Revised Chapter 135 Summaries

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...
Pre68 is exempt from serialization requirements.
 
KH56010 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't use training requirements as a test because the bill actually exempts the requirements until actually implemented.
And yes the state can say as of 8/1 when the law became effective at a later date. It was signed before 8/1 therefore you had notice of the change before it took effect so you could take action to become compliant.

The question to put before the court isn't on what date a certain class of arms may be banned or what notice is required but if any class of common arms may be banned or restricted.
And that answer is clearly given in Heller - the government cannot ban a class of arms in common use for lawful purposes.
 
milktree said:
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.
Click to expand...
That sounds like leftover from one of the earlier bills. I remember that being built into the definition for FID
 
Last edited:
Mesatchornug said:
That sounds like leftover from one of the earlier bills. I engender that being built into the definition for FID
Click to expand...
I believe, from memory, that there was a "common long gun" in one of the previous bills (I think it was senate) - which was designed to define within Mass firearms that would be considered common for the "in common use" test. My discussions with several several beacon hill rats included calling out this silliness and reminding them that a judge wouldn't like them trying to manipulate them like that.
 
milktree said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah, I did miss that point.

It may be leftover cruft from a prior version. I remember seeing it at some point, but, yeah, I can't find it unless there's some stacking issue (not explicitly using the language but doing a "remove line 10 from section 567 and replace it with" followed by a referral to someplace else).

I still think that my "moron thinking she's being clever" comment holds.
 
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...

This is the gist of the new law:

We've decided you shouldn't have guns. So whatever we want it to say, that's what it's going to say. For your safety, of course.
 
Roadglide said:
Great little gun. My post was a little vague. Would the extension on the mag put it in the asf category
Click to expand...

pastera said:
No - as long as you don't exceed 10 rounds in the mag which would create a large capacity feeding device.
Click to expand...

The G43 is a 7 round mag but default, so a + 2 (a + 3 is GTG also) only gets you to 9 (10). Thus all good.

The G43X on the other hand is 10 by default, so that's a no go.

As an aside, I dumped my G43 when I got a P365...
 
Back
Top Bottom