Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

What's the deal with "ammo registration".?.. saw a couple of emails (MFS and SS) alluding to this and the tax-free weekend coming up (ie, buy now)

I mean, like showing our LTC wasn't enough, now we'll be on a list for how much ammo we buy? Eff that.. I'll buy in RI now... sure I had to get a blue card, but at least they're not logging my purchases.. and when I head north to NH, I'll buy there too. Even better cuz no sales tax.

What’s old is new again.

I remember as a young FID holder buying ammunition for my .22 and having it logged in a paper log. It was a joke, and accomplished nothing.
 
What’s old is new again.

I remember as a young FID holder buying ammunition for my .22 and having it logged in a paper log. It was a joke, and accomplished nothing.
I remember back in the 80s California did that for "handgun ammunition", which included. 22RF. Even CA eventually realized registering anmo sales was retarded.
 
After Oct 23 they are exempt from being considered an assault-style firearm.

This is not true.

Every gun that meets the definition of will be an "assault-style firearm".

However, §131M(b) exempts them from the blanket ban in §131M(a)

i.e.: They're still ASFs, but you can own it legally.
 
This is not true.

Every gun that meets the definition of will be an "assault-style firearm".

However, §131M(b) exempts them from the blanket ban in §131M(a)

i.e.: They're still ASFs, but you can own it legally.
Question was about ARs therefore the definition language also controls since they are copies and duplicates
If the lower courts rule as we expect them to then the 8/1 date won't apply to copies and duplicates therefore only pre 7/16/20 guns will be exempt (not ASFs)

But I doubt any of this will make it through even district court before SOCTUS takes on Bianchi and either moots everything or puts the final nail in liberty's coffin.
 
Question was about ARs therefore the definition language also controls since they are copies and duplicates
If the lower courts rule as we expect them to then the 8/1 date won't apply to copies and duplicates therefore only pre 7/16/20 guns will be exempt (not ASFs)

But I doubt any of this will make it through even district court before SOCTUS takes on Bianchi and either moots everything or puts the final nail in liberty's coffin.
7/20/16?
 
167 (f) a copy or duplicate of any firearm meeting the standards of or enumerated in clauses
168 (d) and (e); provided, that for the purposes of this subsection, “copy or duplicate” shall mean a
169 firearm: (A) that was manufactured or subsequently configured with an ability to accept a
170 detachable magazine; and (B)(i) that has internal functional components that are substantially
171 similar in construction and configuration to those of an enumerated firearm in clauses (d) and
172 (e); or (ii) that has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an
173 enumerated firearm in said clauses (d) and (e); provided further, that the firearm shall not be
174 considered a copy or duplicate of a firearm identified in clauses (d) and (e) if sold, owned and
175 registered prior to July 20, 2016
Section (f) of the assault-style firearm definition makes an AR an assault-style firearm regardless of compliance work to remove features.

Pre 94 ARs were "Pre-ban" because they were explicitly exempted in the statute.
Now it's more complex
Pre 94 was exempt per previous law on 8/1/24 so it was lawfully possessed even if in free state configuration.
A pre-2016 in compliant state is fine since it is exempt from the copies and duplicates factor and it meets the feature count therefore it is exempt even by the most pessimistic reading of the bill/law
A post-2016 even in a compliant state fails since it is also copy or duplicate

Once we reach 131M then we come under the 131M(b) exception where the court must interpret the meaning of "lawfully possessed". The state's position is that no AR post 94 was lawfully possessed since they were copies and duplicates. Therefore any firearm that meets the definition's section (f) was not lawfully possessed - hence the exemption for ARs prior to the state's reinterpretation of the meaning of C&D.

A plain reading of the law says that all ASF in the state in a LTC holder or dealers hands are exempt - however, the rules for interpretation say that all of the words have meaning and that legislative intent is used to clear any ambiguities - The caucus summary of the bill clarified the meaning of the two dates as all feature based ASF's were exempt per the 8/1 date however copies and duplicates were only exempt if lawfully possessed and registered prior to 7/20/16.
In the lower courts this interpretation is highly likely to be the outcome if the question even survives long enough to get to that point (If SCOTUS grants cert to Bianchi then any action would be placed on hold pending that outcome)
 
Section (f) of the assault-style firearm definition makes an AR an assault-style firearm regardless of compliance work to remove features.

Pre 94 ARs were "Pre-ban" because they were explicitly exempted in the statute.
Now it's more complex
Pre 94 was exempt per previous law on 8/1/24 so it was lawfully possessed even if in free state configuration.
A pre-2016 in compliant state is fine since it is exempt from the copies and duplicates factor and it meets the feature count therefore it is exempt even by the most pessimistic reading of the bill/law
A post-2016 even in a compliant state fails since it is also copy or duplicate

Once we reach 131M then we come under the 131M(b) exception where the court must interpret the meaning of "lawfully possessed". The state's position is that no AR post 94 was lawfully possessed since they were copies and duplicates. Therefore any firearm that meets the definition's section (f) was not lawfully possessed - hence the exemption for ARs prior to the state's reinterpretation of the meaning of C&D.

A plain reading of the law says that all ASF in the state in a LTC holder or dealers hands are exempt - however, the rules for interpretation say that all of the words have meaning and that legislative intent is used to clear any ambiguities - The caucus summary of the bill clarified the meaning of the two dates as all feature based ASF's were exempt per the 8/1 date however copies and duplicates were only exempt if lawfully possessed and registered prior to 7/20/16.
In the lower courts this interpretation is highly likely to be the outcome if the question even survives long enough to get to that point (If SCOTUS grants cert to Bianchi then any action would be placed on hold pending that outcome)
Yes, you typed 7/16/20 a couple of times now. I know what you mean, but newbs might not - especially grunts.
 
Question was about ARs therefore the definition language also controls since they are copies and duplicates
If the lower courts rule as we expect them to then the 8/1 date won't apply to copies and duplicates therefore only pre 7/16/20 guns will be exempt (not ASFs)

I don't think it matters. The features test is going to label any and all ARs as "assault-style firearms", regardless of their pre or post 7/20/16 status.

If the courts decide that something that meets the feature test in (a) but is not a "copy or duplicate" from (f) because it was 'registered' before 7/20/16 is exempt from (a) and therefore not an "assault-style firearm", then the words in the law have no meaning.
 
I can't find anything in H.4885 that removes the definition of "weapon"

I *think* I found where H.4885 removes the word "weapon" from the definitions of "rifle" and "shotgun", but it's hard to match up the line numbers except by making some guesses. This is one of the things that irritate me about the way the laws are published.

e.g.: SECTION 27 is after the bit that defines "respondent" and somewhere before "sawed-off shotgun".

I bet the definition of "weapon" is somewhere in the lines 175 to 192 deleted by SECTION 31.

OK, so I take it back, maybe they did get it right and didn't leave a bunch of dangling definitions. But it's hard to say for sure without seeing the existing law with line numbers.

EDIT: It appears "weapon" still exists in the definition of "stun gun", because SECTION 27 only has four lines listed, all of which are used up by "rifle" "sawed off shotgun" and "shotgun", and the next reference is "trigger crank" and that's well beyond "stun gun" alphabetically.
There is no question that all their definitions are a total mess. They might have left "rifle" in place but saying a rifle is a firearm when firearm is defined as amongst other things a rifle causes a circular loop

They do not define pistol or revolver.

If the rifle definition still exists just being edited from "weapon" to "firearm" than what is a SBR? What language in the ASW definition applies to a SBR since it is clearly not a rifle since a rifle needs 16" barrel or greater.

Somehow when I read through all the edits to 140 121 I thought I saw rifle, shotgun and weapon all deleted as definitions. It might be worse than that with bad definitions still in place. We have to see the final edited version of MGL that gets published to have any idea since we don't have line numbers...
 
So I’ve scanned the text here and didn’t see a gun brace covered. ATF latest is that they are legal. Is that the case hear with the new law? If not come October I may have to do some swapping.
 
So I’ve scanned the text here and didn’t see a gun brace covered. ATF latest is that they are legal. Is that the case hear with the new law? If not come October I may have to do some swapping.
No mention at all of SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, or braces. All defers to Federal law. I would contend that besides the sloppy language and writing an ASF is just an ASF now and pistol braces on pistols are absolutely gtg. If Form1 SBR completed before 8/1 with stamp in hand then also gtg.


What you can’t possess are “covert” or “undetectable” firearms.
 
has anyone actually put together all the edits and references and made it so that you can read straight through without having to have 50 tabs open and flip between them to read through it in a linear fashion?
 
So I’ve scanned the text here and didn’t see a gun brace covered. ATF latest is that they are legal. Is that the case hear with the new law? If not come October I may have to do some swapping.
Not sure I would expect to see them in MGL in any case. There is no definition of pistol under existing or new MGL so I would expect federal definitions to apply. So a pistol brace on a pistol is a pistol. As long as it is exempt from ASW (possessed lawfully on 8/1) or otherwise compliant and not a ASW, it would seem ok. No more 50oz feature so some things are possible...
 
I don't think it matters. The features test is going to label any and all ARs as "assault-style firearms", regardless of their pre or post 7/20/16 status.

If the courts decide that something that meets the feature test in (a) but is not a "copy or duplicate" from (f) because it was 'registered' before 7/20/16 is exempt from (a) and therefore not an "assault-style firearm", then the words in the law have no meaning.
Concur - But the features part is exempted by the 8/1 date. Per Healy's 7/20 clarifications copies and duplicates prior to the 7/20 cutoff would not be prosecuted and the 7/20 language codifies that.
 
No mention at all of SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, or braces. All defers to Federal law. I would contend that besides the sloppy language and writing an ASF is just an ASF now and pistol braces on pistols are absolutely gtg. If Form1 SBR completed before 8/1 with stamp in hand then also gtg.


What you can’t possess are “covert” or “undetectable” firearms.
Not sure you need the tax stamp before 8/1. I think you just need the serialized piece on 8/1 and you are good to go.

We have multiple customers with pending Form 1 SBR applications submitted after 8/1 for receivers owned lawfully on 8/1. Waiting to see how the ATF responds.
 
has anyone actually put together all the edits and references and made it so that you can read straight through without having to have 50 tabs open and flip between them to read through it in a linear fashion?

What do you mean by this? Like publish a version of all of C. 140 and C. 169 and all the CMRs and hunting regulations but with deleted stuff in red and new stuff in blue? That would be like 1,000 pages.

You might find this useful: I'm trying to make it as readable as possible with references where applicable:

 
Not sure you need the tax stamp before 8/1. I think you just need the serialized piece on 8/1 and you are good to go.

We have multiple customers with pending Form 1 SBR applications submitted after 8/1 for receivers owned lawfully on 8/1. Waiting to see how the ATF responds.
Good to know. This is something I am very interested in seeing play out. How ATF responds to Ma law.
 
Concur - But the features part is exempted by the 8/1 date. Per Healy's 7/20 clarifications copies and duplicates prior to the 7/20 cutoff would not be prosecuted and the 7/20 language codifies that.

But how would that work out? the "copies and duplicates" language is on the same level as the features test. It's an "or" between them. Anything that meets the features test is an ASF, period. It can also be a "copy or duplicate", but its status as a copy or duplicate doesn't change or negate any of the feature tests.

The crux is how the courts define "lawfully possessed".
 
Last edited:
has anyone actually put together all the edits and references and made it so that you can read straight through without having to have 50 tabs open and flip between them to read through it in a linear fashion?
I have several times with the previous versions - I didn't this time because of the short timeline.

It takes some effort to put together so
But how would that work out? the "copies and duplicates" language is on the same level as the features test. It's an "or" between them. Anything that meets the features test is an ASF, period. It can also be a "copy or duplicate", but it's status as a copy or duplicate doesn't change or negate any of the feature tests.

The crux is how the courts define "lawfully possessed".
Agree - when looking at the two dates it leaves a lot of ambiguous room - the caucus summary clears some of that up but will take actual caselaw or a legislative fix.
Hopefully, Bianchi get Cert and this question becomes moot quickly
 
Not sure I would expect to see them in MGL in any case. There is no definition of pistol under existing or new MGL so I would expect federal definitions to apply. So a pistol brace on a pistol is a pistol. As long as it is exempt from ASW (possessed lawfully on 8/1) or otherwise compliant and not a ASW, it would seem ok. No more 50oz feature so some things are possible...

Counting on this being the case.
 
I think most people are taking advantage of 8/1. If you have a post 8/1 then you care about these things. I think we all hope SCOTUS reams out the 4th circuit by 6/30/25 and none this matters anymore.

my stuff is pre 8/1, thinking this will save me a few stamps...
 
It might be worse than that with bad definitions still in place. We have to see the final edited version of MGL that gets published to have any idea since we don't have line numbers...

So check this out:

milktree's letter to Representative Marc Lombardo said:
Dear Representative Lombardo.


I've been struggling to decode bills passed by the senate and house,
primarily because many of them say things like, "delete lines 147 to
183 inclusive of Chapter X section Y." or "in line 397 strike out the
word 'and' and replace it with the word, 'or' the third time it
appears."

I can find Section Y of Chapter X on the state's website pretty
easily; however, the law as published on the website is in a
proportional font without any line numbers or line-feeds, which means
any line count is entirely dependent on typeface, font size, and
margins.

This makes it very difficult to find lines 147 through 183 inclusive
or where "and" should be replaced with "or".


As a representative, I assume you have access to the actual law with
the official formatting and line numbers, as that is crucial to
understanding the meaning and effects of any legislation put before
you for a vote, and for creating new legislation.

I also assume that there was never any intention to make the process
of making laws secretive or opaque; therefore there should be a way to
get a version of existing law with the appropriate formatting with
line numbers. (or at least in a format where I can easily add my own)

If this is *NOT* the case, I'd very much like for you to put forward a
bill that would require the state to publish laws in a format that is
accessible to the citizens of Massachusetts who want to understand the
effects of legislation that will be applied to them.

Legislation should not be opaque or secretive, it should be accessible
to those who have an interest in their effects, and those who wish to
lobby their representatives about that legislation, rather than having
to wait until it passes to find out what it does.

Thank you for your time on this,

-Milktree
Billerica

And here's his response:

Marc Lombardo's response said:
Hi Milktree,
I’m sorry you’ve had to experience this but I will tell you, this is why I get so
upset when a large bill is released and rushed for a vote because we get exactly
what you’re reading and it’s a ton of work to find out exactly what is happening.
Unfortunately you’re looking at what is available to Representatives as well.

Check out GOAL’s website as they have some summaries detailed which should help.

My best,
-Marc
Marc Lombardo
State Representative
Billerica


Yes, you read that right. Not even representatives are able to know what they're voting on.
 
Back
Top Bottom