Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

[not new guy]

Funny. I would think sellers wouldn’t want to skip the FA10 as they would want the firearm out of their name, as much as it can be in the current system.

I think it’s individual seller dependent, but you can document the sale with an email and at the end of the day the fact that the useless, inaccurate system says you owned a particular gun at one time proves nothing meaningful with respect to crimes committed later.

 

[CrackPot]

Funny. I would think sellers wouldn’t want to skip the FA10 as they would want the firearm out of their name, as much as it can be in the current system.

You cannot get it out of your name because its not in your name. Its a false feel-good. The state will always know something was transacted to you and the local PD will treat that as "you own it" no matter what. Not your problem.

 

[Jeffaah]

Curious about serialized SCT Glock frames. Are those able to be acquired in mass?

I have a gen3 Glock slide that I’d love to do something with.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

You cannot get it out of your name because its not in your name. Its a false feel-good. The state will always know something was transacted to you and the local PD will treat that as "you own it" no matter what. Not your problem.

Agreed.

That’s why I could see the seller wanting to EFA10 to get the “false feel good”. Why an “educated” buyer would give a crap is beyond me. I suppose most buyers today have no idea that the EFA10 system is no longer required by law.

 

[milktree]

The "freakout fo rnew training" was in regards for renewals of LTCs that were issued after the new law went into effect, but before the new training course standard had been developed. The state's position was that the old class would meet the requirement for getting an LTC before the new course was available, however, persons who did not have the "new course", and did not have an LTC prior to obtaining their LTC, would have to take the new course in order to renew.

This is such a bizarre interpretation, because the law is actually quite clear:

...persons possessing a firearms identification card or license to carry firearms prior to the implementation of live firearms trainings as required in this section shall also be exempt from such requirement.

It's almost like they are taking what they think the legislature probably meant as gospel, rather than what the law actually says.

I usually subscribe to Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by stupidity.", but there's also the corollary: "sufficient stupidity and ignorance is indistinguishable from malice." or "at some amount of ignorance or stupidity the more likely explanation is malice."

 

[milktree]

Curious about serialized SCT Glock frames. Are those able to be acquired in mass?

Not from a dealer. Dealers can only transfer things on the Approved Firearms Roster (or rifles or shotguns because "oops we f***ed up and la la la this is what we meant")

The AG's list is meaningless to dealers who understand how 940 CMR 16 and MGL C. 140 §123(o) interact.

 

[Len-2A Training]

You cannot get it out of your name because its not in your name. Its a false feel-good. The state will always know something was transacted to you and the local PD will treat that as "you own it" no matter what. Not your problem.

I fully expect that when MA creates the new system and migrates all current eFA-10s into it, they will do so with all the guns I owned in MA (I'm in NH now) and my late Wife's guns. This will make the new system even more useless as it will contain guns from people who moved away or died!!!

This is such a bizarre interpretation, because the law is actually quite clear:

It's almost like they are taking what they think the legislature probably meant as gospel, rather than what the law actually says.

I usually subscribe to Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by stupidity.", but there's also the corollary: "sufficient stupidity and ignorance is indistinguishable from malice." or "at some amount of ignorance or stupidity the more likely explanation is malice."

MSP dictates their interpretation of what they WANT the new law to be and most PDs will abide by that. It doesn't matter what the actual law states when it conflicts with what those in power WISH the law was!! Years and $$$$ later, a court may rule against them, meanwhile most will have had to take the course and pay $$ to keep a valid LTC before any court would rule against the state. Mission accomplished!

 

[CrackPot]

I fully expect that when MA creates the new system and migrates all current eFA-10s into it, they will do so with all the guns I owned in MA (I'm in NH now) and my late Wife's guns. This will make the new system even more useless as it will contain guns from people who moved away or died!!!

Guidance #3 from FRB saying they would transfer all existing guns over was the best news I have ever heard. Instead of having a fresh accurate EFRS they will corrupt it and reasonable doubt will exist for all possible charges for unregistered guns.

 

[milktree]

MSP dictates their interpretation of what they WANT the new law to be and most PDs will abide by that. It doesn't matter what the actual law states when it conflicts with what those in power WISH the law was!! Years and $$$$ later, a court may rule against them, meanwhile most will have had to take the course and pay $$ to keep a valid LTC before any court would rule against the state. Mission accomplished!

It's going to be six years before anyone affected by this idiocy will have to renew. Hopefully that's enough time for them to fix their misunderstanding.

 

[Mesatchornug]

It's going to be six years before anyone affected by this idiocy will have to renew. Hopefully that's enough time for them to fix their misunderstanding.

Not fully true. Some will renew this year.

 

[CrackPot]

Not fully true. Some will renew this year.

Why would someone who applied for their LTC AFTER 8/1/24 be renewing their LTC this year? What we are discussing is the MSP position that anyone who got their license after 8/1/24 needs to take the NEW class to renew when they renew. That will not be until 2030...

 

[milktree]

Not fully true. Some will renew this year.

Nope, they had an LTC long before H.4885 was passed, so they're exempt.

 

[Picton]

And here I was thinking I need to hurry up and hit my limit for private sales before year end.

I guess finding buyers willing to skip the efa10 is still a concern.

I've neither bought nor sold since everything changed, but my take is that both parties need to feel okay about the deal. That's true whether the deal is for Hummel figurines or guns. If EITHER party wants an EFA10, I'm willing to do one. I do not think they're necessary, though, myself.

 

[milktree]

Why would someone who applied for their LTC AFTER 8/1/24 be renewing their LTC this year? What we are discussing is the MSP position that anyone who got their license after 8/1/24 needs to take the NEW class to renew when they renew. That will not be until 2030...

I wonder how many people got their LTC between 8/1/24 and 10/2/24 when the law actually took effect.

That would be an interesting lawsuit. I’d hate to try to defend the state’s position on that one.

 

[M1911]

Nope, they had an LTC long before H.4885 was passed, so they're exempt.

Here is a corner case. I've had my resident LTC for a long time. It expires next summer, so I will be apply for a temporary non-resident LTC. Am I exempt for the new class or not?

 

[milktree]

Here is a corner case. I've had my resident LTC for a long time. It expires next summer, so I will be apply for a temporary non-resident LTC. Am I exempt for the new class or not?

You've had an LTC for a long time. Going from "LTC" to "NR-LTC" doesn't reset the clock on when you got your license. So, yes, you're exempt from the new class. (as I read what the law actually says)

This is true for anyone who had an FID before 8/1 who renews with an LTC: No (new) class necessary.

 

[M1911]

You've had an LTC for a long time. Going from "LTC" to "NR-LTC" doesn't reset the clock on when you got your license. So, yes, you're exempt from the new class. (as I read what the law actually says)

This is true for anyone who had an FID before 8/1 who renews with an LTC: No (new) class necessary.

I guess we'll see if the FRB agrees with you.

 

[JFR2]

MGL C. 140 §131P(a) said:
...persons possessing a firearms identification card or license to carry firearms prior to the implementation of live firearms trainings as required in this section shall also be exempt from such requirement.

Interesting hot take here.... So according to the law.. "prior to implementation of live firearms trainings as required in this section shall also be exempt from such requirement..."

None of that shit has been implemented yet. Only waived. LOL. So it SHOULD be a year or two before the re-training class within the law is required on subsequent renewals.

-JR

 

[Mesatchornug]

Why would someone who applied for their LTC AFTER 8/1/24 be renewing their LTC this year? What we are discussing is the MSP position that anyone who got their license after 8/1/24 needs to take the NEW class to renew when they renew. That will not be until 2030...

Nope, they had an LTC long before H.4885 was passed, so they're exempt.

My bad. I got confused and was still thinking about the FID thread.

Sorry for inserting needless confusion

 

[Len-2A Training]

You've had an LTC for a long time. Going from "LTC" to "NR-LTC" doesn't reset the clock on when you got your license. So, yes, you're exempt from the new class. (as I read what the law actually says)

This is true for anyone who had an FID before 8/1 who renews with an LTC: No (new) class necessary.

Correct. When I converted from resident to NR LTC, FRB didn't require proof of prior training or anything else other than the basic form info, check and visit to lovely downtown Chelsea by the Sea!

 

[pastera]

The "freakout fo rnew training" was in regards for renewals of LTCs that were issued after the new law went into effect, but before the new training course standard had been developed. The state's position was that the old class would meet the requirement for getting an LTC before the new course was available, however, persons who did not have the "new course", and did not have an LTC prior to obtaining their LTC, would have to take the new course in order to renew.

But the bill actually handled that situation - not the most clear language but plenty clear enough for non-pant shitters.

 

[pastera]

Guidance #3 from FRB saying they would transfer all existing guns over was the best news I have ever heard. Instead of having a fresh accurate EFRS they will corrupt it and reasonable doubt will exist for all possible charges for unregistered guns.

And the amount of shit I took for stating that the current database would be the basis for the registration was insane.
But now that it happens, it's a good thing.
I love this site

 

[pastera]

MGL C. 140 §131P(a) said:
...persons possessing a firearms identification card or license to carry firearms prior to the implementation of live firearms trainings as required in this section shall also be exempt from such requirement.

Interesting hot take here.... So according to the law.. "prior to implementation of live firearms trainings as required in this section shall also be exempt from such requirement..."

None of that shit has been implemented yet. Only waived. LOL. So it SHOULD be a year or two before the re-training class within the law is required on subsequent renewals.

-JR

Correct - only those licenses applied for after the curriculum is published are required to get live fire.
The weird ones will be those in process since those will need to get live fire for renewal.

 

[milktree]

MGL C. 140 §131P(a) said:
...persons possessing a firearms identification card or license to carry firearms prior to the implementation of live firearms trainings as required in this section shall also be exempt from such requirement.

Interesting hot take here.... So according to the law.. "prior to implementation of live firearms trainings as required in this section shall also be exempt from such requirement..."

None of that shit has been implemented yet. Only waived. LOL. So it SHOULD be a year or two before the re-training class within the law is required on subsequent renewals.

-JR

You're being just a smidge sloppy here. Nothing has been waived. H.4885 had a typo fixed that made it clear that the new training requirements are not required until 4/2/26 (18 months after 10/2/24) I know, it's a distinction without a difference.

It's possible that "live firearms trainings" [sic] will not be implemented (developed, promulgated, whatever) until after 4/2/26; in that case, those who get their LTC after 4/2/26 but before the live fire stuff is "ready" will not need to take a course with live fire. But they will need to take a course with the other new requirements -- as I read it. I think this edge case is highly unlikely to come about, so it's probably not worth putting any brain onto it.

 

[DarkJoker33]

So what would the rules be for a PCC like a stribog?
Want a ump clone but no commie state 10 rounders available and I can't find anyone that does blockers pre done

 

[milktree]

So what would the rules be for a PCC like a stribog?
Want a ump clone but no commie state 10 rounders available and I can't find anyone that does blockers pre done

If it meets the definition of “assault-style firearm” in §121 of H.4885/chapter 135 and was not in MA on 8/1/24, it’s illegal to possess in the state.

Based on a quick google, a Stribog sure looks like an ASF.

 

[Agnotology]

Are the exemptions still a thing from the old AWB? Like, M1A, PS90, IWI Tavor, etc, still exempt?

 

[rogersmithiii]

Funny how anal retentive the gummint is for gun owners, but ignores real criminals who rob, rape, murder and attack.

 

[milktree]

Are the exemptions still a thing from the old AWB? Like, M1A, PS90, IWI Tavor, etc, still exempt?

Assuming those guns are in the exempt list from the original AWB, then yes.:

§121 Definitions
"Assault-Style Firearm"
...
(g) “Assault-style firearm” shall not include any:
...
(iv) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of such firearms, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993; or

 

[MAJoe]

Assuming those guns are in the exempt list from the original AWB, then yes.:

They are not. They are the ones the AG said aren’t which did not become law.