Registration and Serialization

GOALJim

GOALJim

NES Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2022
Messages
34
Likes
280
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
We revised and cleaned up our summaries on registration and serialization today. We will continue to try to bring as much clarity as we can to this garbage. To a great extent, the incredibly poor drafting of the Chapter 135, whether intentional or just incompetence, makes it incredibly difficult at best.

Also, I am aware that some folks get angry and accuse us of overreaction. To that, our job is to provide the 2A community with the worst case scenario. Then it is up to individuals to determine their level of risk tolerance. Keep in mind, we have a rogue Governor and Attorney General in Massachusetts.

www.goal.org/gunban
 
So an AR15 stripped lower is an "unfinished receiver"?

How was I supposed to register that before July 16, 2016?
 
pewpewpew said:
🥱
whatever

none of this makes any sense. it's not supposed to make sense. why even try?
Click to expand...
people here did not figure out yet the nature of laws socialists bake - the laws that are intentionally created to be impossible to comply with. so anyone can be snatched and convicted.
nothing in there, in that language is random or 'garbage', it is intentionally made this way.
so, do try to comply with something that was made not to be possible to comply with - good luck with that.
 
DJBrad said:
There is and was no registration. There will be true registration soon.
Click to expand...
AR15 stripped receivers needed to be possessed AND registered in Massachusetts.

If there was no way to register them - how can the law say this?
 
Reptile said:
AR15 stripped receivers needed to be possessed AND registered in Massachusetts.

If there was no way to register them - how can the law say this?
Click to expand...
I can't tell anymore if you are just a f*cking idiot or trolling.

If you are trolling, you should stop confusing new people with your junk, it is not funny.

I really hope you are just trolling.
 
Broc Tuah said:
I can't tell anymore if you are just a f*cking idiot or trolling.

If you are trolling, you should stop confusing new people with your junk, it is not funny.

I really hope you are just trolling.
Click to expand...
I'm not trolling.

The law says they need to be registered.

Yet, there is no way to register an AR stripped lower.

Those lowers I used to have on sale were never registered. I just havce documentation that there were in Massachusetts before 7/16/2016.

I'm not trying to sell anything with my comments.

So, can GOAL comment?

Are stripped lowers of any date legal or not???
 
Reptile said:
I'm not trolling.

The law says they need to be registered.

Yet, there is no way to register an AR stripped lower.

Those lowers I used to have on sale were never registered. I just havce documentation that there were in Massachusetts before 7/16/2016.

I'm not trying to sell anything with my comments.

So, can GOAL comment?

Are stripped lowers of any date legal or not???
Click to expand...
Talk to your lawyer. That’s what the FRB will
tell you.
 
Reptile said:
I'm not trolling.

The law says they need to be registered.

Yet, there is no way to register an AR stripped lower.

Those lowers I used to have on sale were never registered. I just havce documentation that there were in Massachusetts before 7/16/2016.

I'm not trying to sell anything with my comments.

So, can GOAL comment?

Are stripped lowers of any date legal or not???
Click to expand...
You are wrong, period, end of story

1529 (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 undersection 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.
Click to expand...

230 “Firearm”, a stun gun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, sawed-off shotgun, large capacity firearm, assault-style firearm and machine gun, loaded or unloaded, which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a shot or bullet; the frame or receiver of any such firearm or the unfinished frame or receiver of any such firearm; provided, however, that “firearm” shall not include any antique firearm or permanently inoperable firearm.
Click to expand...

The lawful possession defined on 8/1 when a frame wasn't a firearm so that frame was 100% lawfully possessed without question.
Keep feeding the bullshit and bumping your overpriced lowers.
 
GOALJim said:
We revised and cleaned up our summaries on registration and serialization today. We will continue to try to bring as much clarity as we can to this garbage. To a great extent, the incredibly poor drafting of the Chapter 135, whether intentional or just incompetence, makes it incredibly difficult at best.

Also, I am aware that some folks get angry and accuse us of overreaction. To that, our job is to provide the 2A community with the worst case scenario. Then it is up to individuals to determine their level of risk tolerance. Keep in mind, we have a rogue Governor and Attorney General in Massachusetts.

www.goal.org/gunban
Click to expand...
477 (g) The requirements of this section shall not apply to firearms:
(i) being delivered to law enforcement for the sole purpose of their destruction;​
(ii) possessed by common carriers and their duly authorized employees and agents while performing the regular and ordinary transport of firearms as merchandise for customers licensed to permit such transport;​
(iii) possessed by individuals lawfully traveling through the commonwealth in the care and custody of a nonresident owner provided that the firearms are stored in accordance with sections 131C and 131L;​
(iv) that are the property of the government of the United States;​
(v) produced by federally licensed manufacturers not for sale in the commonwealth; or​
(vi) manufactured prior to October 22, 1968.​
Click to expand...

GOAL's page makes it look like the pre-68 exemption is only for non-residents passing through.
Please fix to show that ALL pre-68 firearms are exempt from serialization and make is obvious that the page was updated to fix the error[/indent]
 
Reptile said:
I'm not trolling.

The law says they need to be registered.

Yet, there is no way to register an AR stripped lower.

Those lowers I used to have on sale were never registered. I just havce documentation that there were in Massachusetts before 7/16/2016.

I'm not trying to sell anything with my comments.

So, can GOAL comment?

Are stripped lowers of any date legal or not???
Click to expand...

Dude, you are just a f*cking troll and a retard.
Go sh*t in a different thread.
 
GOALJim said:
We revised and cleaned up our summaries on registration and serialization today. We will continue to try to bring as much clarity as we can to this garbage. To a great extent, the incredibly poor drafting of the Chapter 135, whether intentional or just incompetence, makes it incredibly difficult at best.

Also, I am aware that some folks get angry and accuse us of overreaction. To that, our job is to provide the 2A community with the worst case scenario. Then it is up to individuals to determine their level of risk tolerance. Keep in mind, we have a rogue Governor and Attorney General in Massachusetts.

www.goal.org/gunban
Click to expand...

I'm a big fan of Hanlon's Razor, but I think it's a bit of both. Thanks to all at GOAL.
 
GOALJim said:
Also, I am aware that some folks get angry and accuse us of overreaction. To that, our job is to provide the 2A community with the worst case scenario. Then it is up to individuals to determine their level of risk tolerance. Keep in mind, we have a rogue Governor and Attorney General in Massachusetts.

www.goal.org/gunban
Click to expand...

Look, I get that you want to provide a conservative interpretation that if followed will be least likely to get people in trouble.

But you should say that explicitly. What you're doing is providing an interpretation as being the only one, without context.

This is misleading at best.

If you want to give a worst case interpretation, that's fine, as long as you label it as such and not present it as the ONE TRUTH, because it's not.

example: all the 7/20/16 bullshit. We know what the legislature probably wanted to do, but what they actually wrote provides two options:

- Only pre 9/14/94 "assault-style firearms" are legal
- Anything lawfully possessed on 8/1/24 is legal.

There are no other options. Despite the absurd "copies and duplicates" language in H.4885, either the AG's rant in '16 is legally binding (nothing is legal, despite the AG's promise to not prosecute), or it's not, and everything that wasn't an "assault weapon" under the 1998 law was legally possessed, and therefore grandfathered.
 
@pastera

This is what you just said:

You are wrong, period, end of story


1529 (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 undersection 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.
Click to expand...


230 “Firearm”, a stun gun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, sawed-off shotgun, large capacity firearm, assault-style firearm and machine gun, loaded or unloaded, which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a shot or bullet; the frame or receiver of any such firearm or the unfinished frame or receiver of any such firearm; provided, however, that “firearm” shall not include any antique firearm or permanently inoperable firearm.
Click to expand...

The lawful possession defined on 8/1 when a frame wasn't a firearm so that frame was 100% lawfully possessed without question.

----------
The first section you quoted says it must be registered. "shall be registered"

The second section you quoted says that a frame of receiver is a "Firearm".

If that is the case then a stripped lower is considered a firearm and that it not only needed to be lawfully possessed but it also needed to be registered.
 
Reptile said:
@pastera

This is what you just said:

You are wrong, period, end of story







The lawful possession defined on 8/1 when a frame wasn't a firearm so that frame was 100% lawfully possessed without question.

----------
The first section you quoted says it must be registered. "shall be registered"

The second section you quoted says that a frame of receiver is a "Firearm".

If that is the case then a stripped lower is considered a firearm and that it not only needed to be lawfully possessed but it also needed to be registered.
Click to expand...
You are A Fcking Retard - Sorry zero patience at this point for your repetitive trolling BS

The called out registration is the FUTURE requirement to use the forthcoming electronic system defined in the completely new Section 121B so this requirement cannot be a requirement to be entered into the current Transaction Reporting system (eFA-10).
 
pastera said:
You are A Fcking Retard - Sorry zero patience at this point for your repetitive trolling BS

The called out registration is the FUTURE requirement to use the forthcoming electronic system defined in the completely new Section 121B so this requirement cannot be a requirement to be entered into the current Transaction Reporting system (eFA-10).
Click to expand...
Oh ok.

So this law sections you quoted are for the future?

So prior to the new law it does not matter?

I thought it was an interpretation of the past laws and grandfathering.

Well, whey didn't you say that?

Good Lord, I'm just trying to understand this.

You don't have to be mean.
 
Reptile said:
Oh ok.

So this law sections you quoted are for the future?

So prior to the new law it does not matter?

I thought it was an interpretation of the past laws and grandfathering.

Well, whey didn't you say that?

Good Lord, I'm just trying to understand this.

You don't have to be mean.
Click to expand...
IMG_6925.jpeg
 
Reptile said:
[1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024,
[LOWERS WERE NOT FIREARMS BEFORE 8/1]

by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued undersection 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.
[THIS IS THE FUTURE CALL TO REGISTER! IT READS " THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO AN AW LAWFULLY POSESSED BEFORE 8/1 BY A LICENSED OWNER PROVIDED THAT THE FIREARM BE (NOT WAS) REGISTERED UNDER THE NEW 121B.]

The lawful possession defined on 8/1 when a frame wasn't a firearm so that frame was 100% lawfully possessed without question.
Click to expand...
 
Reptile said:
Oh ok.

So this law sections you quoted are for the future?

So prior to the new law it does not matter?

I thought it was an interpretation of the past laws and grandfathering.

Well, whey didn't you say that?

Good Lord, I'm just trying to understand this.

You don't have to be mean.
Click to expand...
I have broken this down multiple times - including to you.
The current law pointed back to 8/1 as an exemption date for ASFs that were lawfully possessed (items that weren't a banned assault weapon under the old definitions but fail the new ASF test)
The instant before the preamble was signed a stripped lower wasn't a firearm so it was 100% legal to possess (unlike a built out firearm that had to be compliant to be lawfully possessed)
The instant that the preamble was signed 4885 became effective and converted your stripped lower from a firearm part to a firearm by the new definitions
As a firearm it is then immediately subject to Section 135 131M which asks if the firearm was in lawful possession on 8/1 - which it was under the previous definitions since it had to be able to actually fire to be considered a banned "assault weapon"

So while there may be some level of confusion on built out ARs 7/21/2016 through 8/1/2024, there is little doubt that a stripped or unfinished lower possessed on 8/1 is exempt.

Edit: Fix incorrect section number
 
Last edited:
pastera said:
I have broken this down multiple times - including to you.
The current law pointed back to 8/1 as an exemption date for ASFs that were lawfully possessed (items that weren't a banned assault weapon under the old definitions but fail the new ASF test)
The instant before the preamble was signed a stripped lower wasn't a firearm so it was 100% legal to possess (unlike a built out firearm that had to be compliant to be lawfully possessed)
The instant that the preamble was signed 4885 became effective and converted your stripped lower from a firearm part to a firearm by the new definitions
As a firearm it is then immediately subject to Section 135 which asks if the firearm was in lawful possession on 8/1 - which it was under the previous definitions since it had to be able to actually fire to be considered a banned "assault weapon"

So while there may be some level of confusion on built out ARs 7/21/2016 through 8/1/2024, there is little doubt that a stripped or unfinished lower possessed on 8/1 is exempt.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t it be argued that since it wasn’t a firearm previously by mass definition then it wasn’t legally possessed on 8/1 ‘as a firearm’ and only became one post grandfathering?
Or does the 2”x4”x6’ slab of 7075 I owned on 8/1 potentially count as a bunch of grandfathered lowers?
 
Back
Top Bottom