Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

Picton said:
That's precisely the point of the law.

NOBODY who had any part in writing it had any intention of it "stopping crime" or "increasing safety." They didn't fund any of its implementation, so they aren't ever likely to follow it themselves in setting up their new registries and training requirements, and even if they do they have no money to actually enforce any of this. The "tiger country" you're afraid of does not exist.

This statute is window-dressing. There's a reason the law is impossible to understand: because TPTB don't care if it's understandable. They got what they wanted in passing it; they don't care if it's not followed. They know enough people will bend over backwards to try to follow it, like you are. And that's all they need to do.

You're defeating yourself by trying to abide by this piece of shit. That's fine, if you want to do so, but don't pretend you're doing anything but playing their game, dancing to their tune, and letting them use you. You don't have to do that. You can choose to just ignore it.

On top of that, your faith in generative AI tells me you've got a dangerously shallow understanding of how generative AI works. That's a separate issue, and it scares me that you think it's a great plan.
Click to expand...

I don't support this legislation. I signed the petition and physically took friends to my gun club to sign it. The law is a farce. The method in which it was enacted is an example of the disdain the left has for our country. "To save the country, we must subvert the laws designed to preserve it!" seems to be their logic. (See the rise of Kamala Harris as the democratic nominee for further evidence) The tiger country I'm referring to is the unknown and poorly defined legal landscape the legislature created. It's very real. I don't understand your position on that. Decisions that impact yourself, your family, etc should be made on the best available evidence. In the absence of that information, there is a higher than average risk of something bad happening, tiger country.

At what point did I state I was abiding by anything? Just link the quote for me please. I don't think dancing to their tune is "fine" as you put it. Based on your numerous posts which I have "liked" I think we are of like minds on these issues but your assertions have gotten my ire up. I'm not going to get into your interpretation of what I'm thinking because my wife of 20 years still doesn't know how to read my mind. If you had a side job as Kreskin the great, perhaps you've got a shot, otherwise you have no idea what I'm thinking.

With specfic regard to generative AI, it's not a great plan. It's a tool. It's not a solution. I think you are misunderstanding my position here. They expressed difficulties with the language. I suggested they use it (a language AI) to simplify terms. My intent was not to have it interpret the bill's legal construct. I do take solice in the fact that my faith in any institution could scare you.

Can we be friends now? Or as I would say in college "Girls! Please! You're both pretty."
 
pastera said:
The AI doesn't know enough about the peculiar use of terms that have very specific meanings different from colloquial usage.
You may get language that you understand better but that language very likely doesn't convey the actual legal meaning of the law's text.

What section(s) are the issue at the moment?
I can create a thread to discuss each section in the Mass Laws forum and discuss each section in detail at least until the trolls take over.
Click to expand...
I agree completely with you. It's like an autistic language savant. It has no concept of nuance.
 
JJC said:
I think that the intentionally technical and frequently internally inconsistent language of the bill makes this law very difficult to understand. If an individual wants to use a generative language AI to get clarity for some of those words/phrases, I don't see the harm. A lawyer is obviously the best choice but: a. They are expensive, b. They can't even give us the true definitions and scope until ithe law gets a ruling. If you make any major decisions based upon anything beyond an actual legal authority then you're in tiger country, full stop.
Click to expand...
The harm is obvious if you don't understand law to begin with, you will understand it less after some shitty AI tries to decipher it.
 
Hardwired said:
From the Goal AsF “update” is a new Baretta A300/A400 semi shottie good to go new for sale now?

Beretta-A300.jpg
Click to expand...
1st - Ignore the GOAL summaries. They are worst than nothing since they have way too many errors

143 “Assault-style firearm”, any firearm which is:
157 (c) a semiautomatic shotgun that includes at least 2 of the following features:
(i) a folding or telescopic stock;​
(ii) a thumbhole stock or pistol grip;​
(iii) a protruding grip for the non-trigger hand; or​
(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device.​
Click to expand...

www.beretta.com

Explore Beretta A400 Shotguns for Unmatched Performance and Versatility

Discover the Beretta A400 shotguns, offering unmatched versatility, reliability, and performance for every shooting experience.
www.beretta.com www.beretta.com
Not a single model of A400 on that page is an ASF

www.beretta.com

Discover Beretta A300 Shotguns for Reliable Versatility and Performance

Explore the Beretta A300 shotguns for unmatched reliability and versatility in hunting and competition shooting performance.
www.beretta.com www.beretta.com
Not a single model of A300 on that page is an ASF
 
Yeah, I don't intend to come off as needlessly harsh, really. I just want to make sure we all understand what's going on here, and some posters seem not to grasp it. I try not to be all "SpaceCritterish" and I won't use the term grok, but I do begin to comprehend a little of his frustration: what's happening here is clear to see, but some are not willing to admit it. We are faced with an unjust law. History tells us that when unjust laws occur, the just and liberty-minded thing to do (to say nothing of "morals") is to ignore them. To follow them is cowardice.

So my position is that there's no point in following this law. It is unenforceable (even if they had appropriated money to enforce it, which they chose not to do). It will not stand judicial scrutiny. It is being systematically neutered by the very people who passed and signed it, because they are admitting they are not ready to put it into effect (even though this is, y'know, such an emergency that it needed to go into effect early).

All that stacks up to a single conclusion: this is not a serious law written by serious people who expect it to be followed. It is designed for some other purpose. Whatever it is, that purpose has nothing to do with me, and I won't help it along by striving to "understand" something that cannot be understood.

JJC said:
I don't support this legislation. I signed the petition and physically took friends to my gun club to sign it. The law is a farce. The method in which it was enacted is an example of the disdain the left has for our country. "To save the country, we must subvert the laws designed to preserve it!" seems to be their logic. (See the rise of Kamala Harris as the democratic nominee for further evidence)
Click to expand...

Yes. Exactly. So... why follow it?

JJC said:
The tiger country I'm referring to is the unknown and poorly defined legal landscape the legislature created. It's very real. I don't understand your position on that. Decisions that impact yourself, your family, etc should be made on the best available evidence. In the absence of that information, there is a higher than average risk of something bad happening, tiger country.
Click to expand...

The best evidence I have suggests that this law is unconstitutional, and will be overturned. I see zero risk in refusing to comply. I foresee no future in which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts tries to enforce this law on me, none at all.

JJC said:
At what point did I state I was abiding by anything? Just link the quote for me please. I don't think dancing to their tune is "fine" as you put it. Based on your numerous posts which I have "liked" I think we are of like minds on these issues but your assertions have gotten my ire up. I'm not going to get into your interpretation of what I'm thinking because my wife of 20 years still doesn't know how to read my mind. If you had a side job as Kreskin the great, perhaps you've got a shot, otherwise you have no idea what I'm thinking.
Click to expand...

You're making an attempt to understand this law. I'm not sure why you'd bother, if you weren't seeking to bring yourself into compliance. But mostly, I was concerned by your idea to use an LLM to parse the statute; that strikes me as compounding the issue of a badly-written law by overlaying it with shoddy "interpretation" by a computer, and I can't imagine anyone would think that's a good idea.

JJC said:
With specfic regard to generative AI, it's not a great plan. It's a tool. It's not a solution. I think you are misunderstanding my position here. They expressed difficulties with the language. I suggested they use it (a language AI) to simplify terms. My intent was not to have it interpret the bill's legal construct. I do take solice in the fact that my faith in any institution could scare you.

Can we be friends now? Or as I would say in college "Girls! Please! You're both pretty."
Click to expand...

No. I am prettier!
 
Picton said:
Yeah, I don't intend to come off as needlessly harsh, really. I just want to make sure we all understand what's going on here, and some posters seem not to grasp it. I try not to be all "SpaceCritterish" and I won't use the term grok, but I do begin to comprehend a little of his frustration: what's happening here is clear to see, but some are not willing to admit it. We are faced with an unjust law. History tells us that when unjust laws occur, the just and liberty-minded thing to do (to say nothing of "morals") is to ignore them. To follow them is cowardice.

So my position is that there's no point in following this law. It is unenforceable (even if they had appropriated money to enforce it, which they chose not to do). It will not stand judicial scrutiny. It is being systematically neutered by the very people who passed and signed it, because they are admitting they are not ready to put it into effect (even though this is, y'know, such an emergency that it needed to go into effect early).

All that stacks up to a single conclusion: this is not a serious law written by serious people who expect it to be followed. It is designed for some other purpose. Whatever it is, that purpose has nothing to do with me, and I won't help it along by striving to "understand" something that cannot be understood.



Yes. Exactly. So... why follow it?



The best evidence I have suggests that this law is unconstitutional, and will be overturned. I see zero risk in refusing to comply. I foresee no future in which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts tries to enforce this law on me, none at all.



You're making an attempt to understand this law. I'm not sure why you'd bother, if you weren't seeking to bring yourself into compliance. But mostly, I was concerned by your idea to use an LLM to parse the statute; that strikes me as compounding the issue of a badly-written law by overlaying it with shoddy "interpretation" by a computer, and I can't imagine anyone would think that's a good idea.



No. I am prettier!
Click to expand...
Concur on all points

If one reads controlling legal opinions you will quickly understand that none of this law is constitutional.
The red flag stuff is still murky but Rahimi shows us one must be demonstrably violent to be disarmed
Bruen says you absolutely have the right to bear arms and if a license is required the requirements must be objective and not oppressive.
Canjura within Mass sets forth the idea that the only consideration is lethality when considering "unusual dangerousness" and then sets forth a very pro-2a methodology to determine degree of commonality that doesn't depend on extra legal purpose like exclusively "self-defense" usage.
Loper Bright tells us that Healy didn't have the authority to change the interpretation of "copies and duplicates" beyond that in law

So, we can articulate easily why these laws are outside current jurisprudence of what level of infringement is constitutionally allowed - Per Heller and clarified with Bruen, the 2A is a default constitutional position unless the state can show a particular action or item is historically restricted in some analogous way. So the state must allow EVERYTHING until it can prove beyond reasonable doubt that that thing has been historically restricted in some manner.
 
JJC said:
With specfic regard to generative AI, it's not a great plan. It's a tool. It's not a solution. I think you are misunderstanding my position here. They expressed difficulties with the language. I suggested they use it (a language AI) to simplify terms.
Click to expand...

The problem is that "simplify terms" isn't something AI can do in this context; and doing it wrong is way worse than doing nothing.

For instance: What does "firearm" mean? Well, it depends on who you ask! For the feds it means one thing, under current Mass. law it means something else, and under old Mass. law it means yet another thing. There IS NO DEFINITION that is useful, because context matters so much.

Mass. law is filled with "for the following section the following definitions apply" or similar language.
 
Picton said:
Yeah, I don't intend to come off as needlessly harsh, really. I just want to make sure we all understand what's going on here, and some posters seem not to grasp it. I try not to be all "SpaceCritterish" and I won't use the term grok, but I do begin to comprehend a little of his frustration: what's happening here is clear to see, but some are not willing to admit it. We are faced with an unjust law. History tells us that when unjust laws occur, the just and liberty-minded thing to do (to say nothing of "morals") is to ignore them. To follow them is cowardice.

So my position is that there's no point in following this law. It is unenforceable (even if they had appropriated money to enforce it, which they chose not to do). It will not stand judicial scrutiny. It is being systematically neutered by the very people who passed and signed it, because they are admitting they are not ready to put it into effect (even though this is, y'know, such an emergency that it needed to go into effect early).

All that stacks up to a single conclusion: this is not a serious law written by serious people who expect it to be followed. It is designed for some other purpose. Whatever it is, that purpose has nothing to do with me, and I won't help it along by striving to "understand" something that cannot be understood.



Yes. Exactly. So... why follow it?



The best evidence I have suggests that this law is unconstitutional, and will be overturned. I see zero risk in refusing to comply. I foresee no future in which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts tries to enforce this law on me, none at all.



You're making an attempt to understand this law. I'm not sure why you'd bother, if you weren't seeking to bring yourself into compliance. But mostly, I was concerned by your idea to use an LLM to parse the statute; that strikes me as compounding the issue of a badly-written law by overlaying it with shoddy "interpretation" by a computer, and I can't imagine anyone would think that's a good idea.



No. I am prettier!
Click to expand...
I agree with everything in this response. Although, I said both pretty without an assertion of prettier. That assertion would cut my odds by 50% needlessly. I never did anything that reduced my odds in college.
 
milktree said:
The problem is that "simplify terms" isn't something AI can do in this context; and doing it wrong is way worse than doing nothing.

For instance: What does "firearm" mean? Well, it depends on who you ask! For the feds it means one thing, under current Mass. law it means something else, and under old Mass. law it means yet another thing. There IS NO DEFINITION that is useful, because context matters so much.

Mass. law is filled with "for the following section the following definitions apply" or similar language.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Ultimately this comes down to the Bill Clinton quote "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." which is what they want, to be so vague as to be akin to the legal version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
 
JJC said:
I agree with everything in this response. Although, I said both pretty without an assertion of prettier. That assertion would cut my odds by 50% needlessly. I never did anything that reduced my odds in college.
Click to expand...

I got hit on by a gay guy once.

My door doesn't swing that way, but I was still a little flattered. That should support my prettiness, surely.
 
pastera said:
Concur on all points

If one reads controlling legal opinions you will quickly understand that none of this law is constitutional.
The red flag stuff is still murky but Rahimi shows us one must be demonstrably violent to be disarmed
Bruen says you absolutely have the right to bear arms and if a license is required the requirements must be objective and not oppressive.
Canjura within Mass sets forth the idea that the only consideration is lethality when considering "unusual dangerousness" and then sets forth a very pro-2a methodology to determine degree of commonality that doesn't depend on extra legal purpose like exclusively "self-defense" usage.
Loper Bright tells us that Healy didn't have the authority to change the interpretation of "copies and duplicates" beyond that in law

So, we can articulate easily why these laws are outside current jurisprudence of what level of infringement is constitutionally allowed - Per Heller and clarified with Bruen, the 2A is a default constitutional position unless the state can show a particular action or item is historically restricted in some analogous way. So the state must allow EVERYTHING until it can prove beyond reasonable doubt that that thing has been historically restricted in some manner.
Click to expand...

There's still room for self-serving pragmatism though, given that we're all wasting our time on here speculating and posting about random bullshit anyway. I don't mean everyone needs to panic and worry about every aspect of this law, but if there are situations covered by the law that are relatively high likelihood to occur it's worth understanding what the law says and means to avoid getting jammed up. For example, carrying a preban standard capacity mag. If you get pulled over for some bullshit and, for whatever reason, the cop ends up holding your pistol you'll probably wish you had gone with a 10 rounder. There's also a need for would be buyers and sellers to understand those sections of the law impacting the market. But yeah, beyond those two categories I don't think it makes much sense to waste too much time thinking about all this, except for mental masturbation purposes.
 
not new guy said:
There's still room for self-serving pragmatism though, given that we're all wasting our time on here speculating and posting about random bullshit anyway. I don't mean everyone needs to panic and worry about every aspect of this law, but if there are situations covered by the law that are relatively high likelihood to occur it's worth understanding what the law says and means to avoid getting jammed up. For example, carrying a preban standard capacity mag. If you get pulled over for some bullshit and, for whatever reason, the cop ends up holding your pistol you'll probably wish you had gone with a 10 rounder. There's also a need for would be buyers and sellers to understand those sections of the law impacting the market. But yeah, beyond those two categories I don't think it makes much sense to waste too much time thinking about all this, except for mental masturbation purposes.
Click to expand...
Concur - Snope (Bianchi) is so close to cert that playing games now would be a fool's errand.
 
DJBrad said:
This thread…….needs to reverse course from this 👇🏻
Click to expand...


View: https://youtu.be/Bff_09uGi70?t=20


Well, you guys did go to "serialization of PMFs" which is pretty inherently gay, so there's that. [rofl] At some point IMO that deserves its own subthread for the .025% of people who will actually do that. If somebody wants to make it ill scoop the poop in there
 
pastera said:
www.beretta.com

Discover Beretta A300 Shotguns for Reliable Versatility and Performance

Explore the Beretta A300 shotguns for unmatched reliability and versatility in hunting and competition shooting performance.
www.beretta.com www.beretta.com
Not a single model of A300 on that page is an ASF
Click to expand...

Some of the A300 models fit seven rounds in the tube. Do we think these models are legal?

Is there a distinction where they do not meet the ASF definition, so they are not ASFs, but their attached magazines are still banned high capacity magazines?

On an almost unrelated note, I get Four Seasons emails. They have A300 shotguns that look exactly like the 7 round models, but hold only 5 rounds in the tube. The description says they have a fake magazine extension that cannot be modified to hold shells. I hate to put something here that seems like a plug for the deli ticket emporium, but I think it is a relevant take on how some people are interpreting these rules.
 
pastera said:
1st - Ignore the GOAL summaries. They are worst than nothing since they have way too many errors



www.beretta.com

Explore Beretta A400 Shotguns for Unmatched Performance and Versatility

Discover the Beretta A400 shotguns, offering unmatched versatility, reliability, and performance for every shooting experience.
www.beretta.com www.beretta.com
Not a single model of A400 on that page is an ASF

www.beretta.com

Discover Beretta A300 Shotguns for Reliable Versatility and Performance

Explore the Beretta A300 shotguns for unmatched reliability and versatility in hunting and competition shooting performance.
www.beretta.com www.beretta.com
Not a single model of A300 on that page is an ASF
Click to expand...


Maybe not an ASF but some sport a LCFD...
 
straightshooterjake said:
Some of the A300 models fit seven rounds in the tube. Do we think these models are legal?

Is there a distinction where they do not meet the ASF definition, so they are not ASFs, but their attached magazines are still banned high capacity magazines?

On an almost unrelated note, I get Four Seasons emails. They have A300 shotguns that look exactly like the 7 round models, but hold only 5 rounds in the tube. The description says they have a fake magazine extension that cannot be modified to hold shells. I hate to put something here that seems like a plug for the deli ticket emporium, but I think it is a relevant take on how some people are interpreting these rules.
Click to expand...
Two different questions - Neither shotgun in question is an ASF. However, as a semiauto it is limited to 5 round tubes

249 “Large capacity feeding device”,
(i) a fixed or detachable magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells; or
(ii) any part or combination of parts from which a device can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or control of the same person;​
provided, however, that “large capacity feeding device” shall not include:
(a) any device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells;
(b) an attached tubular device designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or
(c) a tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm or on a pump shotgun.​
Click to expand...
 
Has anyone gone through the Form 1 process for an SBR since H4885 went into effect?

Curious if the ATF is still processing them.
 
straightshooterjake said:
Some of the A300 models fit seven rounds in the tube. Do we think these models are legal?

Is there a distinction where they do not meet the ASF definition, so they are not ASFs, but their attached magazines are still banned high capacity magazines?

On an almost unrelated note, I get Four Seasons emails. They have A300 shotguns that look exactly like the 7 round models, but hold only 5 rounds in the tube. The description says they have a fake magazine extension that cannot be modified to hold shells. I hate to put something here that seems like a plug for the deli ticket emporium, but I think it is a relevant take on how some people are interpreting these rules.
Click to expand...
The law has been and continues to be very clear. You are limited to 5 rounds for a shotgun. The old law was a little muddled around non semi-auto fixed tube capacity being ok over 5 because of a conflict in terminology. The new law makes an explicit exception for pump tube fed shotguns.

But semi auto shotguns have NEVER been legal with over 5 round capacity. This has never stopped the deli ticket emporium and other shops whether out of ignorance or malice from selling 7rd versions like the 1301 tactical mod 2.

5 rounds or felony.
 
zevana said:
Has anyone gone through the Form 1 process for an SBR since H4885 went into effect?

Curious if the ATF is still processing them.
Click to expand...

www.northeastshooters.com

ATF eForm 1 mega thread. Process and approvals!

Without googling the exact language you are only required to produce a stamp when requested by the ATF, not produce one immediately, I never carry a stamps. If you ever have an ATF agent is asking to see a stamp I'm willing to bet you are about to be properly f***ed for something much bigger. I...
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com


🐯
 

Similar threads

Practical implications of H4885 for non-residents traveling into/through MA?
Replies
11
Views
658
kalash
kalash
H4885 and Youth Hunters/Shooters
Replies
1
Views
270
dixidawg
dixidawg
MA resident and LTC holder who owns property in NH and confused
2
Replies
31
Views
779
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
H4885 pertaining to a non resident coming into mass to compete in a match
Replies
7
Views
296
GL2020
GL2020
H4885 Lawfare Speculation Funhouse Megathread
Replies
22
Views
1K
vicorjh
V
Back
Top Bottom