The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885

[safetyfirst2125]

Not that I care, but it's not law yet.

So anything bought before it's signed is CLEARLY not something you could be prosecuted for later. That is an ex-post-facto situation.

Yeah that’s an important point.

Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts states from enacting certain types of laws. Among these prohibitions is the passing of “ex post facto” laws. An ex post facto law is one that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the enactment of the law.

The specific text states: “No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”

This clause ensures that states cannot:

1. Retroactively Criminalize Conduct: States cannot pass laws that make an act a crime after it has been committed. For example, if an action was legal at the time it was performed, a state cannot later pass a law making that action illegal and then prosecute individuals who performed the act before the law was passed.

2. Increase Punishments Retroactively: States cannot enact laws that increase the punishment for a crime after it has been committed. If a person committed an offense and was sentenced under the laws in place at that time, the state cannot later pass a law that imposes a harsher penalty and apply it to that person.

3. Change Legal Consequences Retroactively: States are prohibited from passing laws that alter the legal consequences or statuses of actions taken in the past. This includes laws that might change the legal status of a person or the results of previous legal actions.

The prohibition against ex post facto laws is rooted in the principle of fairness and the protection of individuals from arbitrary and vindictive legislation. It ensures that individuals have notice of the laws and the consequences of their actions at the time they act, thus protecting them from retroactive legislative changes.

 

[SHOCKNAWE]

Not that I care, but it's not law yet.

So anything bought before it's signed is CLEARLY not something you could be prosecuted for later. That is an ex-post-facto situation.

This is one of the most important points in this entire thread.

 

[Picton]

Yeah that’s an important point.

Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution explicitly restricts states from enacting certain types of laws. Among these prohibitions is the passing of “ex post facto” laws. An ex post facto law is one that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the enactment of the law.

The specific text states: “No State shall… pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”

This clause ensures that states cannot:

1. Retroactively Criminalize Conduct: States cannot pass laws that make an act a crime after it has been committed. For example, if an action was legal at the time it was performed, a state cannot later pass a law making that action illegal and then prosecute individuals who performed the act before the law was passed.

2. Increase Punishments Retroactively: States cannot enact laws that increase the punishment for a crime after it has been committed. If a person committed an offense and was sentenced under the laws in place at that time, the state cannot later pass a law that imposes a harsher penalty and apply it to that person.

3. Change Legal Consequences Retroactively: States are prohibited from passing laws that alter the legal consequences or statuses of actions taken in the past. This includes laws that might change the legal status of a person or the results of previous legal actions.

The prohibition against ex post facto laws is rooted in the principle of fairness and the protection of individuals from arbitrary and vindictive legislation. It ensures that individuals have notice of the laws and the consequences of their actions at the time they act, thus protecting them from retroactive legislative changes.

What @pastera has added to this is actually very well-reasoned, but my belief is that there is MORE than enough ambiguity about all these concepts to keep the State from even trying to enforce it. Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part, but like I've said several times in one of these seven or eight threads, I'm WAY past caring.

The Commonwealth can go f*** itself.

 

[Woodsloafer]

What @pastera has added to this is actually very well-reasoned, but my belief is that there is MORE than enough ambiguity about all these concepts to keep the State from even trying to enforce it. Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part, but like I've said several times in one of these seven or eight threads, I'm WAY past caring.

The Commonwealth can go f*** itself.

And if we cannot understand it all, how are criminals supposed to navigate and follow them, right?

.

 

[Picton]

And if we cannot understand it all, how are criminals supposed to navigate and follow them, right?

.

Silly goose. This law illegalizes crime.

So there won't be any criminals anymore, once it's signed. Linsky reasoning.

 

[Woodsloafer]

Silly goose. This law illegalizes crime.

So there won't be any criminals anymore, once it's signed. Linsky reasoning.

We'll all be criminals.

.

 

[Picton]

We'll all be criminals.

.

Actually?

I'm okay with that. We were "felons in waiting," and I've never been fond of waiting.

 

[Yazz]

What @pastera has added to this is actually very well-reasoned, but my belief is that there is MORE than enough ambiguity about all these concepts to keep the State from even trying to enforce it. Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part, but like I've said several times in one of these seven or eight threads, I'm WAY past caring.

The Commonwealth can go f*** itself.

"The Commonwealth can go f*** itself."
They already are. They just passed a 58 Billion dollar budget when they only took in 36 Billion in the last year!

 

[G4Y4HK]

The redcoats never left.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

"The Commonwealth can go f*** itself."
They already are. They just passed a 58 Billion dollar budget when they only took in 36 Billion in the last year!

And they have no reserves left as the Governor already burned through that.

 

[Picton]

"The Commonwealth can go f*** itself."
They already are. They just passed a 58 Billion dollar budget when they only took in 36 Billion in the last year!

And they have no reserves left as the Governor already burned through that.

And those would be reasons number 34,809 and 34,810 why this law won't ever be prosecuted. Let alone even fully implemented.

 

[general disorder]

"The Commonwealth can go f*** itself."
They already are. They just passed a 58 Billion dollar budget when they only took in 36 Billion in the last year!

This to me is just so bizarre. I know it shouldn't be in this wacky state but I just have tough time understanding well paid adults coming together and saying "yep that'll work just fine."

 

[AJK129]

I hope @Mesatchornug is on a nice vacation somewhere and wasnt secretly arrested when this 'passed'

 

[Rob Boudrie]

3. Change Legal Consequences Retroactively: States are prohibited from passing laws that alter the legal consequences or statuses of actions taken in the past. This includes laws that might change the legal status of a person or the results of previous legal actions.

The prohibition against ex post facto laws is rooted in the principle of fairness and the protection of individuals from arbitrary and vindictive legislation. It ensures that individuals have notice of the laws and the consequences of their actions at the time they act, thus protecting them from retroactive legislative changes.

You mean like a law that adds the "prohibited person" status to an individual who was convicted on a non-disqualifying domestic violence misdemeanor wqell after the conviction and application of the court imposed sanction for said conviction?

 

[safetyfirst2125]

You mean like a law that adds the "prohibited person" status to an individual who was convicted on a non-disqualifying domestic violence misdemeanor wqell after the conviction and application of the court imposed sanction for said conviction?

Yes

 

[Yazz]

"The Commonwealth can go f*** itself."
They already are. They just passed a 58 Billion dollar budget when they only took in 36 Billion in the last year!

I was wrong they passed a 56.1 Billon dollar budget.

A Billion here a Billion there. What does it matter.

 

[wcorey]

This isn't quite true
The section of the "assault-style" definition covering copies and duplicates contains language the only excludes those that were lawfully ow ed (nothing per the state) AND registered before 7/20/16.
So any AR purchased now and entered into the portal (registered) is likely evidence of a felony once this POS becomes effective.

Hmm...
What about 71...

1526 Section 131M. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer
1527 in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large
1528 capacity feeding device.
1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the
1530 commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under
1531 section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 122; provided, that the assault-style
1532 firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with
1533 section 121C.

Seems to me that 'shall be registered' means 'in the future when there's a registry in place'.
Doesn't say 'is registered' or 'has been registered'...

 

[Grendizer138]

My NICS delays just became a major inconvenience.

 

[TLB]

We'll all be criminals.

.

Once you embrace it, it is freeing.

 

[MGnoob]

Actually?

I'm okay with that. We were "felons in waiting," and I've never been fond of waiting.

That’s so funny. I hate lines. The line I’ll be happy to wait in is pissing on these peoples grave.

 

[MGnoob]

Once you embrace it, it is freeing.

embrace the suck youtube - Google Search

 

[Beretta92FS]

Hmm...
What about 71...

1526 Section 131M. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer
1527 in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large
1528 capacity feeding device.
1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the
1530 commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under
1531 section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 122; provided, that the assault-style
1532 firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with
1533 section 121C.

Seems to me that 'shall be registered' means 'in the future when there's a registry in place'.
Doesn't say 'is registered' or 'has been registered'...

Yep, I agree with you and this is my take as well.

But for some reason, most here seem determined to interpret this in the most negative way imaginable.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I hope @Mesatchornug is on a nice vacation somewhere [...]

Exactly this. Thanks for the thoughts. By the time I'm home, everything will be in effect.
@GOAL @Comm2A hit me up if you want a plaintiff

 

[silversquirrel]

I was wrong they passed a 56.1 Billon dollar budget.

A Billion here a Billion there. What does it matter.

It don't. When it ain't yours.

 

[crookedteeth]

Again how is this enforceable??

Guess we will just have to hoard more ammo

 

[DJBrad]

Well, I’m on vacation just sittin on a dock. I hope you all had a nice long summer vacation or one coming up.





No need to go shopping as I did alot of shopping the past 10 years. I’m now looking at real estate, land, and machines.

 

[AJK129]

Well, I’m on vacation just sittin on a dock. I hope you all had a nice long summer vacation or one coming up.

View attachment 899202



No need to go shopping as I did alot of shopping the past 10 years. I’m now looking at real estate, land, and machines.

Beautiful. 1st real vacation is next week, hopefully its as nice as that.

I feel like most of us on NES were ready for this, but theres always more I wish I had. Moneys the problem in this case lol

 

[chris_1001]

Well, I’m on vacation just sittin on a dock. I hope you all had a nice long summer vacation or one coming up.

View attachment 899202



No need to go shopping as I did alot of shopping the past 10 years. I’m now looking at real estate, land, and machines.

Interesting place for a garage out there in the background....

Time for me to go land/second home shopping

 

[drosie]

I am beyond confused trying to wrap my head around this bill... IANAL but wouldn't the date of 8/1 in subsection 131M be the important one here? The date of 7/20/16 (which is BS in general) only seems to reference the definitions of "assault weapons clones" to me. It seems in my interpretation that the date is only referencing the fact that any "clone" owned prior to that date will never be considered an assault weapon. "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".

Section 131M which CURRENTLY reads as "Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. "

The replacement language appears it will read-

Section 131M. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device.) 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 under section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section ; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C.

As long as the weapon was "lawfully owned" at whatever time prior to 8/1 that is. I was interested if you could add the "evil features" to an assault weapon prior to 8/1 and have it be G2G, my reading of the bill says no as it likely was not "lawfully owned". It did seem to suggest (to me) that post 7/20 rifles are fine as they were "lawfully owned" as long as in previous AWB compliance form.

 

[Beretta92FS]

I am beyond confused trying to wrap my head around this bill... IANAL but wouldn't the date of 8/1 in subsection 131M be the important one here? The date of 7/20/16 (which is BS in general) only seems to reference the definitions of "assault weapons clones" to me. It seems in my interpretation that the date is only referencing the fact that any "clone" owned prior to that date will never be considered an assault weapon. "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".

Section 131M which CURRENTLY reads as "Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. "

The replacement language appears it will read-

Section 131M. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device.) 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 under section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section ; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C.

As long as the weapon was "lawfully owned" at whatever time prior to 8/1 that is. I was interested if you could add the "evil features" to an assault weapon prior to 8/1 and have it be G2G, my reading of the bill says no as it likely was not "lawfully owned". It did seem to suggest (to me) that post 7/20 rifles are fine as they were "lawfully owned" as long as in previous AWB compliance form.

Yes, this is my interpretation as well.