Practical Implications of H4885 for Purchasing and Possessing

No

Stop panicking lmao

GOAL's guidance isn't helping with the panic:

Grandfathering – The key phrase is “lawfully possessed”.

  • Chapter 140, 131M has been changed from “lawfully possessed” to “lawfully possessed in Massachusetts”. The importance of this change is that after August 1, 2024, any firearm meeting the new Assault Style Firearm definition is banned from being imported into Massachusetts. This includes the “pre-ban” firearms pre-September 14, 1994.
  • Because of the terminology used, it appears that the only guns grandfathered after the July 20, 2016 are the those that meet the new two feature test, such as the Tavor. So, because of the “lawfully possessed” and how that will be interpreted, it appears that there are now two different groups of guns that must be dealt with.
  1. Copies and duplicates of the enumerated list are only grandfathered if they were acquired prior to July 20, 2016. (The Attorney General's "2016 Assault Weapons Advisory" has now become law.)
  2. Any gun that is not on the enumerated list, or their copies and duplicates, but now meets the new two feature test and is lawfully possessed in Massachusetts on August 1, 2024. We believe this group also includes the pre-September 13, 2024 assault weapons.

I don't know who writes this trash but they need to proofread it. "[T]wo different groups of guns that must be dealt with" and then they address copies and duplicates, explaining their interpretation as to grandpersoning, and they address guns not on the enumerated list but don't actually say how those are supposed to be "dealt with." That's on top of the interpretation itself being retarded.

I'm going to go confront GOAL in the other thread they started. [laugh]
 
@not new guy

People need to stop reading GOALs bs. I don't know if they're using guida or somebody like that but they just need to stop. It's intolerably bad. Although in the large picture I don't know if it's going to make that much of a difference anyways there's so many people even people who I thought knew better, running around, just screeching and flapping their arms wildly.
 
@not new guy

People need to stop reading GOALs bs. I don't know if they're using guida or somebody like that but they just need to stop. It's intolerably bad. Although in the large picture I don't know if it's going to make that much of a difference anyways there's so many people even people who I thought knew better, running around, just screeching and flapping their arms wildly.

Their guidance does seem a little guidarded.
 
@not new guy

People need to stop reading GOALs bs. I don't know if they're using guida or somebody like that but they just need to stop. It's intolerably bad. Although in the large picture I don't know if it's going to make that much of a difference anyways there's so many people even people who I thought knew better, running around, just screeching and flapping their arms wildly.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4040.gif
    IMG_4040.gif
    2.7 MB · Views: 4
First, GOAL needs to get someone who actually understands English grammar to write it. Sad.
Copy the text of the summary or law section and plug it into chatgpt with the prompt "explain this so that a sixth grader could understand it"

It will feel somewhat insulting but you will have better clarity.
 
What's up with Goal's new summary on chapter 135? Does this mean my Sig MCX that I bought from a dealer that was in inventory on 8/1. But wasn't able to pick up for some time after that due to compliance work is illegal?

Any gun that is not on the enumerated list, or their copies and duplicates, but now meets the new two feature test and is lawfully possessed in Massachusetts on August 1, 2024. We believe this group also includes the pre-September 13, 2024 assault weapons.
Stop paying attention to what Goal posts. They are clueless cucks.
 
Stop paying attention to what Goal posts. They are clueless cucks.
I'm not normally one to shit on any of these organizations that are trying to do the right thing but it's just like at some point or another the idea of "do something" by itself is not productive.

Lately GOAL has had this sort of appearance:

im-overlanding-v0-d0uhei2hhihb1.jpg
 
I'm not normally one to shit on any of these organizations that are trying to do the right thing but it's just like at some point or another the idea of "do something" by itself is not productive.

Lately GOAL has had this sort of appearance:

View attachment 929289
Their positions are not internally consistent and logical. We can agree to disagree on whether Healey's press conference meant something. But if you decide her press conference was binding, you cannot do so half assed. She said ALL post 94 ARs are illegal as they are copies or duplicates, just that she chose to not enforce. If you believe her, then you have to believe this also. This means ALL post 94 ARs were not lawfully possessed on 8/1.

If your basis of "believing" this is that the new law says its not a copy or duplicate if purchased, owned, and registered before 7/20/16, that is nice, but irrelevant. A law that took effect on 10/2 does not change what was legal or illegal on 8/1. Being not a copy or duplicate also means nothing since lawfully possessed on 8/1 makes it not illegal to own an ASF.

But somehow they come up with 7/20/16 being relevant. There is NO logically self consistent way for this to be true. Either ALL post 94 ARs are illegal or only post 8/1 are illegal. There is no way to get to 7/20/16 being meaningful outside of some statist cuck lawyer arguing it over and over and everyone forgetting what logic is.

GOAL needs to stay in their swim lane and lobby Beacon Hill. They are horribad at interpreting the law. They are horribad at being part of litigation. They are horribad at citizen petitions and understanding clear and obvious consequences of their actions. I would say they are playing checkers against people playing chess, but that would be insulting to checkers players. They are totally out classed.
 
Last edited:
Their guidance does seem a little guidarded.

From the Goal AsF “update” is a new Baretta A300/A400 semi shottie good to go new for sale now?

Beretta-A300.jpg


A semiautomatic shotgun that includes at least 2 of the following features:
a. A folding or telescopic stock
b. A thumbhole stock or pistol grip
c. A protruding grip for the non-trigger hand
d. The capacity to accept a detachable feeding device.
 
From the Goal AsF “update” is a new Baretta A300/A400 semi shottie good to go new for sale now?
Does it have a folding or telescopic stock?
Does it have a pistol grip?
Does it have a protruding grip for the non trigger hand?
Does it have the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device?

If you answered yes to more than two of those questions then you cannot but it. Unless it’s capacity is 5 rounds or less, then you can say yes to them.
 
Does it have a folding or telescopic stock?
Does it have a pistol grip?
Does it have a protruding grip for the non trigger hand?
Does it have the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device?

If you answered yes to more than two of those questions then you cannot but it. Unless it’s capacity is 5 rounds or less, then you can say yes to them.

Not with a 5+ round magazine.

It’s a tube fed magazine only and is 7+1. It’s an ASF according to law now.
 
What's up with Goal's new summary on chapter 135? Does this mean my Sig MCX that I bought from a dealer that was in inventory on 8/1. But wasn't able to pick up for some time after that due to compliance work is illegal?

Any gun that is not on the enumerated list, or their copies and duplicates, but now meets the new two feature test and is lawfully possessed in Massachusetts on August 1, 2024. We believe this group also includes the pre-September 13, 2024 assault weapons.
WTF would you do compliance work on an exempt gun?

GOAL'S summaries are best taken with a large grain of salt.
 
Copy the text of the summary or law section and plug it into chatgpt with the prompt "explain this so that a sixth grader could understand it"

It will feel somewhat insulting but you will have better clarity.
No you won't get clarity of what the text actually means from a legal perspective.
Serious bad advice here.
 
Their positions are not internally consistent and logical. We can agree to disagree on whether Healey's press conference meant something. But if you decide her press conference was binding, you cannot do so half assed. She said ALL post 94 ARs are illegal as they are copies or duplicates, just that she chose to not enforce. If you believe her, then you have to believe this also. This means ALL post 94 ARs were not lawfully possessed on 8/1.

If your basis of "believing" this is that the new law says its not a copy or duplicate if purchased, owned, and registered before 7/20/16, that is nice, but irrelevant. A law that took effect on 10/2 does not change what was legal or illegal on 8/1. Being not a copy or duplicate also means nothing since lawfully possessed on 8/1 makes it not illegal to own an ASF.

But somehow they come up with 7/20/16 being relevant. There is NO logically self consistent way for this to be true. Either ALL post 94 ARs are illegal or only post 8/1 are illegal. There is no way to get to 7/20/16 being meaningful outside of some statist cuck lawyer arguing it over and over and everyone forgetting what logic is.

GOAL needs to stay in their swim lane and lobby Beacon Hill. They are horribad at interpreting the law. They are horribad at being part of litigation. They are horribad at citizen petitions and understanding clear and obvious consequences of their actions. I would say they are playing checkers against people playing chess, but that would be insulting to checkers players. They are totally out classed.
The only way 7/20/16 can be seen to have meaning is that Copies and Duplicates meeting that date are exempt from C&D ban but must pass the features test since they aren't 8/1 exempt under 131m.
Which ends up that zero C&D are exempt so the same result as ignoring the 7/20/16 language.

However the actual law in force on 8/1 is an exact copy of the Federal AWB so the jurisprudence on compliance holds - therefore any compliant ARs in personal possession and all ARs regardless of compliance in dealer possession on 8/1 are exempt.
As are any stripped lowers or 80% lowers in the state on 8/1
 
Copy the text of the summary or law section and plug it into chatgpt with the prompt "explain this so that a sixth grader could understand it"

It will feel somewhat insulting but you will have better clarity.

Or? Learn to read like a grown-up.

Good god. We deserve exactly what we're getting.
 
No you won't get clarity of what the text actually means from a legal perspective.
Serious bad advice here.
I think that the intentionally technical and frequently internally inconsistent language of the bill makes this law very difficult to understand. If an individual wants to use a generative language AI to get clarity for some of those words/phrases, I don't see the harm. A lawyer is obviously the best choice but: a. They are expensive, b. They can't even give us the true definitions and scope until ithe law gets a ruling. If you make any major decisions based upon anything beyond an actual legal authority then you're in tiger country, full stop.
 
Copy the text of the summary or law section and plug it into chatgpt with the prompt "explain this so that a sixth grader could understand it"

It will feel somewhat insulting but you will have better clarity.

WTF? No.

Chat GTP is probably the WORST thing to interpret law. AI (which is basically autocorrect on steroids) has absolutely ZERO understanding of logic or historical precedent.

You'll get an answer that's easy to understand, sure, but it won't be correct.
 
I think that the intentionally technical and frequently internally inconsistent language of the bill makes this law very difficult to understand. If an individual wants to use a generative language AI to get clarity for some of those words/phrases, I don't see the harm. A lawyer is obviously the best choice but: a. They are expensive, b. They can't even give us the true definitions and scope until ithe law gets a ruling. If you make any major decisions based upon anything beyond an actual legal authority then you're in tiger country, full stop.

That's precisely the point of the law.

NOBODY who had any part in writing it had any intention of it "stopping crime" or "increasing safety." They didn't fund any of its implementation, so they aren't ever likely to follow it themselves in setting up their new registries and training requirements, and even if they do they have no money to actually enforce any of this. The "tiger country" you're afraid of does not exist.

This statute is window-dressing. There's a reason the law is impossible to understand: because TPTB don't care if it's understandable. They got what they wanted in passing it; they don't care if it's not followed. They know enough people will bend over backwards to try to follow it, like you are. And that's all they need to do.

You're defeating yourself by trying to abide by this piece of shit. That's fine, if you want to do so, but don't pretend you're doing anything but playing their game, dancing to their tune, and letting them use you. You don't have to do that. You can choose to just ignore it.

On top of that, your faith in generative AI tells me you've got a dangerously shallow understanding of how generative AI works. That's a separate issue, and it scares me that you think it's a great plan.
 
I've had several people call / text / email me in the past two weeks citing GOAL as a legal source on interpreting the law. In every instance, my response has been: "Which staff member from GOAL will be representing you in your upcoming court case?" Seems like GOAL's greatest accomplishment as of late is making people believe they are attorneys.
 
I think that the intentionally technical and frequently internally inconsistent language of the bill makes this law very difficult to understand. If an individual wants to use a generative language AI to get clarity for some of those words/phrases, I don't see the harm. A lawyer is obviously the best choice but: a. They are expensive, b. They can't even give us the true definitions and scope until ithe law gets a ruling. If you make any major decisions based upon anything beyond an actual legal authority then you're in tiger country, full stop.
The AI doesn't know enough about the peculiar use of terms that have very specific meanings different from colloquial usage.
You may get language that you understand better but that language very likely doesn't convey the actual legal meaning of the law's text.

What section(s) are the issue at the moment?
I can create a thread to discuss each section in the Mass Laws forum and discuss each section in detail at least until the trolls take over.
 
Back
Top Bottom