Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

What does “lawfully possessed” mean in the current law that references pre 94? Hint: it means the same thing now, must be licensed.

I don’t know why people are still hung up on this. Prehealey doesn’t mean anything.
Lawfully possessed has not been adjudicated
So it has whatever meaning the state would like to give it until a court says otherwise.
 
Lawfully possessed has not been adjudicated
So it has whatever meaning the state would like to give it until a court says otherwise.
Prior to this bill, nobody questioned the meaning of lawfully possessed. Not even when they paid $1500 for a preban.
 
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 that. Back in the late 1970s if I remember correctly. I don't know if that was ordered by the Feds, but most likely it was more PRM stupidity.

You are correct, it was a joke. I remember buying ammo at Kmart and signing my name in a dog-eared spiral notebook. Illegible, and totally useless.
 
Prior to this bill, nobody questioned the meaning of lawfully possessed. Not even when they paid $1500 for a preban.
No, there was an assumption of lawfullness for post 94 if one neutered the enumerated features but I'm not aware of a controlling case that blessed "compliant" guns.
That is why Healey's declaration created even a tiny amount of compliance
 
I responded asking for a clarification on lowers purchased pre-7/20 and built post 7/20. Just waiting on the reply.


Updated:

The AGs office is really unclear on what I meant by 7/20/16. Glad to know our politicians write laws that the AGs office doesn’t even know what it means. They said ask a lawyer…. :rolleyes:

If I had to guess, the 7/20 language is probably going to end up being to dam confusing for the state and they will likely just go by 8/1.
Even if you accept the 7/20/16 language in every possible negative or positive way, it does not matter. All the items in question fail the feature test. Its Creem's language and I am sure she fought hard to keep it in the final bill, otherwise she would have had to remove her tongue from Healey's ass. Everyone else realized it was irrelevant and said "sure". My best guess. Its pointless language.

Asking the AG office for their interpretation of the law is pretty pointless. The AG office also does not matter here. What matters is will a DA bring a grand jury to sit and indict you such that they can take you to superior court on a charge of a 131M violation. How will the superior court judge interpret the language when your defense attorney moves for dismissal as a matter of law. How will the jury instructions read. What will the jury say. What will the SJC say when any conviction is appealed...

But I suspect no one will act on the 7/20 language in any way. If they did and decided that post 7/20/16 were less grandfathered, then there would be a CLEAR 5th amendment claim in federal court and someone with CLEAR harm having been indicted for a post 7/20/16 violation. I just don't see that happening as a practical matter. If we get a taking claim against the ASF ban, then the only cure that federal court can offer is striking the ban in its entirety. That is pretty devastating to the state's goals hence why I don't think they will let this can of worms get opened.

The state will grandfather anything and everything that was lawfully possessed on 8/1. They will not risk a 5th amendment case in federal court by doing otherwise.
 
What does “lawfully possessed” mean in the current law that references pre 94? Hint: it means the same thing now, must be licensed.

I don’t know why people are still hung up on this. Prehealey doesn’t mean anything.
It does not. Lawfully possessed means that someone, somewhere, anywhere, in the US, possessed the object lawfully. That is why right now we can bring into the state preban rifles and lowers and magazines that have never otherwise been in the state.

This language in the current law for pre 94 is directly out of federal law and has the same meaning. No, it does not mean licensed by MA or other jurisdiction. It means exactly what it says, lawfully possessed. And unlike the new law it does not say "in the commonwealth". The addition of "in the commonwealth" was put there to stop importation.
 
I think I'm reading the ASW rules on the semi-shotguns right. A semi-shotgun with a 5 round tube and no pistol grip isn't an ASW. So technically doesn't have to be owned by a FFL or person and in state on 8/1 right? But these are still a buy it now because they might end up on a roster of what stores can sell once the rosters are created post 10/23.
 
What I find interesting in this debacle is that Cape Cod Gun Works just sold a couple hundred Sig Spears in a week or so. With that sale they took the rifles and pinned the stock so it's no longer a folder and they changed out the flash hiders with a YHM MA Compliant Brake. If I'm reading this thread right on 10/23 Cape Cod Gunworks can start doing gunsmith work to unpin those stocks and put the flash hiders back on. Seems like a new line of profit for the gun store.
 
I think I'm reading the ASW rules on the semi-shotguns right. A semi-shotgun with a 5 round tube and no pistol grip isn't an ASW. So technically doesn't have to be owned by a FFL or person and in state on 8/1 right? But these are still a buy it now because they might end up on a roster of what stores can sell once the rosters are created post 10/23.
Correct. I am still ordering and selling Beretta A300 Ultima Patrols with 5 round tubes.

If it looks like something your grandfather would hunt with then its likely still legal even if the furniture is black instead of wood.
 
I think I'm reading the ASW rules on the semi-shotguns right. A semi-shotgun with a 5 round tube and no pistol grip isn't an ASW. So technically doesn't have to be owned by a FFL or person and in state on 8/1 right? But these are still a buy it now because they might end up on a roster of what stores can sell once the rosters are created post 10/23.
A featureless semiautomatic shotgun is fine to possess post 10/23
The problem is that they updated everything to be a "firearm" so now the handgun roster covers long arms.
So the roster needs.to be updated to include long arms either individually or in totality before dealers will be able to transfer them post 10/23

If you want something better to get it now or expect to wait until it reaches the Supreme Court.
 
What I find interesting in this debacle is that Cape Cod Gun Works just sold a couple hundred Sig Spears in a week or so. With that sale they took the rifles and pinned the stock so it's no longer a folder and they changed out the flash hiders with a YHM MA Compliant Brake. If I'm reading this thread right on 10/23 Cape Cod Gunworks can start doing gunsmith work to unpin those stocks and put the flash hiders back on. Seems like a new line of profit for the gun store.
We spot welded the stock and it takes 10 seconds with a grinder to remove it and another 10 seconds to reblue. We pinned and welded surefire socom brakes because a lot of customers like the surefire warden. We replace the 30rd mag with a 10rd mag. But same series of logic and future thinking.

If customers acquire complete uppers and complete lowers for whatever evil gun they want and DONT ASSEMBLE it, then they don't need compliance done on the parts. That saves up front compliance and later undoing.
 
Also people should just put Broc on ignore. It does wonders for your NES viewing.
Lets focus on discussing possession and purchasing under the new law and take Broc bashing to any of the other 10,000 threads he has posted in please. We already have a dumpster fire thread on H4885 that this thread was created to avoid.
 
I think I'm reading the ASW ASF rules on the semi-shotguns right. A semi-shotgun with a 5 round tube and no pistol grip isn't an ASW ASF. So technically doesn't have to be owned by a FFL or person and in state on 8/1 right? But these are still a buy it now because they might end up on a roster of what stores can sell once the rosters are created post 10/23.

Stop saying "ASW" or "assault style weapon". The language in the law is "assault-style firearm".

I know, it's a stupid linguistic thing, but when talking about laws, these technicalities actually matter.

As of 10/23 there is NO SUCH THING as an "assault weapon" in Mass. They don't exist. The only thing that exists in Mass. on or after that date is an "assault-style firearm"

this is important because someone is gong to do a search of MGL for "assault style weapon" and get no hits, (search for "assault-style firearm", with the hypen)

It's important to be precise when talking about law.
 
That is why right now we can bring into the state preban rifles and lowers and magazines that have never otherwise been in the state.

How so? Is it because the new law is not in force so claims of ex post facto are to be ignored by setting a past date as a cutoff?

131M states no LTC holder or Dealer can transfer “into the commonwealth” after 8/1/24.
 
How so? Is it because the new law is not in force so claims of ex post facto are to be ignored by setting a past date as a cutoff?

131M states no LTC holder or Dealer can transfer “into the commonwealth” after 8/1/24.
Was signed earlier therefore we were warned
Also @CrackPot is speaking about pre94 which are clearly called out in current law.

A making something illegal to possess now that was legal in the past is a taking.
Punishment for an action in the past that was legal at the time is ex post facto.
Since the law was signed prior to 8/1 there is no taking if anything that was legally possessed prior is lawful to keep (but they can ban a future transfer within the state)
 
How so? Is it because the new law is not in force so claims of ex post facto are to be ignored by setting a past date as a cutoff?

131M states no LTC holder or Dealer can transfer “into the commonwealth” after 8/1/24.
Under todays law, we can bring the stuff in. It is not grandfathered if not here on 8/1 under the new law once it takes effect. I was just making the point that the current law allows us to import prebans and they ARE prebans contrary to the previous poster saying they need to be lawfully possessed by a licensed person.

The new law saying we cannot import into the state only matters once the new law takes effect. They can not make lawful conduct illegal after the fact. Yes, the definition of ex post facto. But to be clear, the new law does not say 8/1 as it relates to importing into the state. It just says its illegal to "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".

They did not setup an ex post facto situation with this.

Technically they DID setup a taking as someone can lawfully possess on 8/2 an AR that on 10/23 becomes illegal. It is not a strong case because they KNEW when they bought it that it would be illegal on 10/23.
 
@Broc Tuah

@pastera is correct wrt post 10/22 80s or 76s or 0s.

Here’s the language on untraceable firearms.


Section 121C.
(a) All firearms shall have a serial number in accordance with the requirements of this section. To meet serialization requirements all firearms shall be conspicuously engraved, cast or otherwise permanently embedded with a unique serial number on the frame or receiver; provided, that the serial number shall be placed in a manner not susceptible of being readily obliterated, altered or removed and shall be engraved, cast or otherwise permanently embedded to a depth of not less than .003 inches and in a print size not less than 1/16 inch; provided further, that the serialization of firearms, frames and receivers made from non-metallic materials shall be accomplished by using a metal plate permanently embedded in the material of the frame or receiver

(b)

No person shall knowingly possess, manufacture or assemble, cause to be manufactured or assembled, purchase, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer or import an untraceable firearm in the commonwealth; provided, however, that lawfully owned firearms imported or acquired by: (i) new residents moving into the commonwealth or acquired by heirs or devisees through distribution of an estate shall be serialized within 60 days of import or acquisition; and (ii) licensed firearms dealers, gunsmiths, distributors or manufacturers shall be serialized within 7 days of import or acquisition.

(c)

No person shall manufacture or assemble a privately made firearm without: (i) obtaining a unique serial number from the department of criminal justice information services prior to manufacture or assembly; (ii) serializing the firearm with the obtained serial number during manufacture or assembly; and (iii) registering the firearm with the department of criminal justice information services in accordance with section 121B within 7 days of the firearm’s manufacture or assembly.



And the felonious portion of Chapter 269 Section 11C

Whoever, by themself or with another, knowingly manufactures, assembles, imports, sells or transfers ownership of an untraceable firearm, or knowingly participates in the manufacture, assembly, import, sale or transfer of an untraceable firearm or purchases or receives a firearm with knowledge that it is untraceable, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 12 months and not more than 2½ years. Possession or control of a firearm that is untraceable shall be prima facie evidence that the person having such possession or control is guilty of a violation of this section; but such prima facie evidence may be rebutted by evidence that such person had no knowledge that the firearm was untraceable, or by evidence that they had no guilty knowledge thereof. Upon a conviction of a violation of this section said firearm shall be forwarded, by the authority of the written order of the court, to the colonel of the state police, who shall cause said firearm or to be destroyed.
Keep in mind the effective date of this section. It’s not 10/23 (my read is that “untraceable firearms” aren’t an issue until a year after the system is live):

SECTION 158. The department of criminal justice information services shall establish the serial number request system established pursuant to section 121C of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as inserted by section 32, not later than 1 year after the effective date of this act; provided, that all firearms shall be serialized in accordance with this act and not later than 1 year after said serial number request system is completed and publicly available.
 
Technically they DID setup a taking as someone can lawfully possess on 8/2 an AR that on 10/23 becomes illegal. It is not a strong case because they KNEW when they bought it that it would be illegal on 10/23.
For members of GOAL, this forum, etc, I agree. For the general gun owner who saw some law about ghost guns and red flag orders… I would assume there are a lot of people who don’t know this. No notification has been sent from the state. It’s like lifetime FIDs.
 
For members of GOAL, this forum, etc, I agree. For the general gun owner who saw some law about ghost guns and red flag orders… I would assume there are a lot of people who don’t know this. No notification has been sent from the state. It’s like lifetime FIDs.
It might be possible to find a good plaintiff for this, you are right. I still think it is way down on the list of interesting lawsuits.

The state also has an easy remedy after the fact that does not help is now. They change 8/1 to 10/22 but they do it "later". That way we don't go back to buying and selling like mad more evil stuff.
 
Keep in mind the effective date of this section. It’s not 10/23 (my read is that “untraceable firearms” aren’t an issue until a year after the system is live):
Correct
But possession of an "untraceable" firearm will be banned once those deadlines become active
And until 10/23, you are still required to report transactions you could be charged with violation of 140 sec 128
So anything you were required to report on an fa-10 is an issue after 8/8 (7 days to report)
 
So if between now and 10/23 there is a stay issued by the court or the SC makes a determination on one of the other cases in the pipeline that takes down this new law, what happens on 10/23. The existing laws of today go away and if something happens in our favor the new law is unenforceable. Does that basically mean that MA becomes the Wild West in regards to gun laws? Start hauling in as much and anything you want? Lot of overlap here.
 
Back
Top Bottom