Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

There is a problem when positions are stated as fact.

GOALs statement that the healy date in the law has no effect is just that - a position, not a determination or sound legal advice a lawyer would give to protect his client. Those who know they don't know may know more than those who do not know what they do not know.

This issue is not "did Healy have the authoritiah to issue her ban?", but "it is legal to establish a cutoff date in the past for grandfathering". The state cound have picked Arbor Day 2020 as the cutoff date and the legal question would be the same. Even a jusicial finding that Healy did not have the authority to change the law with a notice would not also establish the lack of authority for the legislature to establish a retroactive grandfathering date.

With the usual caveat of "this is my understanding, but it is only that - my understanding, not an official interpretation and got guaranteed to be correct".
The issue with standing on a principle like this is that isn't hard for a Judge to disagree with it. On NES we all focus on the exact words, the meaning of the words, and nothing more. Whereas a Judge will interpret and say for example "Well 7/20/16 was not law before, however it was notice sp the new law is good" (don't pick it apart - it's just an example of the point). There are so many ways to interpret this and at this point I think all we are doing is bench racing after having looked at it 16 ways from Sunday the only resolution is in Court.

On the plus side the numbers are so high it would not be realistic for a Judge to wholesale declare everything fails the test and we are all felons. This will work itself out over time and during or after such time the Federal Courts will get to rule on the constitutionality of it all.
 
Section 131¾. (a) The secretary of public safety and security shall, with the advice of the firearm control advisory board established in section 131½ compile and publish a roster of assault-style firearms banned under section 131M and a roster of firearms approved for sale and use in the commonwealth using the parameters set forth in section 123. The secretary shall, not less than 3 times annually, review, update, and publish the rosters online, and send a copy to all persons licensed in the commonwealth pursuant to section 122. Licensing authorities shall provide information on these rosters to all permit and card holders and licensees upon initial issuance and every renewal.

I might consider believing that when they start issuing licenses in the legally prescribed time frame.
 
The issue with standing on a principle like this is that isn't hard for a Judge to disagree with it.
Exactly.

US Code allows possession of firearms in post offices "incidental to lawful purposes".

The plain English reading is "I am licensed to legally carrying and doing so is incidental to the lawful purpose of transacting business with USPS".​
The courts interpretation was "Does not cover carry, even for carry permit holders, as such an interpretation would render the ban moot. The law only covers things like a hunter setting foot on USPS owned land".​

Another -
Pre 1998 is was an offense to leave a handgun stored in a vehicle, since it was "carrying" not under one's direct control. How one could be "carrying" a handgun while they were not present at the location where it was stored is something I still cannot figure out, except by assuming that it was a "cuz guns" decision.​

It is dangerous for any trusted organizaiton to present opinions or positions as "established fact" when it comes to telling people what is legal and what is not.
 
So help me here: Everyone's panicking over magazines today, but the letter of the law is today is just the cutoff for AW transfer? No language naming a magazine restriction until the law goes into effect?
 
The post is about purchasing and possessing firearms with the new law. Yes, OTHER things have changed, but they are out of scope of the post per the title of the thread. So no, nothing was now wrong in the first paragraph. You are talking about LTCs and training and stuff beyond what I have posted about. I’m talking about current LTC holders and what they can buy and possess based on the new law.

I will let others focus on topics like training and LTC applications. Interestingly I am curious why they would take action today based on a law that has not yet taken effect, but this is MA. Infringement apparently only needs a future law to be acted on today.
I must respectfully disagree. The premise of the post is that nothing changes until 10/23 and that has been proven incorrect.

Do we now think we need to file a lawsuit to affirm the 10/23 date?
 
Awesome. People get to roll the dice 3 times a year to see if what they currently own is no longer lawful (and do the copies / duplicates test).
Before you guys get too far into pushing another turd into your diapers... this isn't any different than the process that occurs with handguns right now in Massachusetts and has existed since 1998. Administering the AFR isn't new, and it's not rocket science. The guns get tested or whatever and then manufacturers make submissions to eops to get added to the roster.

Will they add guns to the "ban" roster? maybe but bear in mind most dealers are going to be pretty cautious about not violating the feature test. And if you have it today, it still doesn't matter. EOPS also had a large cap weapons roster which almost never changed after gca98.
 
I must respectfully disagree. The premise of the post is that nothing changes until 10/23 and that has been proven incorrect.

Do we now think we need to file a lawsuit to affirm the 10/23 date?
In my opinion with the state is doing with the training could have its own lawsuit by itself (basically it's administrative abuse of power) but it's completely distinct from the things we're talking about in this thread.
 
Before you guys get too far into pushing another turd into your diapers... this isn't any different than the process that occurs with handguns right now in Massachusetts and has existed since 1998. Administering the AFR isn't new, and it's not rocket science. The guns get tested or whatever and then manufacturers make submissions to eops to get added to the roster.

Will they add guns to the "ban" roster? maybe but bear in mind most dealers are going to be pretty cautious about not violating the feature test. And if you have it today, it still doesn't matter. EOPS also had a large cap weapons roster which almost never changed after gca98.
Great opener... 😂
 
In my opinion with the state is doing with the training could have its own lawsuit by itself (basically it's administrative abuse of power) but it's completely distinct from the things we're talking about in this thread.
Thread drift is the NES way. I love when someone argues that the OP meant something other than what they say they meant. Sorry, only I am in my head and its an ugly place to visit.
 
This has the potential to be a total shit show.

How often will the roster be updated? What happens as new guns are added? Okay to hold if already owned? How is that proven? Can dealer sell if in inventory? If not, how long and how to dispose of?

A scenario where they can add weapons to the roster at whim and say it’s now illegal to have would be as dystopian as it gets in the US.

Correct. The ability of EOPS to add what they think belongs on the roster of evil is likely a fail constitutionally on multiple fronts especially now with Chevron deference gone (thank god). It also opens up the arbitrary taking (5th amendment) by executive branch beaurocrats. It could easily get the most liberal of judges tied into a knot ruling in out favor.

Will they really add new models to the list of specified assault firearms? Won't everything fail the features test going forward?

I feel like the features of pistol grip, barrel shroud, or handguard rules out pretty much all interesting rifles. But I believe the meaningless term of foregrip has also been added. If that term means anyplace forward of the receiver to put your hand, then all magazine semi-autos will be assault firearms, and I think this is probably the intent.

If foregrip means something like a vertical grip, then maybe something like the Remington 742 or the Henry Homesteader 9mm would not have any features and would be allowed going forward?

Have I missed something? Or does the features test cover all magazine fed centerfire semi-autos?
 
My understanding is that on a stripped lower the MA dealer only completes the 4473 and has no obligation to complete any reporting to the state since the item in question is not a firearm yet. They would complete the FA10 on a complete rifle. Am I wrong on this? I purchased a lower yesterday, I’ll eFA10 it today. I also took a picture of the 4473 on my phone since I didn’t get a paper receipt for the lower.
i've bought stripped lowers and had retard shops efa10 them
 
So help me here: Everyone's panicking over magazines today, but the letter of the law is today is just the cutoff for AW transfer? No language naming a magazine restriction until the law goes into effect?
price gouging shops are telling people yesterday (7/31) was the last day to buy pre-ban mags, when you tell them that the law doesn't take effect until 10/23 they cry about what their lawyers told them and then block you on facebook....
 
When I was there yesterday, I believe they were $2850. Not sure if there's been any change.

Bold move bringing that many rifles into their shop with one day left to sell them. Especially at that price. They very well may get stuck with most of them in inventory and only out of state buyers to sell too.
 
Bold move bringing that many rifles into their shop with one day left to sell them. Especially at that price. They very well may get stuck with most of them in inventory and only out of state buyers to sell too.

They're lawfully possessed in MA on 8/1. They should be good to go. Seems like a smart move.
 
Bold move bringing that many rifles into their shop with one day left to sell them. Especially at that price. They very well may get stuck with most of them in inventory and only out of state buyers to sell too.
The interpretation by CGW is that as long as it’s in their inventory by 8/1 they will be able to sell it after 8/1. When I was at KAG Arms yesterday I believe I heard him telling someone no sales after 8/1 regardless if in inventory or not. I ordered a Spear LT from CGW last week and made a point of going there and completing paperwork on it today to ensure I was good for 8/1.
 
So a lot of people are saying a semi auto with a 5+ mag is forbidden, but Shooting Supply is advertising these today.

I'm still confused...


Screenshot 2024-08-01 132802.png
 
The interpretation by CGW is that as long as it’s in their inventory by 8/1 they will be able to sell it after 8/1. When I was at KAG Arms yesterday I believe I heard him telling someone no sales after 8/1 regardless if in inventory or not. I ordered a Spear LT from CGW last week and made a point of going there and completing paperwork on it today to ensure I was good for 8/1.

Good to know. I'm still not fully up to speed on this. For some reason I thought if not sold by end of 8/1, screwed. Glad to be wrong.
 
So a lot of people are saying a semi auto with a 5+ mag is forbidden, but Shooting Supply is advertising these today.

I'm still confused...


View attachment 904700

Biden said "Buy a shotgun" what is there to be confused about?

1722543593277.png
 
Bold move bringing that many rifles into their shop with one day left to sell them. Especially at that price. They very well may get stuck with most of them in inventory and only out of state buyers to sell too.
Nobody is getting stuck with anything if the guns were here today then they are salable. I would be shocked if they last through the weekend
 
So a lot of people are saying a semi auto with a 5+ mag is forbidden, but Shooting Supply is advertising these today.

I'm still confused...


View attachment 904700
My guess is at least for now a lot of shops are not going to give a shit about tube fed shotguns until October rolls around LMAO
 
They are legally possessed in the state on 8/1 so they should be good to sell.

And even if they aren't, it's not like they can't sell them out of state.
 
Before you guys get too far into pushing another turd into your diapers... this isn't any different than the process that occurs with handguns right now in Massachusetts and has existed since 1998. Administering the AFR isn't new, and it's not rocket science. The guns get tested or whatever and then manufacturers make submissions to eops to get added to the roster.

Will they add guns to the "ban" roster? maybe but bear in mind most dealers are going to be pretty cautious about not violating the feature test. And if you have it today, it still doesn't matter. EOPS also had a large cap weapons roster which almost never changed after gca98.
Still mid shit, but this is different than the pistol roster. Pistol roster doesn’t matter at all to anyone but dealers and it only affects sales going forward. The AFR I assume impacts everyone in possession and it’s not clear what it means when your rifle is fine today and then during the thrice annual update gets added.

I would be shocked if they didn’t use the ban roster to ensure anything “missed” is covered.
 
Will they really add new models to the list of specified assault firearms? Won't everything fail the features test going forward?

I feel like the features of pistol grip, barrel shroud, or handguard rules out pretty much all interesting rifles. But I believe the meaningless term of foregrip has also been added. If that term means anyplace forward of the receiver to put your hand, then all magazine semi-autos will be assault firearms, and I think this is probably the intent.

If foregrip means something like a vertical grip, then maybe something like the Remington 742 or the Henry Homesteader 9mm would not have any features and would be allowed going forward?

Have I missed something? Or does the features test cover all magazine fed centerfire semi-autos?
The features wipe out all but the most boring FUDD guns including EVERYTHING in common use. All a lawsuit waiting to happen but we cannot expect quick relief.
 
Back
Top Bottom