Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

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.
Think of the context though, basically you are shitting pants over the minor possibility of a fundamentally very boring gun getting banned based on a technicality. The feature test is already pretty abusive. Most people here won't even be buying guns in that subclass.
 
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
This is covered elsewhere in this thread. This is a common misunderstanding in MA.

ALL shotguns with fixed capacity over 5 rounds are illegal or would be except for an oddity of law. The definition of LCW (large capacity weapon) excludes all pump, bolt and lever guns. So how do you charge someone with a LCFD violation for a 7rd tube permanently attached to a gun that is NOT a LCW? That is why its ok on pump shotguns.

People who don't understand why extend this to semi autos. But semi autos with fixed tubes over 5 rounds are black and white illegal.

But as we all see, lots of shops advertise and sell them without apparent consequences
 
let's say someone bought 4 lowers pre-Healey. but only built one before the 7/16 deadline. and the other 3 have just been paperweights in their safe since. they are too afraid to build now due to potential consequences. what are they supposed to do with them?

I'll buy one or two of them.
1. Healy's press conference was not a law that was passed. It was an enforcement notice that was unenforceable.
2. They merely need to be lawfully possessed by a mass ltc holder on or before 8/1. They can still be transferred privately afterwards.
 
Think of the context though, basically you are shitting pants over the minor possibility of a fundamentally very boring gun getting banned based on a technicality. The feature test is already pretty abusive. Most people here won't even be buying guns in that subclass.
Good point - We’ll have to see what creations come up to fill the void and if those get added.
 
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.
Curious to what happens tommorow 8/2 in the gun shops.
Keep selling what is in inventory as far as rifles and lowers until they are gone? (Until the October 4885 effective date)

Stop the music until further clarification?
 
How is GOAL not interpreting it this way? They just released updated "guidance" and are still saying register before 8/1. After reading the bill it seems plainly apparently that registration is a future thing. I wish they would clarify their thought process.
That they won't clarify this part on their own site makes me wonder why I should support them....still will I guess. The registration section clearly states that MA must tell owners where/how to actually register....since that hasn't been done clearly it's (registration) something that doesn't need to be done yet.

121B
(f) The executive office of public safety and security shall promulgate regulations for the implementation of this section, which shall include information required for the registration and reporting of firearms, public notice and an outreach campaign to promote awareness of this section
 
Last edited:
This is what I got in my email:

Dear Walter,



Thank you for your recent order. Unfortunately, we will not be able to ship product 633504 to you. This is because state law restricts the sale of magazine components to Massachusetts Customers. Due to this we have issued a refund for those 5 products for a total of $30.02. Please allow 5-7 business days for that refund to process to your card. The rest of the order should ship as usual. We do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
 
And here we go......Ordered some Magpul followers from Larry to repair/upgrade a few mags...no Bueno, order cancelled. However I did order brass in the same order and that was ok.
What part of the law is even loosely interpreted as not being able to by gun or mag parts? Also, if he wanted to interpret the law does say so wouldn't it not be in effect till Oct? I don't remember parts having an 8/1 date....
 
And here we go......Ordered some Magpul followers from Larry to repair/upgrade a few mags...no Bueno, order cancelled. However I did order brass in the same order and that was ok.
If the parts can be converted into a LCFD then I assume the parts get the ban hammer.



SECTION 21. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out the definition of “Large capacity feeding device” and inserting in place thereof the following definition:-
“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.
 
This is covered elsewhere in this thread. This is a common misunderstanding in MA.

ALL shotguns with fixed capacity over 5 rounds are illegal or would be except for an oddity of law. The definition of LCW (large capacity weapon) excludes all pump, bolt and lever guns. So how do you charge someone with a LCFD violation for a 7rd tube permanently attached to a gun that is NOT a LCW? That is why its ok on pump shotguns.

People who don't understand why extend this to semi autos. But semi autos with fixed tubes over 5 rounds are black and white illegal.

But as we all see, lots of shops advertise and sell them without apparent consequences
It looks like they thought of it this time:
The new definition of LCF explicitly exempts under (c) lever and pump shotgun magazine tubes like they do with rimfire lever guns in (b)
 
So I have my interpretation as does everyone else. What is the consensus on “lawfully possessing” a post 2016 ar that is recently completed from a stripped reciever? It would seem somewhat clear to me a lower is not a firearm (currently) and is lawfully possessed today. If it is then assembled into a rifle today or going forward is there any serious danger to efa10 it. Until 10/23 that would seem to be the law of the land with the 7 day rule. Or just wait to assemble it and see how it shakes out?
 
So I have my interpretation as does everyone else. What is the consensus on “lawfully possessing” a post 2016 ar that is recently completed from a stripped reciever? It would seem somewhat clear to me a lower is not a firearm (currently) and is lawfully possessed today. If it is then assembled into a rifle today or going forward is there any serious danger to efa10 it. Until 10/23 that would seem to be the law of the land with the 7 day rule. Or just wait to assemble it and see how it shakes out?
7/20/16 did not change the legality of anything, therefore it was lawfully possessed on 8/1/24
 
If the parts can be converted into a LCFD then I assume the parts get the ban hammer.



SECTION 21. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out the definition of “Large capacity feeding device” and inserting in place thereof the following definition:-
“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.
Sort of a stretch isn't it? A follower won't turn a mag into a high capacity one.
 
Sort of a stretch isn't it? A follower won't turn a mag into a high capacity one.
Don’t put it past Larry and the retardedness of this law that he would see it that way. Personally I don’t agree that anything but springs and tubes/mag bodies can be considered parts or combo parts.
 
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.

(C) Subsection (a) shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 only if such possession is: (i) on private property owned or legally controlled by the person in possession of the large capacity feeding device; (ii) on private property that is not open to the public with the express permission of the property owner or the property owner’s authorized agent; (iii) while on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purpose of lawful repair; (iv) at a licensed firing range or sports shooting competition venue; or (v) while traveling to and from these locations; provided, that the large capacity feeding device is stored unloaded and secured in a locked container in accordance with sections 131C and 131L. A person authorized under this subsection to possess a large capacity feeding device may only transfer the device to an heir or devisee, a person residing outside the commonwealth, or a licensed dealer.

Toddler legalese (possessed ON September 13, 1994 - Has anyone here purchased a standard mag on that date only that still has it?????

I think this is one of the clearer parts of the law's interpretation, if not drafting--any original pre-ban "feeding device" which was lawful on 9/13/94 remains lawful to possess or even import into MA even when this bill goes into effect. And, that is no matter where it was lawfully possessed. There is a canon of statutory construction which provides that if the legislature knows how to define a thing, and they do not, then it is presumed that they did not intend to define that thing. Here, we have two adjacent sections of the law, one of which requires possession "within the commonwealth" (assault-style firearms, whatever that may end up being) and one which does not (large capacity feeding devices). The legislature will be presumed to know how to require possession within MA for large capacity feeding devices, but will be presumed to have chosen not to require it. Still subject to the significant(!) restrictions on where you can possess, but hey, it's something.

Not legal advice though, consult a(nother) lawyer about that.
 
Back
Top Bottom