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

[JDL]

I am corrected now and reeducated. Thank you

PappyM3 do you drive an M3? If you do I would like to thank you

 

[chris_1001]

None, ever?

The “for repair” language is boiler plate, littered through MGL.

Ok. Gonna open my own mag repair shop.

I have pre 8/1 magpul followers

I’ll replace yours for $99 ea.

Take that Larry.

 

[BigTimber]

There is no self defense in this state you will always be arrested and have the courts sort it out. If you want more information about a real world (Massachusetts) about this contact me.

Not true. Just last year in Stoughton a guy used his gun in a self defense shooting and had zero charges filed. Not in his home either.

 

[alan226]

Ok. Gonna open my own mag repair shop.

I have pre 8/1 magpul followers

I’ll replace yours for $99 ea.

Take that Larry.

Who's Larry?

 

[Marty McFly]

Hahhahahahaha

So which gun shops do magazine repair?

Larry won’t ship mag followers, so I guess I need a pro to upgrade a pre 1994 mag

Just ordered 5 more sets of 3 from PA. No issues. And on sale! f*** larry. He'll totally ditch us soon enough

 

[Marty McFly]

Who's Larry?

Larry Potterfield

 

[Darksideblues42]

Is Comm2A not a thing anymore? Figured they would be all over this.

Comm2A is all over this.

We work with individual plaintiffs, groups, shops, etc to take a targeted approach to these unconstitutional infringements.

Our philosophy is that we need to take these laws down one methodic bite at a time. To paraphrase a quote from a television series I enjoyed when I was younger and still do. We do what we do, "Not for millions, not for glory, not for fame, but for one person, in the dark, where no one will ever know or see."

Each individual victory moves the needle, and sometimes, that small victory is a seismic shift.

We tackled Morin, because one man was wronged by the state, and his case could change the landscape, and at every change of law has started his case from nearly square one. This is ongoing, because no one in the infernal machines of the Commonwealth wants him to get a fair shake at carrying a handgun, including trying to get his case dismissed because he hadn't exhausted every way to obtain a handgun, including having someone die and leave him one in their will.

We tackled Powell to put an end to the corrupt practices of PDs and in some cases individual officers profiting from bonded warehouse confiscations.

Nothing we do is without calculation and weighing of the risks versus the benefits. Nothing is too small, nothing too large, but bad cases set bad precedent. To avoid giving our legal opponents ways to gain advantage, cases need to be narrow in scope, because sometimes the smallest flaw is the most destructive.

 

[william_munny]

When I [hypothetically, Maura] carry my standard-cap mag in my Glock tomorrow?

I'm going to feel like a muthaf***in' gangsta, yo.

I don't think it will actually be illegal until it goes into effect in late October, so you're gonna have to wait until Halloween to cosplay as a felon.

 

[Picton]

I don't think it will actually be illegal until it goes into effect in late October, so you're gonna have to wait until Halloween to cosplay as a felon.

 

[JDL]

Not true. Just last year in Stoughton a guy used his gun in a self defense shooting and had zero charges filed. Not in his home either.

Yes occasionally this happens, however these ADA'S all seem to have a personal vendetta and want to make a case out of just about any self-defense situation. I wish they channeled more energy on the criminals doing real gun crimes. It seem like self-defense casses get them more notarity because they are rarer then the everyday street thug case.

 

[pro]

Not entirely true. They’re now no different than any pre-7/20 AR. Not a new lower bought today.

131m subsection C: 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 …

There is zero dispute about the pre-94 rifles being lawfully possessed even if you bought them after 7/20. Copies or duplicate language means nothing for pre-94 rifles bought post-7/20 because they were already exempt and clearly “lawful”.

We all know that post 7/20 ARs are lawfully possessed as well, but it’s clear this bill is trying to differentiate them and codify Healey’s declaration based on the date in the copy and duplicate language.

All that said, I don’t think anybody with a post-7/20 AR should be concerned with this bill.

Under the new law, ARs and their copycats are illegal ASW unless they were registered before 7/20. There is no special status for pre-94 in the new law. Now, let's say that you have bought a pre-94 AR from out of state after 7/20. There is no way that it could have been registered prior to 7/20, so this pre-94 AR has become a copycat of an ASW that is banned by name, and there is no carve out for it in the new law. This is the reason that @MAJoe is saying that those who bought pre-94 from out of state after 7/20 are in the same bucket as those that bought new post-7/20 AR lowers. Under the new law, they are ASWs that could not have been possessed lawfully on 8/1.

Now you may say that a pre-94 AR which was brought from out of state after 7/20 is lawfully possessed in MA on 8/1 under the current laws. And this is completely correct. However, the current laws will not exist from 10/23, and nobody will remember that there was a carve out for pre-94 in the old law. And even if they remember it, that carve out will not be in force after 10/23.

This is a very important topic that concerns a lot of name-banned pre-94 imports to MA after 7/20, and I have not seen any legal experts in this thread chime in on it. I hope that @CrackPot can see this post and provide a perspective.

 

[Agnotology]

We tackled Powell to put an end to the corrupt practices of PDs and in some cases individual officers profiting from bonded warehouse confiscations.
.

Sounds like Oey from Belchertown PD. They "destroyed" a confiscated glock but it's serial number has been transferred since, and from their dear official armorer too. How do we know? The glock was originally bought from Oey. One upside of that transfer leak.

same guy was told he had to pay $175 for the 3 guns that were in a bonded warehouse, and not one of the three were his guns. the calibers matched but not the guns themselves.

 

[PappyM3]

Under the new law, ARs and their copycats are illegal ASW unless they were registered before 7/20. There is no special status for pre-94 in the new law. Now, let's say that you have bought a pre-94 AR from out of state after 7/20. There is no way that it could have been registered prior to 7/20, so this pre-94 AR has become a copycat of an ASW that is banned by name, and there is no carve out for it in the new law. This is the reason that @MAJoe is saying that those who bought pre-94 from out of state after 7/20 are in the same bucket as those that bought new post-7/20 AR lowers. Under the new law, they are ASWs that could not have been possessed lawfully on 8/1.

Now you may say that a pre-94 AR which was brought from out of state after 7/20 is lawfully possessed in MA on 8/1 under the current laws. And this is completely correct. However, the current laws will not exist from 10/23, and nobody will remember that there was a carve out for pre-94 in the old law. And even if they remember it, that carve out will not be in force after 10/23.

This is a very important topic that concerns a lot of name-banned pre-94 imports to MA after 7/20, and I have not seen any legal experts in this thread chime in on it. I hope that @CrackPot can see this post and provide a perspective.

That’s not how I read it. The law only defines post 7/20 ARs as copy cats. But that definition will only go into effect on 10/23. The law cannot retroactively make something unlawful between 2016 and 2024.

What matters when you bought/possessed your ARs is that they were lawfully possessed in MA on 8/1. What matters there is CURRENT (pre-H4885) law. Was a pre-94 lawful to purchase and possess on 8/1? It most certainly was.

Was a feature compliant AR lawful to purchase and possess on 8/1? Yes due 18 years of state precedent and a further 4 years of federal precedent that was well known when the state legislature adopted it as their own. Oh, and the fact that text of MGL clearly contradicted her claims (e.g. receivers are firearms).

So, if you had an LTC and possessed (or a dealer possessed) a pre-94 AR, or a feature compliant post-94-ban AR in MA on 8/1, then they are grandfathered according to the new Section 131M. This includes any firearm that is now defined as an assault-type firearm.

While the new law cannot define what was lawful before it passed, it can use new definitions to set grandfathering. And because the new law defines “assault-type firearms” as including receivers, that means all stripped receivers possessed on 8/1 are now grandfathered.

So, yes, while expensive pre-94-ban ARs do not get any special treatment, they are still grandfathered of possessed on 8/1.

What matters now in a that any out-of-state AR has to stay out of state and pre-94 “prebans” that are not in the state now have zero additional value aside from what the national market will bear.

 

[mothybee]

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

Guess you didn't read it, page 112 line 1583, it's required now.

 

[Hardwired]

An extended family member who is a retired chief of police here in the Republic was asked by another family member about whether or not the FA-10 system could be employed to accurately report what firearms were in fact in the possession of a specific individual at any given point in time. He responded that it was his opinion that the system was in such a state of disarray that he believed any information about any firearms owned more than 10 years ago would be completely lost in the bureaucratic mists of time.

Having owned firearms of various types over the course of the last 48 years the question that arises in my mind is this:

All firearms were purchased using a FA-10 issued by a FFL dealer.
A very few of them were privately sold to individuals I personally knew who held valid LTCs using the IBM style punch card formats that were used to report the private sale to Boston back in those long ago days.
The vast majority of previously owned firearms were sold to or traded in to FFL dealers with a brick and mortar store.
The trade-ins/sold were entered on the dealers books but I would not have received any new FA-10 paper work to indicate my having transferred the firearms to the dealer.
At least 3 of the FFL dealers that I can recall having done business with are no longer in business these days so all of their records are supposed to be in the possession of the ATF.

So.....should we fail to succeed in fighting this blatant infringement of our Constitutional Civil Rights in the judicial system and that failure results in the Republic some time in the future actually confronting gun owners pursuant to what firearms they own my response will be simple.....let me get this straight.....you are asking an old man who has difficulty in remembering what he had for dinner the previous night...... what guns he has owned over the course of the last 48 years .....do I understand this request correctly??

Should that unfortunate situation come to fruition I would anticipate a certain degree of entertainment value in such a meeting.

Yeah the authorities would not charge an "elderly man with a poor memory". Oh never mind, sorry your last name is not Bidumb.

The database is inaccurate, I don’t see a couple I have printouts for in the leaked data. Same with others. Had a Repube rep all gung ho to increase punishment until I set them
straight on errors with missing and lost/damaged records by the state. Paper entries and a kluge Win98 joke of a system. And the criminals don’t buy from FFLs or file anything

 

[Broc Tuah]

Not according to the GOAL FAQ:

SECTION 71. Assault Style Firearm

• August 1, 2024 Assault Style Firearms and Large Capacity Feeding Devices - bans: possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth that was not lawfully possessed in the state prior to August 2, 2024.

I assume GOAL knows what the f*ck it is talking about.

Is my assumption wrong?

Or is the correct interpretation that nothing has changed as to transfers between individuals within the State--it is only stopping importation into the State from outside the State?

Source material LINK: H4885 Sumary by Subject Matter

They can sometimes be wrong.

Example: their video on flying with guns recommends using TSA locks. TSA locks should never be used to lock guns when flying.

 

[Harry Christopher]

Yeah the authorities would not charge an "elderly man with a poor memory". Oh never mind, sorry your last name is not Bidumb.

The database is inaccurate, I don’t see a couple I have printouts for in the leaked data. Same with others. Had a Repube rep all gung ho to increase punishment until I set them
straight on errors with missing and lost/damaged records by the state. Paper entries and a kluge Win98 joke of a system. And the criminals don’t buy from FFLs or file anything

Here is a novel idea. Instead of writing a 116 page new gun control legislation in an attempt to pander to their woke supporters......how about enforcing the gun laws that are already on the books......you know.......against the criminals??

Nah....that is too radical an idea even for this Democratic Socialist Republic to even consider.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Here is a novel idea. Instead of writing a 116 page new gun control legislation in an attempt to pander to their woke supporters......how about enforcing the gun laws that are already on the books......you know.......against the criminals??

Nah....that is too radical an idea even for this Democratic Socialist Republic to even consider.

You fail to understand how politics work when dealing with uneducated voters.

 

[Harry Christopher]

You fail to understand how politics work when dealing with uneducated voters.

It would not be too far a stretch to think that In an earlier age both these uneducated voters and the politicians who they support would in all likelihood have not survived infancy.

 

[Yummy_SPAM]

I'm interested to see what FFLs (and individuals) will be selling today if they had leftover semi rifle stock. Classified listings look bare today.

 

[pastera]

It would not be too far a stretch to think that In an earlier age both these uneducated voters and the politicians who they support would in all likelihood have not have survived infancy.

Too many today have never had their opinions mechanically manipulated when their mouth wrote a bad check.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Yeah the authorities would not charge an "elderly man with a poor memory". Oh never mind, sorry your last name is not Bidumb.

The database is inaccurate, I don’t see a couple I have printouts for in the leaked data. Same with others. Had a Repube rep all gung ho to increase punishment until I set them
straight on errors with missing and lost/damaged records by the state. Paper entries and a kluge Win98 joke of a system. And the criminals don’t buy from FFLs or file anything

Criminals have a 5th amendment protection that precludes them from having to register.

United States vs Hayes

United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009)

United States v. Hayes

supreme.justia.com

 

[Hardwired]

Under the new law, ARs and their copycats are illegal ASW unless they were registered before 7/20. There is no special status for pre-94 in the new law. Now, let's say that you have bought a pre-94 AR from out of state after 7/20. There is no way that it could have been registered prior to 7/20, so this pre-94 AR has become a copycat of an ASW that is banned by name, and there is no carve out for it in the new law. This is the reason that @MAJoe is saying that those who bought pre-94 from out of state after 7/20 are in the same bucket as those that bought new post-7/20 AR lowers. Under the new law, they are ASWs that could not have been possessed lawfully on 8/1.

Now you may say that a pre-94 AR which was brought from out of state after 7/20 is lawfully possessed in MA on 8/1 under the current laws. And this is completely correct. However, the current laws will not exist from 10/23, and nobody will remember that there was a carve out for pre-94 in the old law. And even if they remember it, that carve out will not be in force after 10/23.

This is a very important topic that concerns a lot of name-banned pre-94 imports to MA after 7/20, and I have not seen any legal experts in this thread chime in on it. I hope that @CrackPot can see this post and provide a perspective.

 

[pastera]

Under the new law, ARs and their copycats are illegal ASW unless they were registered before 7/20. There is no special status for pre-94 in the new law. Now, let's say that you have bought a pre-94 AR from out of state after 7/20. There is no way that it could have been registered prior to 7/20, so this pre-94 AR has become a copycat of an ASW that is banned by name, and there is no carve out for it in the new law. This is the reason that @MAJoe is saying that those who bought pre-94 from out of state after 7/20 are in the same bucket as those that bought new post-7/20 AR lowers. Under the new law, they are ASWs that could not have been possessed lawfully on 8/1.

Now you may say that a pre-94 AR which was brought from out of state after 7/20 is lawfully possessed in MA on 8/1 under the current laws. And this is completely correct. However, the current laws will not exist from 10/23, and nobody will remember that there was a carve out for pre-94 in the old law. And even if they remember it, that carve out will not be in force after 10/23.

This is a very important topic that concerns a lot of name-banned pre-94 imports to MA after 7/20, and I have not seen any legal experts in this thread chime in on it. I hope that @CrackPot can see this post and provide a perspective.

There is ZERO ambiguity as to the legality of a pre 13 Sept 1994 firearm of any type.
The current law blanket excludes them therefore they are legally possessed - if they were in the state on 8/1 then they are exempt. Period, end of sentence.

 

[Rockrivr1]

There is ZERO ambiguity as to the legality of a pre 13 Sept 1994 firearm of any type.
The current law blanket excludes them therefore they are legally possessed - if they were in the state on 8/1 then they are exempt. Period, end of sentence.

The real question is how long does it take before certain NES members start posting "now banned" guns in the Classified for significant rapey prices?

 

[pastera]

The real question is how long does it take before certain NES members start posting "now banned" guns in the Classified for significant rapey prices?

Certain members have been doing that ever since the 2016 declaration - its just going to magnify now

We need neg reps to come back...

 

[Da_lucche]

Man there are at least 1 or 2 ways a desperate MA resident could still get their hands on ASW after Aug 1 from out of state. Just have to be willing to go to the dark side ... In Minecraft obviously lolol

 

[mothybee]

I've noticed one funny tendency: the degree of pantshitting is almost 100% age related. Strictly my observations:
early-mid 20ies probably have to wear daipers now
late 20ies-mid/late 30ies cautious, confused and don't know how to proceed. Keeping roll of TP nearby just in case
Late 30ies-mid 40ies kinda "fok it" group of people
50ies up... ZERO Fks given

At my age a speeding ticket could be a life sentence, screw it.

 

[BMX]

Who's Larry?

No followers for MA….

 

[Harry Christopher]

Too many today have never had their opinions mechanically manipulated when their mouth wrote a bad check.

It is my fervent hope that what I fully expect to become a tsunami of litigational challenges will in and of themselves help to correct that oversight.