Revised Chapter 135 Summaries

As we continue to unravel the “Devil’s Snare” that is Chapter 135, there is dark Trojan Horse that everyone should be made aware of. The serialization standards.

This is a part of Chapter 135 is another one that GOAL has gone over countless times, including consulting with outside resources. The common conclusion is that the only guns that can be lawfully possessed in Massachusetts (After October 24, 2024) are those manufactured prior to October 22, 1968.

While most folks were trying to understand the Assault Style Firearm grandfathering and the new semi-auto restrictions, serialization is actually the crippling ingredient.

As of October 24, 2024, the new law requires any gun manufactured after the 1968 date to have a: “…unique serial number on a firearm frame or receiver; provided, that the serial number shall be placed in a manner not susceptible to being readily obliterated, altered or removed…”

We are not aware of any gun that meets those requirements. We doubt if it is even mechanically possible.
Click to expand...

I was wondering how we were supposed to be able to engrave a serial number on a place that could never again be able to be "unengraved".
 
Drix said:
I was wondering how we were supposed to be able to engrave a serial number on a place that could never again be able to be "unengraved".
Click to expand...
If it meets ATF standards, it meets Mass standards - that's written in the law.
So engraving or stamping 1/16" or large text 0.003" deep or deeper is enough to meet the requirement.

Don't borrow trouble when it's not necessary.
 
Chapter 135 (H.4885) – Frames & Receivers

Updated October 21, 2024

The following should not be taken as legal advice.



There is nothing in the new law that references 80% lowers, it simply refers to “unfinished” frames and receivers. (An unfinished AR receiver can be considered an unfinished machine gun!)




  • All frames and/or receivers (unfinished or otherwise) that could be considered a copy or duplicate of an enumerated Assault Weapon must have been lawfully possessed and registered in Massachusetts on or before August 1, 2024.
  • Any frames or receivers (unfinished or otherwise), not on the enumerated ban list, but meet the new features test must be possessed and registered in Massachusetts on or before August 1, 2024.
  • Private builds for any firearm that would fall under the new semi-automatic Assault Style Firearm definitions are prohibited after August 1, 2024
__________
What about stripped lowers???
No way to register a stripped lower.


EDIT:

What about new Glocks?

Frame transfers???
 
Last edited:
GOALJim said:
We have finally had some time to clean up and revise a number of our summaries regarding Chapter 135. www.goal.org/gunban
Click to expand...
From the ASF page at that link:
A semiautomatic pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features: (Does not specify centerfire.)​
a. A magazine/feeding device that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip​
b. A second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand​
c. Threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor forward handgrip or silencer​
d. A shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.​
​
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would seem to indicate that a Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Lite is now considered an assault style firearm.
1729560914704.png
 
Toast said:
From the ASF page at that link:
A semiautomatic pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features: (Does not specify centerfire.)​
a. A magazine/feeding device that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip​
b. A second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand​
c. Threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor forward handgrip or silencer​
d. A shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.​
​
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would seem to indicate that a Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Lite is now considered an assault style firearm.
View attachment 929114
Click to expand...
That one is tough because the receiver/frame is also the barrel shroud.
But on first look it could be considered an ASF.
 
Reptile said:
Chapter 135 (H.4885) – Frames & Receivers

Updated October 21, 2024

The following should not be taken as legal advice.


There is nothing in the new law that references 80% lowers, it simply refers to “unfinished” frames and receivers. (An unfinished AR receiver can be considered an unfinished machine gun!)




  • All frames and/or receivers (unfinished or otherwise) that could be considered a copy or duplicate of an enumerated Assault Weapon must have been lawfully possessed and registered in Massachusetts on or before August 1, 2024.
  • Any frames or receivers (unfinished or otherwise), not on the enumerated ban list, but meet the new features test must be possessed and registered in Massachusetts on or before August 1, 2024.
  • Private builds for any firearm that would fall under the new semi-automatic Assault Style Firearm definitions are prohibited after August 1, 2024
__________
What about stripped lowers???
No way to register a stripped lower.


EDIT:

What about new Glocks?

Frame transfers???
Click to expand...
Please show me in the law where the 8/1/2024 exemption requires the firearm be registered?

Edit: Clarifying what I mean by registered - goal claims the firearm needs to have been registered on 8/1/2024 in order to be exempt.
I am asking for a citation in the law that shows this to be true
 
Toast said:
From the ASF page at that link:
A semiautomatic pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features: (Does not specify centerfire.)​
a. A magazine/feeding device that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip​
b. A second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand​
c. Threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor forward handgrip or silencer​
d. A shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.​
​
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would seem to indicate that a Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Lite is now considered an assault style firearm.
View attachment 929114
Click to expand...
a shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel designed to shield the bearer’s hand from heat, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.
Click to expand...

Pulled the actual text.
It would be hard to argue that the 22/45's integral receiver and barrel support is designed to shield the user's hand from heat.
So, I doubt that it will be designated as an ASF.
 
pastera said:
Pulled the actual text.
It would be hard to argue that the 22/45's integral receiver and barrel support is designed to shield the user's hand from heat.
So, I doubt that it will be designated as an ASF.
Click to expand...
GOAL does seem to be taking a worst-case look at the law. Probably correct from a litigation standpoint, but not as clear for a general reference use on a public site.
 
Drix said:
I was wondering how we were supposed to be able to engrave a serial number on a place that could never again be able to be "unengraved".
Click to expand...

As long as Gris and the team at CSI can pull it up using the acid method, you're ok. [rofl]

And they'll find that spot where you sneezed into the action by accident and will have a DNA match before they get back from their coffee break.

Toast said:
From the ASF page at that link:
A semiautomatic pistol with the capacity to accept a detachable feeding device and includes at least 2 of the following features: (Does not specify centerfire.)​
a. A magazine/feeding device that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip​
b. A second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand​
c. Threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor forward handgrip or silencer​
d. A shroud that encircles either all or part of the barrel, excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.​
​
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that would seem to indicate that a Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Lite is now considered an assault style firearm.
View attachment 929114
Click to expand...

Think on this: These are people with zero clue about what a gun is or what it does that make gun laws.

This also applies to:

Construction law
Tax law
Family services law
Health care law
etc.,

You wonder why we get such crappy laws??? These people are politicians, not policy geniuses. (Remember also that Ted Kennedy once authored legislation that would put an elderly person in jail if they attempted to hide money to qualify for Medicaid. Jail. Felony offense. Best day was when a reporter asked him about it. LOL)
 
pastera said:
Agree - but some of the inconsistencies aren't just pessimistic interpretation, there were some outright errors.
Click to expand...
Would be more useful and less characters if they just quoted the text of (b) and provided links instead of adding a bunch of color around it.

If an item X that is considered an ASF in (a) -- either by features, name, or defined copy or dupe, but was in the state on 8/1 and was legally under the posession of an LTC holder or an FFL, then (b).

Burden of proof.

Prosecutor: ASF!
Defense: Grand personed.

They would have to prove it was an ASF, then prove it was NOT in MA ON 8/1 and/or NOT legally possessed by an LTC holder or FFL on that day, all 24 hours of that day. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

Oh, what's that you say ... Does it have a born on date before 8/1? Did there exist someone? anyone? anywhere in the entire state of MA on that day that could have on that day possessed it legally?

So there's doubt..and it's reasonable.

For practicality purposes, if they do a trace on a firearm or frame and it was manufactured/transferred after 8/1, then it's easy.

People are lazy and this is the slam dunk, why work harder?

The goal is to stop them from being sold at retail and drive shops out of business.

This is not saying it won't be charged and dropped, often (to extort pleas on lesser charges), but that is how it will work in my estimation.
 
Last edited:
GOALJim said:
We have finally had some time to clean up and revise a number of our summaries regarding Chapter 135. www.goal.org/gunban
Click to expand...

The interpretation you're promoting as to how ASFs need to be treated doesn't really make sense.

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.
Click to expand...

You seem to be saying that post-7/20/2016 guns are not grandfathered because they were not legally possessed in MA on 8/1, because of Healey's press conference proclamation. The problem with that is that on 7/20/2016 Healey announced the commonwealth's view that all post-94 copies and duplicates are illegal, she effectively just said that they weren't going to be prosecuting possession of them. It's purely "guidance," it didn't change any laws. So by your logic all post-94 ban guns are illegal in MA, right?

 
not new guy said:
The interpretation you're promoting as to how ASFs need to be treated doesn't really make sense.



You seem to be saying that post-7/20/2016 guns are not grandfathered because they were not legally possessed in MA on 8/1, because of Healey's press conference proclamation. The problem with that is that on 7/20/2016 Healey announced the commonwealth's view that all post-94 copies and duplicates are illegal, she effectively just said that they weren't going to be prosecuting possession of them. It's purely "guidance," it didn't change any laws. So by your logic all post-94 ban guns are illegal in MA, right?

Click to expand...
Read the actual text of the bill.
This is the pessimistic interpretation where the proclamation had legal consequence:
A copy or duplicate that was in the transaction database by 7/20/2016 is exempt from consideration as a copy or duplicate therefore you can keep it as long as it passes the features test.
Click to expand...
If you believe that Healey's declaration had no legal standing then any compliant then they are exempt if legally possessed on 8/1/2024.

Either position is both right and wrong at the same time so do as you please.
 
pastera said:
This is the pessimistic interpretation where the proclamation had legal consequence:

If you believe that Healey's declaration had no legal standing then any compliant then they are exempt if legally possessed on 8/1/2024.

Either position is both right and wrong at the same time so do as you please.
Click to expand...

My point is that if they're taking the view that Healey's declaration had legal standing (which they seem to be doing) that doesn't mean pre-7/20/2016 guns are fine, it means they were technically illegal then and are certainly illegal now. Her proclamation didn't declare all pre-2016 copies and dupes to be perfectly legal, it was just guidance presented in an enforcement notice. Or am I misunderstanding?
 
not new guy said:
My point is that if they're taking the view that Healey's declaration had legal standing (which they seem to be doing) that doesn't mean pre-7/20/2016 guns are fine, it means they were technically illegal then and are certainly illegal now. Her proclamation didn't declare all pre-2016 copies and dupes to be perfectly legal, it was just guidance presented in an enforcement notice. Or am I misunderstanding?
Click to expand...
4885 declares any copy or duplicate sold,owned and registered prior to 7/20/2016 as not a copy or duplicate
Therefore as long as it passes the features test you can own it.
provided further, that the firearm shall not be considered a copy or duplicate of a firearm identified in clauses (d) and (e) if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016
Click to expand...

So while it isn't a copy or duplicate, it still could be an ASF based on features.
And since it wasn't "actually" lawfully possessed on 8/1/2024 then it isn't exempt from the ASF designation therefore it can't be restored to free state configuration

Mind you - this isn't my interpretation. That's what the state wants to interpret the language as meaning since that was their actual intention.

It would have been better if they didn't screw up the language and essentially double exempt pre 7/20 copies and duplicates. Then they would have clearly poked the pooch and given us serious standing.
 
I thought old firearms that were not serialized by the manufacture prior to not having to serialize were exempt. This would mean I will have to serialize my old Montgomery Wards 22lr bolt action rifle. That is just plain stupid. At that point it would be better to just cut it up and throw it away these guns have almost no value and the cost of serialized would outweigh the guns worth
 
pastera said:
4885 declares any copy or duplicate sold,owned and registered prior to 7/20/2016 as not a copy or duplicate
Therefore as long as it passes the features test you can own it.


So while it isn't a copy or duplicate, it still could be an ASF based on features.
And since it wasn't "actually" lawfully possessed on 8/1/2024 then it isn't exempt from the ASF designation therefore it can't be restored to free state configuration

Mind you - this isn't my interpretation. That's what the state wants to interpret the language as meaning since that was their actual intention.

It would have been better if they didn't screw up the language and essentially double exempt pre 7/20 copies and duplicates. Then they would have clearly poked the pooch and given us serious standing.
Click to expand...

Doesn't all this get problematic from a timing perspective though, given the 7/20/2016, 8/1/2024 and whatever the hell date she signed the preamble on? Actually, nevermind - as you and others have rightly noticed, this is all silly and impossible to straighten out.

Total clusterf*** shitshow.
 
JDL said:
I thought old firearms that were not serialized by the manufacture prior to not having to serialize were exempt. This would mean I will have to serialize my old Montgomery Wards 22lr bolt action rifle. That is just plain stupid. At that point it would be better to just cut it up and throw it away these guns have almost no value and the cost of serialized would outweigh the guns worth
Click to expand...
that's the point. pre-68 is exempt. allegedly, post '68 would require engraving in a way that can't be defaced...
 
What the hell are they smoking?

This is one of their listed "definitions""

GOAL hallucinations said:
SECTION 21
• “Common long gun”, a rifle or shotgun that is not a large capacity firearm and cannot
produce semiautomatc or automatic fire.
Click to expand...

Where did this come from? It's nowhere in previous MGL or H.4885
 
Mesatchornug said:
that's the point. pre-68 is exempt. allegedly, post '68 would require engraving in a way that can't be defaced...
Click to expand...
That was my fault reading what GOAL just posted. There seem to be.nothing about pre 68 in there interpretation.
Thanks.
I should have just checked the written law myself and not relied on GOAL.
 
JDL said:
That was my fault reading what GOAL just posted. There seem to be.nothing about pre 68 in there interpretation.
Thanks.
I should have just checked the written law myself and not relied on GOAL.
Click to expand...
I think I'm failing to find their commentary. The quote in post 2 (which looks like commentary) mentions 1968 pretty clearly. Their quote of the Ch135 text includes:
(vi) manufactured prior to October
485 22, 1968.
Click to expand...
 
milktree said:
What the hell are they smoking?

This is one of their listed "definitions""

Where did this come from? It's nowhere in previous MGL or H.4885
Click to expand...
It's what happens when a moron thinks she's being clever. The USSC has said that guns in common use cannot be banned, so this is an attempt to ban them anyway by redefining "common use".
 
Toast said:
that a Ruger Mark IV 22/45 Lite is now considered an assault style firearm.
Click to expand...
yes, but why does it surprise you?
the purpose of the law it to charge and convict you, as it is not a gun that is a problem - it is you and i who are the problem. so they have made a 'law' to deal with the problem.
guns will always remain, only not in your hands.
 
Toast said:
It's what happens when a moron thinks she's being clever. The USSC has said that guns in common use cannot be banned, so this is an attempt to ban them anyway by redefining "common use".
Click to expand...

You miss my point: the “definition” quoted was from GOAL, and they seem to have pulled it out of somewhere dark and stinky rather than any actual legislation or act or law.

There’s a bunch of other crap on their “definitions” page that are equally bogus.

Are they from a previous version of potential legislation? If so, GOAL shouldn’t be posting that crap because it’s not law.
 
pastera said:
Either position is both right and wrong at the same time so do as you please.
Click to expand...
there is only one actual truth - what any of us would do or think now does not matter.

they have the ball, and they will decide how to move or not to move forward depending upon outcome of the elections. we may get a 4yrs break, or, it may get uglier, as by the text of what they got now in this so-called 'law' - i can easily see as nothing at all may be rendered to be not in the legal possession at 8/1. with any possible escalations of that decision. all we got here are guesses and interpretations.

so, i guess, we will see soon enough of where all of that will transpire. they really aim to kill off all the FFLs and businesses first that support the community, before getting to the community itself, so, it should be some time left.
 
GOALJim said:
We have finally had some time to clean up and revise a number of our summaries regarding Chapter 135. www.goal.org/gunban
Click to expand...
Is there a reason that you don't run any of this by someone who can read the English language? I clicked the first link under Assault Style Firearms. Under "Grandfathering" Point number 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."

Please pull up H4885 and show me the definition of "gun", explain to me how the enumerated list, or their copies and duplicates would apply to frames or firearms lawfully possessed in Massachusetts on August 1, 2024 and explain to me how the two feature test has any applicability right now this second to firearms that were legally possessed on August 1, 2024. Please use H4885 to substantiate your rebuttal.

I'm going to help you out. All definitions of H4885 DID NOT MATTER on 8/1. Because the law did not go into effect until after 10/1. Just like when they tried to say that LTCs wouldn't be processed in August because of the new rules in H4885. They couldn't do that, because H4885 wasn't a law yet and Comm2a (The people who actually deserve the donations) fixed that in about... 24 hours.
 
Dennis in MA said:
As long as Gris and the team at CSI can pull it up using the acid method, you're ok. [rofl]

And they'll find that spot where you sneezed into the action by accident and will have a DNA match before they get back from their coffee break.



Think on this: These are people with zero clue about what a gun is or what it does that make gun laws.

This also applies to:

Construction law
Tax law
Family services law
Health care law
etc.,

You wonder why we get such crappy laws??? These people are politicians, not policy geniuses. (Remember also that Ted Kennedy once authored legislation that would put an elderly person in jail if they attempted to hide money to qualify for Medicaid. Jail. Felony offense. Best day was when a reporter asked him about it. LOL)
Click to expand...

Well there's that and "the shoulder thing that goes up"..

 
Back
Top Bottom