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

[MAJoe]

Happy 'Am I A Felon?' Day!

Nah that’s tomorrow

 

[John2006]

Nah that’s tomorrow

This. I believe todays the last day as it’s “on 8/1” not “by 8/1”.

 

[Picton]

Nah that’s tomorrow

...party pooper.

 

[sig shooter]

Happy 'Am I A Felon?' Day!

We have to come up with a secret handshake. Does this mean I can get neck tattoos?

 

[Jenska22]

The M1 Carbine variant is listed on Appendix A, but the M1A (M14 semi-auto) is NOT. However it is listed on the 2016 FAQ as a good gun as I posted above from the mouth of Mauron when wood stock no pistol grip pee shooters were “safe”.

I have a pre-ban M1A with an extra killy pork sticker lug and flash hider.

how much ??

 

[Jenska22]

All good

running, but 300 filings in 15 minutes at 10:00 PM

 

[Bfatz]

Dear Beacon Hill goons Fk off that simple.

Nothing more to add.

 

[OMM 0000]

I am a day early but:

 

[EJFudd]

They are definitely still a thing, but if they want more donations they should consider a revamp of their site. I’ve donated a few hundred to them this year.

Saw this myself today. I hope they are doing something. They accepted 4 months of payments last year until I realized I set up monthly and not one time payment.

LOL I did the same thing this year

I'm probably all wrong, but I kinda got the impression a while back that Comm2A had gone dormant as a result of its own successes. There just don't seem to be as many of the kinds of problems that Comm2A was so effective at addressing... or at least we aren't hearing as much about them lately.

With GOAL supposedly trying to transform itself from a lobbying organization into a litigation leading organization, it begs the question: Will Comm2A spring back to life and want a piece of the legal action going forward?

I have always admired Comm2A over GOAL because I thought they were taking the right approach to preserving our rights... i.e., litigation. All we can do for now is stay tuned in while local and national organizations figure out the next steps to get us back to relative freedom.

 

[JDL]

Or if they took the class pre 8/1 but the “interview” has taken 90 days so far, then what?

I’m not expecting an answer but this porks a lot of people.

We don't know. However unlike when Connecticut passed there law and also changed the training criteria they accutally set hard dates in the law when the new training would be ready and rolled out and come into effect, and that licensing would continue using the old training, and issued training certificate untill the new effective date. Massachusetts did not do this and has only put in 8/1/2024 as the only hard date when everything changes.

 

[808]

I'm probably all wrong, but I kinda got the impression a while back that Comm2A had gone dormant as a result of its own successes. There just don't seem to be as many of the kinds of problems that Comm2A was so effective at addressing... or at least we aren't hearing as much about them lately.

With GOAL supposedly trying to transform itself from a lobbying organization into a litigation leading organization, it begs the question: Will Comm2A spring back to life and want a piece of the legal action going forward?

I have always admired Comm2A over GOAL because I thought they were taking the right approach to preserving our rights... i.e., litigation. All we can do for now is stay tuned in while local and national organizations figure out the next steps to get us back to relative freedom.

We have FPC involved and they have been kicking some serious A$$!

 

[not new guy]

Serial numbers aren’t a requirement until a the new system is set up.

Registration isn’t required until a year after the new system is built.

So… don’t worry about it?

Is the argument in favor of "registering" today that the "gun" will get grandpersoned, whereas a lower that gets registered in the new system misses that? I'm not following all this stuff about lowers being registered post-8/1, or AWs under the new definition being sold by dealers from their current inventory until October. Won't all that stuff be illegal to possess once this goes live? Is there a risk of that being the case?

 

[scott-o]

Is the argument in favor of "registering" today that the "gun" will get grandpersoned, whereas a lower that gets registered in the new system misses that? I'm not following all this stuff about lowers being registered post-8/1, or AWs under the new definition being sold by dealers from their current inventory until October. Won't all that stuff be illegal to possess once this goes live? Is there a risk of that being the case?

I think people just want "proof" of a timestamp for their own protection/needs.

Note: You can also get a state approved timestamp on your lower if you write a quick note with the Make/Model/Serial and run to your bank and notorize it....

 

[LakeTrout]

I wouldn’t register anything. I think some wanted to register so that they’d have proof of ownership prior to the cutoff date. But again, it’s up to the state to prove that you didn’t own it prior to that date. Registering can lead to some pretty bad outcomes. The next step here is that they confriscate. And I do think that happens in the next 5-10 years if the dems win the next presidential election. Call me crazy.

 

[EJFudd]

Is the argument in favor of "registering" today that the "gun" will get grandpersoned, whereas a lower that gets registered in the new system misses that? I'm not following all this stuff about lowers being registered post-8/1, or AWs under the new definition being sold by dealers from their current inventory until October. Won't all that stuff be illegal to possess once this goes live? Is there a risk of that being the case?

So damn confusing. Where does it say... or what is the logic... that says a currently possessed (on 8/1/2024) but unregistered (under old transfers system) stripped lower can be built out later and be legal to own under the new law provided it is registered down the road as an ASW in the new registration system?

 

[El_Guapo77]

I wouldn’t register anything. I think some wanted to register so that they’d have proof of ownership prior to the cutoff date. But again, it’s up to the state to prove that you didn’t own it prior to that date. Registering can lead to some pretty bad outcomes. The next step here is that they confriscate. And I do think that happens in the next 5-10 years if the dems win the next presidential election. Call me crazy.

The registration system doesn't even exist yet I think people confuse the efa 10 as an actual registration when it not

 

[Jenska22]

The registration system doesn't even exist yet I think people confuse the efa 10 as an actual registration when it not

The efa form does say REGISTRATION, and whether it is or not, that seems to be what they're thinking. They'll never have the budget to create a new system and that would be a huge fail in the courts.

 

[scott-o]

So damn confusing. Where does it say... or what is the logic... that says a currently possessed (on 8/1/2024) but unregistered (under old transfers system) stripped lower can be built out later and be legal to own under the new law provided it is registered down the road as an ASW in the new registration system?

It's more like this:

1) Any firearm (by the new definition, including frames) that was lawfully posessed ON Aug 1,2024 by a licensed individual (LTC or FFL) SHALL NOT be considered a ASW; provided it is registered per 121B.
2) 121B outlines a future system with 1 year implementation and 1 year registration period.
[ Time machine to future ]
Was Receiver X lawfully posessed on Aug 1, 2024? Yes. Was Receiver X a firearm? Yes. Has it been registered per 121B (before 2 years)?: Not yet... Is it an ASW? No.

 

[Woodsloafer]

The registration system doesn't even exist yet I think people confuse the efa 10 as an actual registration when it not

It does state "Registration" on the "tab" you click to get to the electronic form.

 

[Jason Flare]

So damn confusing. Where does it say... or what is the logic... that says a currently possessed (on 8/1/2024) but unregistered (under old transfers system) stripped lower can be built out later and be legal to own under the new law provided it is registered down the road as an ASW in the new registration system?

The stripped lower becomes a firearm on 10/23. The state would have to prove you or a MA FFL did not possess it on 8/1.

 

[pastera]

how would it be possible to register a lower today before midnight with no serial number ? that was a home build for instance. asking for a friend

Since there is no registration requirement for the 8/1 exemption, why would you bother - it clearly states registration must occur in the to be completed 121b system
If you are referring to the copies and duplicates exemption in the definition, that ship sailed in 2016.

So you can continue to shit your pants or just live with rolling dirty until the courts clear things up.

 

[Drix]

The registration system doesn't even exist yet I think people confuse the efa 10 as an actual registration when it not

On the one hand, the efa10 system will provide a bit of documentation that you owned the lower prior to the cut off, on the other, your efa10 doesn't mean shit.

I bought a used gun who's prior owner was arrested on a non-violent charge, guns were not involved.

That gun was confiscated from me even though I had and provided copies of the efa10 to the police department showing that:

A) I owned the firearm
B) The transfer came out of a ffl inventory
C) The owners ltc was not revoked when the firearm was transferred to the ffl.

Basically the paperwork was only good to wipe my ass with. It wasn't proof of anything.

 

[pastera]

The registration system doesn't even exist yet I think people confuse the efa 10 as an actual registration when it not

Stop confusing 121b registration with the legislative intent registration of the copies and duplicates exemption
Yes, the transaction portal is a defacto registration as described by the exemption text and the legislature's summary.
We've all complained that the portal is a registry while knowing it's a poorly executed and extremely faulty one at at.

 

[sjohnston0311]

On the one hand, the efa10 system will provide a bit of documentation that you owned the lower prior to the cut off, on the other, your efa10 doesn't mean shit.

I bought a used gun who's prior owner was arrested on a non-violent charge, guns were not involved.

That gun was confiscated from me even though I had and provided copies of the efa10 to the police department showing that:

A) I owned the firearm
B) The transfer came out of a ffl inventory
C) The owners ltc was not revoked when the firearm was transferred to the ffl.

Basically the paperwork was only good to wipe my ass with. It wasn't proof of anything.

Wtf? Did you get it back? What was their reason for taking it?

 

[Drix]

Wtf? Did you get it back? What was their reason for taking it?

I had to engage a lawyer for a nominal fee.

The excuse was that the efa10 portal still showed the gun in the prior owners name- which is bullshit because:

A) I provided the copy of the efa10
B) The efa10 system is not a registration, it is a log of transfers.

 

[scott-o]

I had to engage a lawyer for a nominal fee.

The excuse was that the efa10 portal still showed the gun in the prior owners name- which is bullshit because:

A) I provided the copy of the efa10
B) The efa10 system is not a registration, it is a log of transfers.

Sounds like BS if they came to you, how is it in the other guys name they clearly have the transaction from other guy to you.

 

[Springfield_trapdoor]

Can't find the right efa10 category for these babies.

 

[Drix]

Sounds like BS if they came to you, how is it in the other guys name they clearly have the transaction from other guy to you.

Prior owner told the police which ffl he transferred the gun to, ffl told the police who they sold it to?

 

[rkjunior]

How are they proving something like an 80% was purchased before 8/1?

 

[chris_1001]

Prior owner told the police which ffl he transferred the gun to, ffl told the police who they sold it to?

WTF... if he proved he sold it, that should have been the end of it... That's messed up... Especially if it was not a possible crime gun...