-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Revised Chapter 135 Summaries
- Thread starter GOALJim
- Start date
pastera
NES Member
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.
Mesatchornug
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,222
- Likes
- 27,555
That sounds like leftover from one of the earlier bills. I remember that being built into the definition for FID
Last edited:
pastera
NES Member
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.
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.
Roadglide
NES Member
Glock 43 with a +2 mag extension
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 40,710
- Likes
- 36,175
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
NES Member
Great little gun. My post was a little vague. Would the extension on the mag put it in the asf category
chris_1001
NES Member
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...
Roadglide
NES Member
I run both…….because I’m that damn good
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
chris_1001
NES Member
I run both…….because I’m that damn good
New York reload, I like it!
Fúùũůűćk…
How did I miss the “use” part.
Given that there’s no other reference to 131-3/4 and "use" anywhere else, (that I know of) this might have been something someone wanted to restrict but the language never made it into the final bill.
Or maybe they were planning ahead, and are planning to add the language later.
How did I miss the “use” part.
Given that there’s no other reference to 131-3/4 and "use" anywhere else, (that I know of) this might have been something someone wanted to restrict but the language never made it into the final bill.
Or maybe they were planning ahead, and are planning to add the language later.
Last edited:
Mesatchornug
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,222
- Likes
- 27,555
just looked in 4885. It's there. Lines 1455 - 1456
Just checked, it's on page 49 of the signed parchment copy as well.
Nice scanning job. Someone with better OCR skills than me may want to correlate this to the version here: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H4885.pdf
It seems to me the "use" word added to the language about the roster violates the Heller decision, which in part says that states cannot ban firearms "in common use".
Almost every firearm NOT on the roster are "in common use" elsewhere.
Almost every firearm NOT on the roster are "in common use" elsewhere.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,904
- Likes
- 36,361
Using the Healy date gives the state some cover if someone challenges the law claiming the state is outlawing legally possessed property, thus engaging in a "taking".
The state can defend with "No, it wasn't legall possessed ... and this notice from the AG proves it", and let a MA court decide, quite likely in the state's favor.
Great, I didn't own a single rostered firearm before the change and its likely I'll own after either.
Edit: Haynes v USA- The Supreme Court agreed with Haynes, ruling that the registration requirement violated the Fifth Amendment. The court's decision exempted convicted felons from the registration requirement.
Would it not also stand to reason that registering an off roster handgun would violate the above law regarding guns we can possess and use? Possess here being defined as being in idle use, such as a home defense weapon.
Edit: Haynes v USA- The Supreme Court agreed with Haynes, ruling that the registration requirement violated the Fifth Amendment. The court's decision exempted convicted felons from the registration requirement.
Would it not also stand to reason that registering an off roster handgun would violate the above law regarding guns we can possess and use? Possess here being defined as being in idle use, such as a home defense weapon.
Last edited:
Don’t register anything or you’ll incriminate yourself.
You have the right against self incrimination.
The state has no idea what they are doing.
They just want everyone scared.
Just like the Healey Ban.
If they prosecute anyone they’ll lose in court and set a precedent that would collapse their whole house of cards.
I don't mean, “it’s not in my copy”, but rather, “I read over those words and the new addition of ‘use’ didn’t stand out to me.”
I’m pretty sure that’s been done by @pastera, and the two are the same enough that the differences aren’t significant.
If you want a readable version with reasonable formatting and my (sometimes snarky) notes:
