You are a Mass resident so you don't get the reporting exemption for moving into Mass as a new resident with a gun.

You manufacture (machine the 80%) the firearm in NH then assemble it into a fireable condition in Mass - FA-10 within 7 days (federally you imported a firearm)
You manufacture the firearm in Massand assemble into fireable condition - you didn't purchase or obtain so no FA-10.

Or you just don't GAS and live your life.

Thanks -- internet says option #5, with the added stipulation that I machine the 80% in MA. I just want to be able to have an AR in MA over the next few years with minimal cost and trouble.

 

[pastera]

Thanks -- internet says option #5, with the added stipulation that I machine the 80% in MA. I just want to be able to have an AR in MA over the next few years with minimal cost and trouble.

Then give some money to the good organizations that will be fighting this.

 

[cockpitbob]

And we are full circle again. Two strong and completely opposing interpretations of the same text, both with their leg pitfalls. Catch-22, damned if you don't, damned if you do, etc.

Thats the whole point, isn't it?
Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

 

[CrackPot]

@CrackPot your entire argument rests on the interpretation that 121B refers to the NEW state database that has not been created yet, correct?

"The department of criminal justice information services shall develop and maintain a real time electronic firearms registration system."
"...shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024...provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C."

I honestly can't tell from reading the bill which way it could be interpreted. Both GOAL and Guida (lol) have interpreted that this is likely referring to the existing EFA10 portal, or at least that's what a court would likely find. You are saying it refers to a new registry that hasn't been created yet. Meanwhile gun stores are literally handing out Guida quote screenshots and telling people to register.

So, if you register a lower now, you are potentially in violation of Maura's 2016 edict (which Guida says has the force of law) and get in trouble for that. If you don't register now, you are potentially in violation of the 8/1 rule and at best, can't transfer the firearm in the future, and at worst, get in trouble for that.

Is this the situation we're in now?

I will respond in a couple pieces.

First. I am not a lawyer and I do not provide legal advice. I solely post MY OPINIONS. I focus on reading the ACTUAL law and CMRs and focus on what they SAY and how different pieces interact. I can retain a lot of detailed information so am often able to link different pieces and identify unintended consequences. I focus on "what can I do that they did not want me to do". That is my business model and a successful one.

Lawyers are focused on keeping their clients out of trouble. They manage risk. The focus on "what can go wrong". They tell their clients how the law can be bad for them when ambiguous. They focus on the negative as that means their client gets into trouble. Really good lawyers will tell you what is possible and what the risks are in different actions, but these types of lawyers are rare.

I deal with lawyers every day of my professional life (not guns, defense industry). I have always been focused on managing my companies risk in the areas I am responsible for. I work with legal to understand the scope of my risk relative to areas I am responsible for. I then make decisions on what we do, what language we agree to in contracts, etc. I know the difference between good and bad lawyers because I work with them, as I said, every day of my professional life. Some are smart. Some are not. Some can think logically. Some cannot. They all have bias. They all have blind spots. The key is to find a good one or multiple good ones and listen to what they say and figure out how it aligns with your goals and risk tolerance.

I am really unclear on which lawyers GOAL is using or their objectives on what they publish. I have found SO many factual errors in the GOAL summaries that I have given up on them. I have also found serious flaws of logic. I am extremely unimpressed. But they are a source for you to help decide how YOU manage YOUR risk.

I have already spoken on Jason. He has been invested in the Healey edict since day one. That it never made legal sense bothered him not at all. It is not MGL. It is not a CMR. She was the AG and a member of the executive branch. She does not INTERPRET the law. Only the courts can do this. So bah. Who cares what she says. But Jason has always acted like it was written on tablets carried off the mountain. All his reading of H4885 is biased by this position. He has total confirmation bias in everything he reads. His posts on social media are logically inconsistent and factually wrong relative to many items. He is another source for you to decide how you manage your risk. I choose to ignore him as severely flawed and a bad lawyer.

That is context for what I post. Use it how you will.

 

[CrackPot]

@CrackPot your entire argument rests on the interpretation that 121B refers to the NEW state database that has not been created yet, correct?

"The department of criminal justice information services shall develop and maintain a real time electronic firearms registration system."
"...shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024...provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C."

I honestly can't tell from reading the bill which way it could be interpreted. Both GOAL and Guida (lol) have interpreted that this is likely referring to the existing EFA10 portal, or at least that's what a court would likely find. You are saying it refers to a new registry that hasn't been created yet. Meanwhile gun stores are literally handing out Guida quote screenshots and telling people to register.

So, if you register a lower now, you are potentially in violation of Maura's 2016 edict (which Guida says has the force of law) and get in trouble for that. If you don't register now, you are potentially in violation of the 8/1 rule and at best, can't transfer the firearm in the future, and at worst, get in trouble for that.

Is this the situation we're in now?

Lets deal with 121B. Section 157 of H4885 says in summary, that CJIS shall within one year ESTABLISH a firearms registration system pursuant to section 121B AND that firearms need to be registered within one year AFTER this system goes live.

There is NO DOUBT that the existing system is not the future system. The existing system does NOT meet the requirements of 121B and is not even close. They clearly call out that you have one year AFTER establishment of a compliant system to register everything.

So anyone talking about the existing system and registration is showing either ignorance or bias. WE DO NOT HAVE REGISTRATION. There is NO law or CMR that requires all guns I have to be recorded in anyway in the existing system. I am breaking NO laws possessing a gun that the state does not know exists. I have posted on this topic many times.

FRB FA-10 Database

We have a lot of posts where people talk about the database. Such and such a gun is in my name, how do I get rid of it? Such and such a gun was not FA10'd, can I sell it or do I have to register it first? And so it goes on and on. The database is a write only record of transactions When an...

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[Palladin]

Typical NES member on August 2nd


View: https://youtu.be/uE9kIM9_TFE?si=ooCfgNtMGSJ7WU8I&t=156

 

[pupchow]

Not full circle
The issue is not with the act of registration in 131M - the law is clear
Shall register is a future act
Otherwise is would be "shall have been registered" or "if having been registered " or similar language speaking to the past.

The key wording is "lawfully possessed"
They admit that you cannot comply with the 121b registration requirement by making it a future requirement (no actual registration was required)
They admit that there exists post 1968 firearms that did not have to be serialized with the future requirement to serialize 121C

What is in contention is the stated intent of banning all post 7/20/16 firearms that fit the new definition of a copy or duplicate as the legislature's clear assumption is that copies and duplicates could never be made compliant and therefore couldn't be lawfully possessed.

But below, there's that "R" word again.

140 SECTION 16. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further
141 amended by striking out the definition of “Assault weapon” and inserting in place thereof the
142 following 5 definitions:-
143 “Assault-style firearm”, any firearm which is:
...

167 (f) a copy or duplicate of any firearm meeting the standards of or enumerated in clauses
168 (d) and (e); provided, that for the purposes of this subsection, “copy or duplicate” shall mean a
169 firearm: (A) that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a
170 detachable magazine; and (B)(i) that has internal functional components that are substantially
171 similar in construction and configuration to those of an enumerated firearm in clauses (d) and
172 (e); or (ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an
173 enumerated firearm in said clauses (d) and (e); provided further, that the firearm shall not be
174 considered a copy or duplicate of a firearm identified in clauses (d) and (e) if sold, owned and
175 registered prior to July 20, 2016

 

[CrackPot]

@CrackPot your entire argument rests on the interpretation that 121B refers to the NEW state database that has not been created yet, correct?

"The department of criminal justice information services shall develop and maintain a real time electronic firearms registration system."
"...shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024...provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C."

I honestly can't tell from reading the bill which way it could be interpreted. Both GOAL and Guida (lol) have interpreted that this is likely referring to the existing EFA10 portal, or at least that's what a court would likely find. You are saying it refers to a new registry that hasn't been created yet. Meanwhile gun stores are literally handing out Guida quote screenshots and telling people to register.

So, if you register a lower now, you are potentially in violation of Maura's 2016 edict (which Guida says has the force of law) and get in trouble for that. If you don't register now, you are potentially in violation of the 8/1 rule and at best, can't transfer the firearm in the future, and at worst, get in trouble for that.

Is this the situation we're in now?

Lets disect the 2016 language and the edict. The edict said ALL post 94 ARs are copies or duplicates. ALL. They will not prosecute any owned as of the date of the edict. How nice.

So lets take this as ground truth. If true, then ALL ARs post 94 are NOT lawfully possessed in MA on 8/1. The new law has not taken effect. So under the current law and the Healey edict ALL ARs are copies or duplicates so therefore assault weapons. FULL STOP. They are not grandfathered as they are not lawfully possessed on 8/1.


The language in the new bill says PRE 7/20/2016 are not copies or duplicates. Sad because a lot of guns sold ON 7/20/2016. But ok, they are not copies or duplicates AS OF 10/23/24 when the new law takes effect. But they DO have to pass the feature tests and essentially all fail. So how does any of this 2016 language in the new bill matter? It does not.

Grandfathering is based on TODAYS law and lawfully possessing 8/1. If you believe in Healey EVERYTHING is unlawful so nothing is grandfathered. If you ignore Healey than as long as its compliant with the actual AWB it is grandfathered. Nothing in the new law is part of the evaluation because 8/1 is hard coded and the new law does not take effect until 10/23.

So ALL the GOAL and Guida analysis is logically inconsistent because the only conclusion is that everything is ILLEGAL or everything is LEGAL regardless of 2016 date. You can't have it half way.

I subscribe to its all legal.

 

[2/1Marine]

For what it is worth I spoke at length about this with my state rep and have reached out to the AG for clarification on interpreting this cluster.
My state rep was under the impression that everything owned and entered into the current FA-10 system would be grandfathered (regardless of Healy edict). I told him I'm not so certain and would like clarification.
I shot an email over to the AG's office asking for clarification. I will begin holding my breath for a response now.... and if one is received will be sure to share with everyone on here.

What is really unfortunate here is that this is going to take quite some time to get sorted out and even longer to work its way through the courts. In the meantime all of us legal gunowners sit and wait in purgatory behind enemy lines while our constitutional rights are blatantly ignored and trampled.

 

[FancyGunz]

I will respond in a couple pieces.

First. I am not a lawyer and I do not provide legal advice. I solely post MY OPINIONS. I focus on reading the ACTUAL law and CMRs and focus on what they SAY and how different pieces interact. I can retain a lot of detailed information so am often able to link different pieces and identify unintended consequences. I focus on "what can I do that they did not want me to do". That is my business model and a successful one.

Lawyers are focused on keeping their clients out of trouble. They manage risk. The focus on "what can go wrong". They tell their clients how the law can be bad for them when ambiguous. They focus on the negative as that means their client gets into trouble. Really good lawyers will tell you what is possible and what the risks are in different actions, but these types of lawyers are rare.

I deal with lawyers every day of my professional life (not guns, defense industry). I have always been focused on managing my companies risk in the areas I am responsible for. I work with legal to understand the scope of my risk relative to areas I am responsible for. I then make decisions on what we do, what language we agree to in contracts, etc. I know the difference between good and bad lawyers because I work with them, as I said, every day of my professional life. Some are smart. Some are not. Some can think logically. Some cannot. They all have bias. They all have blind spots. The key is to find a good one or multiple good ones and listen to what they say and figure out how it aligns with your goals and risk tolerance.

I am really unclear on which lawyers GOAL is using or their objectives on what they publish. I have found SO many factual errors in the GOAL summaries that I have given up on them. I have also found serious flaws of logic. I am extremely unimpressed. But they are a source for you to help decide how YOU manage YOUR risk.

I have already spoken on Jason. He has been invested in the Healey edict since day one. That it never made legal sense bothered him not at all. It is not MGL. It is not a CMR. She was the AG and a member of the executive branch. She does not INTERPRET the law. Only the courts can do this. So bah. Who cares what she says. But Jason has always acted like it was written on tablets carried off the mountain. All his reading of H4885 is biased by this position. He has total confirmation bias in everything he reads. His posts on social media are logically inconsistent and factually wrong relative to many items. He is another source for you to decide how you manage your risk. I choose to ignore him as severely flawed and a bad lawyer.

That is context for what I post. Use it how you will.

Lets deal with 121B. Section 157 of H4885 says in summary, that CJIS shall within one year ESTABLISH a firearms registration system pursuant to section 121B AND that firearms need to be registered within one year AFTER this system goes live.

There is NO DOUBT that the existing system is not the future system. The existing system does NOT meet the requirements of 121B and is not even close. They clearly call out that you have one year AFTER establishment of a compliant system to register everything.

So anyone talking about the existing system and registration is showing either ignorance or bias. WE DO NOT HAVE REGISTRATION. There is NO law or CMR that requires all guns I have to be recorded in anyway in the existing system. I am breaking NO laws possessing a gun that the state does not know exists. I have posted on this topic many times.

FRB FA-10 Database

We have a lot of posts where people talk about the database. Such and such a gun is in my name, how do I get rid of it? Such and such a gun was not FA10'd, can I sell it or do I have to register it first? And so it goes on and on. The database is a write only record of transactions When an...

www.northeastshooters.com

Lets disect the 2016 language and the edict. The edict said ALL post 94 ARs are copies or duplicates. ALL. They will not prosecute any owned as of the date of the edict. How nice.

So lets take this as ground truth. If true, then ALL ARs post 94 are NOT lawfully possessed in MA on 8/1. The new law has not taken effect. So under the current law and the Healey edict ALL ARs are copies or duplicates so therefore assault weapons. FULL STOP. They are not grandfathered as they are not lawfully possessed on 8/1.


The language in the new bill says PRE 7/20/2016 are not copies or duplicates. Sad because a lot of guns sold ON 7/20/2016. But ok, they are not copies or duplicates AS OF 10/23/25 when the new law takes effect. But they DO have to pass the feature tests and essentially all fail. So how does any of this 2016 language in the new bill matter? It does not.

Grandfathering is based on TODAYS law and lawfully possessing 8/1. If you believe in Healey EVERYTHING is unlawful so nothing is grandfathered. If you ignore Healey than as long as its compliant with the actual AWB it is grandfathered. Nothing in the new law is part of the evaluation because 8/1 is hard coded and the new law does not take effect until 10/23.

So ALL the GOAL and Guida analysis is logically inconsistent because the only conclusion is that everything ILLEGAL or everything is LEGAL regardless of 2016 date. You cant have it half way.

I subscribe to its all legal.

I appreciate all your efforts, and thank you for taking the time to write out logical replies. I 100% agree with your assessment of lawyers. I went and read Guida's Facebook posts and you are correct, it's a mess (not sure it was worth subjecting myself to that).

This is a case of, how do you interpret the poorly written text, what will be the state's interpretation, and what will be the courts' interpretation(s).

I stand by my "damned if you do and damned if you don't" statement. It's 2024 and we live in a Democrat bubble. They can look at the color red and tell you it's blue, and win in court. There is ample potential risk with all of the decisions people are currently making.

Read this:

SECTION 157. The department of criminal justice information services shall establish the electronic firearms registration system established pursuant to section 121B of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as inserted by section 32, not later than 1 year after the effective date of this act; provided, that all firearms shall be registered in accordance with this act and not later than 1 year after said electronic firearms registration system is completed and publicly available.

The new law says it has to be lawfully owned on 8/1. You got that covered. It also says it has it has to be registered under §121B... eventually.

I didn't know this section 157 existed. After reading it, it is clear that this is a future registration system they are referring to. Thanks for posting it, maybe others will read & come to a similar conclusion.

For what it is worth I spoke at length about this with my state rep and have reached out to the AG for clarification on interpreting this cluster.
My state rep was under the impression that everything owned and entered into the current FA-10 system would be grandfathered (regardless of Healy edict). I told him I'm not so certain and would like clarification.
I shot an email over to the AG's office asking for clarification. I will begin holding my breath for a response now.... and if one is received will be sure to share with everyone on here.

What is really unfortunate here is that this is going to take quite some time to get sorted out and even longer to work its way through the courts. In the meantime all of us legal gunowners sit and wait in purgatory behind enemy lines while our constitutional rights are blatantly ignored and trampled.

The state rep doesn't know, the people who wrote the bill don't know, Mura doesn't know, the AG will twist everything for maximum illegality.

 

[Mwz60]

ets deal with 121B. Section 157 of H4885 says in summary, that CJIS shall within one year ESTABLISH a firearms registration system pursuant to section 121B AND that firearms need to be registered within one year AFTER this system goes live.

There is NO DOUBT that the existing system is not the future system. The existing system does NOT meet the requirements of 121B and is not even close. They clearly call out that you have one year AFTER establishment of a compliant system to register everything.

So anyone talking about the existing system and registration is showing either ignorance or bias. WE DO NOT HAVE REGISTRATION. There is NO law or CMR that requires all guns I have to be recorded in anyway in the existing system. I am breaking NO laws possessing a gun that the state does not know exists. I have posted on this topic many times.

This !! Confiscation is next.

 

[1903Collector]

Another thing I was pondering this morning, again apologies if it's been covered already. With regards to long guns now having to be on a roster, that is for new guns starting on 8/1?

If a dealer has a used/consignment long guns in their inventory are those exempt like pre 98' handguns are?

 

[CrackPot]

But below, there's that "R" word again.

140 SECTION 16. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further
141 amended by striking out the definition of “Assault weapon” and inserting in place thereof the
142 following 5 definitions:-
143 “Assault-style firearm”, any firearm which is:
...

167 (f) a copy or duplicate of any firearm meeting the standards of or enumerated in clauses
168 (d) and (e); provided, that for the purposes of this subsection, “copy or duplicate” shall mean a
169 firearm: (A) that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a
170 detachable magazine; and (B)(i) that has internal functional components that are substantially
171 similar in construction and configuration to those of an enumerated firearm in clauses (d) and
172 (e); or (ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an
173 enumerated firearm in said clauses (d) and (e); provided further, that the firearm shall not be
174 considered a copy or duplicate of a firearm identified in clauses (d) and (e) if sold, owned and
175 registered prior to July 20, 2016

This one is just "impossible" and typical of some of the language wedged into the new law. But as I pointed out, none of this really matters since they all fail the feature test anyway and everyone is dependent on 8/1 grandfathering.

 

[CrackPot]

Another thing I was pondering this morning, again apologies if it's been covered already. With regards to long guns now having to be on a roster, that is for new guns starting on 8/1?

If a dealer has a used/consignment long guns in their inventory are those exempt like pre 98' handguns are?

The new law takes effect on 10/23. At that time all guns must be on the roster. Before that dealers can continue with business as usual. The only future gotcha is that anything not lawfully possessed by the dealer or the purchaser ON 8/1 is not grandfathered. So if I as a dealer purchased an AR on 10/1 and made it fully compliant with the current law and sold it to a poor MA resident, that would all be legal. On 10/23 the poor MA resident would be in possession of a felony.

 

[pastera]

But below, there's that "R" word again.

140 SECTION 16. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further
141 amended by striking out the definition of “Assault weapon” and inserting in place thereof the
142 following 5 definitions:-
143 “Assault-style firearm”, any firearm which is:
...

167 (f) a copy or duplicate of any firearm meeting the standards of or enumerated in clauses
168 (d) and (e); provided, that for the purposes of this subsection, “copy or duplicate” shall mean a
169 firearm: (A) that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a
170 detachable magazine; and (B)(i) that has internal functional components that are substantially
171 similar in construction and configuration to those of an enumerated firearm in clauses (d) and
172 (e); or (ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an
173 enumerated firearm in said clauses (d) and (e); provided further, that the firearm shall not be
174 considered a copy or duplicate of a firearm identified in clauses (d) and (e) if sold, owned and
175 registered prior to July 20, 2016

I'm on my phone so writing this out is a pain.
Once 4885 is in effect THERE IS NO legal construct of assault weapon any longer. The only thing that matters is an assault-style firearm, period.
And the definition of assault-style firearm is time dependant based on date of possession for the sub-class of copies and duplicates.

The exemption of 131m(b) is predicated on lawful possession on a particular day (8/1/24) and future compliance with 121b and 121c.

The definition based exemption of copy and duplicate is predicated not on lawfully possessed on a date but rather if "if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016"
This brings up two issues:
1 - There must have been some method to register on that date for the words to be meaningful (note this does not tie registration to 121b therefore the registration here does not need to follow 121b). The legislature has stated its intent to treat the transaction portal as a registry for this purpose and the portal includes an option to "register".
2 - So since there is no means to cure a copies and duplicates failure in the ASF definition except by the registration, the only exempt C&D are pre 7/20 if the following is true:
Copies and duplicates always meant what the 7/20 declaration said it meant in Massachusetts therefore we were never in lawful possession which is a predicate condition to the 131m exemption.

The problem is that the entire scheme relies on a redefinition of "copy or duplicate" away from the federally accepted interpretation of the same phrase. Since the Mass law at the time defined itself using the federal law, then it would follow that federal interpretation would also apply.
Mass is now arguing that while they did adopt the language they didn't adopt the interpretation and that they didn't publish the fact of a different interpretation for over a decade.

 

[CrackPot]

For what it is worth I spoke at length about this with my state rep and have reached out to the AG for clarification on interpreting this cluster.
My state rep was under the impression that everything owned and entered into the current FA-10 system would be grandfathered (regardless of Healy edict). I told him I'm not so certain and would like clarification.
I shot an email over to the AG's office asking for clarification. I will begin holding my breath for a response now.... and if one is received will be sure to share with everyone on here.

What is really unfortunate here is that this is going to take quite some time to get sorted out and even longer to work its way through the courts. In the meantime all of us legal gunowners sit and wait in purgatory behind enemy lines while our constitutional rights are blatantly ignored and trampled.

nice but highly irrelevant what both your rep and the AG say. The law says LAWFULLY POSSESSED. It does not say a transaction was recorded in MIRCS showing you as the recipient at some random time prior to 8/1. You have to possess ON 8/1. By the logic of your rep if I FA10ed it 10 years ago and it was sitting now in arizona, its grandfathered. BAH. That makes no sense.

And the state has to prove you did NOT lawfully possess it on 8/1. Doable if true, sometimes, but proving a negative is, well nigh impossible.