Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

pastera said:
1st - Ignore the GOAL summaries.
Click to expand...
Looks like this law is serving another purpose; to sow seeds of doubt in the only, or at least the main, pro-2A group in Massachusetts. Statements like this will continue to shrink any credibility GOAL has left, and then there really isn't anyone else left at the state level to step in to that role.

pastera said:
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...
I wish this was the case. It isn't though. Not here in this Internet discussion, or on this forum anywhere, or anywhere else. Maybe in our dreams, some day.

not new guy said:
still room for self-serving pragmatism though, given that we're all wasting our time on here speculating and posting about random bullshit anyway
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Coyote33 said:
Looks like this law is serving another purpose; to sow seeds of doubt in the only, or at least the main, pro-2A group in Massachusetts. Statements like this will continue to shrink any credibility GOAL has left, and then there really isn't anyone else left at the state level to step in to that role.


I wish this was the case. It isn't though. Not here in this Internet discussion, or on this forum anywhere, or anywhere else. Maybe in our dreams, some day.


Yes.
Click to expand...
When I have time I'm looking to go down the rabbit he with Canjura which being a Mass SJC opinion is controlling here - and it plainly sets out a clear process for interpreting Heller's position that all bearable arms are presumptively constitutional and it is the state's burden to overcome that presumption.
 
Coyote33 said:
I tried looking this up. I guess I don't understand, after looking at this:
View attachment 931278


Or by "cert", do you mean something else?
Click to expand...
You need to look at the ridiculous history of that case within the 4th.
That was an interlocutory action.
The case has been decided so is now ready for SCOTUS review on the merits.
 
pastera said:
When I have time I'm looking to go down the rabbit he with Canjura which being a Mass SJC opinion is controlling here - and it plainly sets out a clear process for interpreting Heller's position that all bearable arms are presumptively constitutional and it is the state's burden to overcome that presumption.
Click to expand...
And when the state agrees with that, then it will become true. Until then, it does not legally exist yet in Massachusetts. I look forward to that change possibly happening some day.

(I'd say some day soon, but that seems unlikely.) And don't pretend like it is already the case, or people would be out buying stuff and bringing it out to the range without worries.
 
Last edited:
Coyote33 said:
And when the state agrees with that, then it will become true. Until then, it does not legally exist yet in Massachusetts. I look forward to that change possibly happening some day.

(I'd say some day soon, but that seems unlikely.) And don't pretend like it is already the case, or people would be out buying stuff and bringing it out to the range without worries.
Click to expand...
Within the context of Canjura, they already do...
 
pastera said:
When I have time I'm looking to go down the rabbit he with Canjura which being a Mass SJC opinion is controlling here - and it plainly sets out a clear process for interpreting Heller's position that all bearable arms are presumptively constitutional and it is the state's burden to overcome that presumption.
Click to expand...
Now only if Canjura applied to suppressors....
 
JFR2 said:
I still get goosbumps reading Canjura. Simply replace the word switchblade with semi-automatic rifle and we're in the promised land!! And it's from the mouths of our own Mass SJC!!!

-JR
Click to expand...
Heller (Scalia) and Bruen (Thomas) both read at an advanced level.
Alito in Caetano's concurrence gives us a comon man language insight into Heller's true meanings.
In Canjura we see the SJC take Heller, Caetano and Bruen then distill the almost 300 pages into 18 pages of easy to follow guidelines.
While they do leave in some wiggle room the opinion pretty much eclipses any hope for gun bans going forward.

And 4885 was written and signed prior to its release so Day couldn't try to use the Canjura wiggle room to bypass it.
FPC: F U, no.
 
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...
Remember when a certain president gave the following response during a deposition: it depends upon what the definition of “is” is.

Definitions are crucial when it comes to reading the law. Laws often use definitions for words which are very different from common use. For example, in the previous versions of MA gun laws, the word “ammunition” included spent cartridge cases and the word “firearm” did not include rifles or shotguns. Personally, I would be very wary of trusting AI interpretations of laws.
 
Last edited:
pastera said:
Heller (Scalia) and Bruen (Thomas) both read at an advanced level.
Alito in Caetano's concurrence gives us a comon man language insight into Heller's true meanings.
In Canjura we see the SJC take Heller, Caetano and Bruen then distill the almost 300 pages into 18 pages of easy to follow guidelines.
While they do leave in some wiggle room the opinion pretty much eclipses any hope for gun bans going forward.

And 4885 was written and signed prior to its release so Day couldn't try to use the Canjura wiggle room to bypass it.
FPC: F U, no.
Click to expand...
Great summary!
A very very small part of me hopes it’s our own SJC that kills Ch 135 and not Snope. Just so they can’t say it’s some radical court. Schadenfreude, perhaps?
 
alan226 said:
Now only if Canjura applied to suppressors....
Click to expand...
But it does...
The federal government considers a suppressor a firearm.
Mass considers them a "instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance"
Heller gives two open ended definitions but it is clear that anything that can further self defense, being core to the 2nd, is prima facie protected.

It would be very hard for the state to argue that sights or optics could be categorically banned since they are for many firearms simply an attachment the bearer uses to make a firearm more accurate and therefore more deadly to the intended target.

But Canjura is yet a newborn so let's get a few easy to win cases won using it before we move on to a more complex interpretation.
 
pastera said:
But it does...
The federal government considers a suppressor a firearm.
Mass considers them a "instrument, attachment, weapon or appliance"
Heller gives two open ended definitions but it is clear that anything that can further self defense, being core to the 2nd, is prima facie protected.

It would be very hard for the state to argue that sights or optics could be categorically banned since they are for many firearms simply an attachment the bearer uses to make a firearm more accurate and therefore more deadly to the intended target.

But Canjura is yet a newborn so let's get a few easy to win cases won using it before we move on to a more complex interpretation.
Click to expand...
Imagine - thanks to Canjura, instead of waiting on cases in MA, we become the home to all the new cases. Progress!
 
EJFudd said:
Has anything changed with these? I thought the barrel shroud made them a no-no for Ma**h***s post-8/1 under Maura's new law... yes or no? 🤔
Click to expand...
Using the feature test, it only has 1 feature... the barrel shroud. No pistol grip and no threaded barrel per my view. Can't have 2 or more features.

-JR
 
JFR2 said:
Using the feature test, it only has 1 feature... the barrel shroud. No pistol grip and no threaded barrel per my view. Can't have 2 or more features.

-JR
Click to expand...

Depending on how you count, it has two:

H.4885 SECTION 16 definition of assault-style firearm said:
“Assault-style firearm”, any firearm which is:
(a) a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features:
(i) a folding or telescopic stock;
(ii) a thumbhole stock or pistol grip;
(iii) a forward grip or second handgrip or protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(iv) a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or similar feature; or
(v) a shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.
Click to expand...
 
Mesatchornug said:
I assume you mean the accessory hand stop?
Click to expand...

No, I meant that the thing that goes around the barrel is, or could be considered to be, BOTH
(iii) a forward grip ... that can be held by the non-trigger hand;​
AND
(v) a shroud that encircles ... the barrel designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat​
​
It could plausibly be either, or both.

And for sure if you had a pistol grip you can be 100% sure the state would claim the handguard was both of those.

DJBrad said:
Correct. What matters is configuration from manufacturer through licensee to license holder
Click to expand...

As long as you understand that you're not getting around the potential illegality of possession.

If the state decides that the the handguard meets both (iii) and (v) in the ASF definition, "how you got it", no matter how legal it was, isn't going to help you.
 

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