Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

Pretending that EFA10s matter at all in the face of whatever the new thing is going to be is funny. That database has so many lies and trash in it based on lack of knowledge or misappropriation of its "purpose" that I think legally its contents matter very little WRT "what thing X actually was on Y date". There are thousands of things in there that aren't guns under current law and because the definitions shift on 10/23 it creates confusion. You could easily correct an error on a submission but it's not worth the effort. For the pant shitters club I would be more concerned about whatever the new system is when it exists assuming a court doesn't outlaw it before the drop dead date. (This is for another thread).

Im going to stop here because I don't think this thread should be used to discuss long term hypotheticals- i am going to do some cleaning later when i am at a real computer.

As a smoke test though we should stick with "what's real life on the ground now and likely on 10/23" etc. Court cases etc belong in other threads. I may create an additional thread in GD outside of the existing trash one for this purpose.
Remember who signed off on this……
IMG_9831.png
 
Remember who signed off on this……
View attachment 907688
I get that but Guida's glue/fart sniffing is a totally different context now. He's not an anti but has
other flaws. My whines about him are not so much ideological as they are procedural at this point. This is better served elsewhere. We'll get there when im not buzzed on nicotine and Bourbon. 🤣
 
How did you "f yourself"? On 8/1, you had taken off the upper and I think you may have even re-stripped the lower.
None of that matters, what really matters is:

When your shit hit MA dealer books on or before 8/1; (admittedly, there are exceptions)
Your ability to not talk too much without (good) counsel. Everything else is noise.
 
I get that but Guida's glue/fart sniffing is a totally different context now. He's not an anti but has
other flaws. My whines about him are not so much ideological as they are procedural at this point. This is better served elsewhere. We'll get there when im not buzzed on nicotine and Bourbon. 🤣
Right. Alotta Nes doesn’t know the source of his beaconhillism tho.
 
So what info requirements are needed for an 80% ar pattern lower when being serialized?

Can it just have a serial number alone?


Does it need the make, model, caliber, location, and serial number?

According to 121C a unique serial number will be given in real time when that system goes live. It doesn’t state that the personal build needs the standard engravings in the last question.
 
Adding to my stuff above ... so, all those people that rushed to LIE about their unfinished lowers so they could do an eFA10 before 8/1 f*cked themselves because they could have registered them as pistols but didn't.

Am I right?

No reason to FA-10 them so I've seen...

I’m wondering this same thing

Ditto, I'd like a nice AR pistol and a pistol version of a MP5

Sooo…I kinda f’d myself. I did a quick PCC 16” build with a spare lower and efa-10’d it back when the law was first signed.

I now wish I waited…..because a I’d prefer a PCC pistol. 🤷

Bummer... Lots of people I know rushed to FA-10 their lowers "to be safe"
 
No reason to FA-10 them so I've seen...



Ditto, I'd like a nice AR pistol and a pistol version of a MP5



Bummer... Lots of people I know rushed to FA-10 their lowers "to be safe"
No matter how many times we say "MA DOES NOT HAVE REGISTRATION" and point out that the new law only requires lawful possession and registration is a future thing, people want to PROVE they have something and FA10ed them even to the point of lying about a build they never did.

The GOAL ASF post on facebook has massive items that are incorrect.

  • They fail to correctly quote the definition of ASF for a rifle by leaving off "centerfire"
  • They list bayonet lug and grenade launcher as features for rifles to be ASFs. These are not in the new law.
  • They claim all guns registered prior to 7/20/2016 are grandfathered when the law only says they are not copies or duplicates.
  • Says that a retailer owning the a ASF on 8/1 does not count when the law explicitly says it does
  • Says that to be grandfathered it has to meet the serialization and registration requirements BEFORE 8/1. This is wrong on multiple fronts. The law says ON 8/1 not before. The law says also "shall be registered in accordance with section 121B". "Shall be" is FUTURE TENSE not to mention that 121B does not take effect until the new law takes effect on 10/23 AND further according to Section 157 of the law says that DCJIS has up to one year to implement 121B and once implemented we all have another full year to register to be in compliance.

So to say I continue to be disappointed with GOAL's public postings about what the law says is an understatement. @GOAL it would be great if you stop propagating unambiguously incorrect information. Every one of the items listed above we can read together and see that what you are posting is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Bummer... Lots of people I know rushed to FA-10 their lowers "to be safe"
Why is this a problem? The ATF doesn’t care about what BS you plugged into the MA portal, and making a change to a firearm that was already FA10d was never an issue before.

What matters is that you have an ASW that is legal to possess. What you do with that ASW will become irrelevant as long as you’re not violating federal law.
 
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.
Sounds expensive. Was this a funded, or unfunded, mandate?
 
Why is this a problem? The ATF doesn’t care about what BS you plugged into the MA portal, and making a change to a firearm that was already FA10d was never an issue before.

What matters is that you have an ASW that is legal to possess. What you do with that ASW will become irrelevant as long as you’re not violating federal law.
You missed the point.

People pant shit in mass.
 
Care to explain this, especially as to how it applies here?

Healey claims that all ARs and AKs are illegal assault weapons, but comes out in 2016 and says she won’t prosecute possession if they had them in MA before her proclamation. Her proclamation specifically exempted 22lr - which she said are not assault weapons. Today I think the state would probably argue - and people like Guida would go along with them - that ARs (for example) weren’t legally possessed in MA if they came into the state or into being after her 2016 proclamation. Even under that interpretation though 22s are fine, and I think you’d have an estoppel defense due to the state previously having said that 22lr guns aren’t AWs.

It’s all bullshit because Healey can’t make laws. It shouldn’t matter. But will it matter someday? Who the hell knows.
 
Last edited:
Which is what crackpot, myself and a handful of other people have been saying only to have others come out and say "OMG, just make up an upper and FA10 the thing".

So I was pointing out, those that LIED f*cked themselves over.
Maybe you should stop being such a Captain Grumpypants about it though.

I’m not going to pretend to understand all the implications of the new law, but admittedly I don’t really care all that much about AR pistols, or the new law for that matter.
 
Yes. I am talking about someone owning 80% AK receivers that were never finished.

Owned pre-8/1

So, in that case, looks like adding a SN, finishing it and eventually registering when the website is up is all that is needed.

Is that right?
I can see the reasoning behind having done an efa-10 on such an item simply for the purpose of 'date stamping' it, since there's no 4473 to fall back on.

By your reasoning (not saying it's wrong) you can in the future/anytime pick up an 80% whatever, finish it/serialize it and it would be difficult to prove that it didn't exist in the state legally pre 8/1. Quite an open loophole...
 
I can see the reasoning behind doing an efa-10 on such an item simply for the purpose of 'date stamping' it, since there's no 4473 to fall back on.

By your reasoning (not saying it's wrong) you can in the future/anytime pick up an 80% whatever, finish it/serialize it and it would be difficult to prove that it didn't exist in the state legally pre 8/1. Quite an open loophole...
That is correct and incorrect, but you would be breaking the law.

If you cared that much about proving when an 80% was owned, you can serialized it and make a video of it with something such as the news showing a time stamp on the background. Then Email it to yourself as proof of when it was made.

If you don't care about the law, there are 100 different ways to get around it.

You also have to keep in mind at some point the gov will have a website to issue serial numbers (the way I understand it). Once that is up they might give people X days to get it done. So, after that you technically will not be allowed to get an 80%, unless you lied about it and got SN for 80% that don't exist.

Also, the 8/1 thing doesn't apply to 80% lowers (the way I understand it). This is not legal advice.
 
That is correct, but you would be breaking the law.

If you cared that much about proving when an 80% was owned, you can serialized it and make a video of it with something such as the news showing a time stamp on the background. Then Email it to yourself as proof of when it was made.

If you don't care about the law, there are 100 different ways to get around it.
Where did I suggest breaking the law? Complete, serialize and assemble your 80% and efa-10 it before 8/1 and there you go...
 
Where did I suggest breaking the law? Complete, serialize and assemble your 80% and efa-10 it before 8/1 and there you go...
Not accurate.

There was no need to serialize and build an 80 BEFORE 8/1.

I never said you suggested breaking the law.
 
I can see the reasoning behind having done an efa-10 on such an item simply for the purpose of 'date stamping' it, since there's no 4473 to fall back on.

By your reasoning (not saying it's wrong) you can in the future/anytime pick up an 80% whatever, finish it/serialize it and it would be difficult to prove that it didn't exist in the state legally pre 8/1. Quite an open loophole...
Only until the 1+ year limit on serialization and registration closes (up to 2 years)
Or if the 80% can be shown not to exist prior to 8/1)
 
Not accurate.

There was no need to serialize and build an 80 BEFORE 8/1.

I never said you suggested breaking the law.
But after 10/22 there will (or might, pending legal challenges) be that requirement and doing it before 8/1 fulfilled it.
Maybe I'm misconstruing your original point...
 
But after 10/22 there will (or might, pending legal challenges) be that requirement and doing it before 8/1 fulfilled it.
Maybe I'm misconstruing your original point...
In that case, yes. But the way you worded it read like it was a requirement on or pre 8/1
 
Back
Top Bottom