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

[pastera]

While I agree with you I think you are being overly optimistic. These cases are not making it to the SC for a least a year or more. Enough time as to cause damage to the gun community and FFLs before anything happens.

I have been exceedingly clear that the time for a Mass case to SCOTUS is three years in a best case scenario.
However, I was also very clear that I wasn't relying on a Mass case to make it to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS Sends Seven Gun Control Challenge Cases to its May 16th Conference for Consideration

In a move with potential national implications, the US Supreme Court has assigned seven gun ban-related cases to a May 16, 2024 conference for review. The cases, six from Illinois and the Bianchi case…

www.shootingnewsweekly.com

I have pointed out repeatedly that the 7th and 4th are in a race to SCOTUS and at least one should reach the court next session. One, or both as a consolidated case, will very likely be heard next spring. I doubt both the 4th and the 7th will be able to slow roll these already GVR'd cases for another year.

Will that shorter delay cause problems for FFLs, of course it will. Unfortunately that's a feature not a bug from the new law. And there isn't much we can do here in the 1st circuit since the Supreme Court has made it clear they will not take a firearms case on interlocutory appeal.

 

[2/1Marine]

Agencies such as the Attorney General's Office, say?

Maybe a series of queries arriving regularly from people seeking information would be a good clue that they should, I dunno, get of their asses and write an "explainer" or two?

They won't, though. They don't understand this bullshit any better than we do.

It's quite the non answer. At least they acknowledged I exist. I'm probably on the naughty lists now lol

 

[Picton]

It's quite the non answer. At least they acknowledged I exist. I'm probably on the naughty lists now lol

I'd NEVER have bothered asking, but that's me.

If they come arrest you, make sure you have the following message ready to post in a new thread as they batter your door down:

JADE HELM!
JOHN HAS A LONG MUSTACHE!
MAURA HAS SHOT THE BASKETBALL!
REPTILE HAS SOLD A NOVESKE!

We'll know what all that means, and we'll take it from there. Don't worry. As you sit rotting in the hoosegow, know that NES' Meal Team Six and Stud Clubs will both be meeting in executive session to avenge you.

 

[pastera]

I wouldn’t call it defeatism. More like realist. Basically if you look at the layers this will need to go through before it hits the SC I would suspect it’ll be longer than a few months. Say a month or two before it hits the first circuit and the wait for the decision. The inevitable appeal by either side and the time that will take and then the process to get the SC to accept the case. The SC will maybe hear the case and most likely will not rule on it until after the legislative session which I believe is June. That is only if the SC will hear the case. The NJ AR ruling will most definitely be in line as well.

Look I hope I’m wrong and just maybe the court will order a stay as it works through the system. Best case scenario is June before a decision is made.

Again I hope I’m wrong and it goes quicker.

Your logic here is sound - the district courts in the 1st will do everything in their power to stall and delay in order to inflict as much pain both legal and financial.
That is why I have stated we should not go for injunctions (except the training delays) since those will almost certainly be denied and therefore only serve to add cost and delay.
We need to lose fast in the lower courts in order to get to SCOTUS on our own - or to have in hand a SCOTUS opinion on appeal that the court must answer directly instead of being open to a free twist of random logic.

 

[MaroonedinMA]

We'll know what all that means, and we'll take it from there. Don't worry. As you sit rotting in the hoosegow, know that NES' Meal Team Six and Stud Clubs will both be meeting in executive session to avenge you.

Whoa there, I have my bridge club on Thursdays...can we look at November?

 

[Harry Christopher]

Let no one say that FPC lacks a well developed sense of humor.

 

[DJBrad]

Whoa there, I have my bridge club on Thursdays...can we look at November?

I just joined a bocci league. Gonna have to wait til first snow.

 

[pewpewpew]

Let no one say that FPC lacks a well developed sense of humor.

View attachment 906042

Actually laughed out loud at that.

That is AMAZING.

 

[pastera]

Ok. So apparently I am a felon. I did what I thought the State asked me to do--with my lawfully-owned property.

Now it is the State's move.

Ask me if I am afraid.

The state did not ask you to fa-10 by 8/1
The 8/1 exemption is lawful possession with a future registration.

If you truly believe the state then you would also believe that any copy or duplicate, which an AR definitely is, was only exempt if fa-10'd pre 7/20/2016.

And complying with unlawful and tyrannical dictates is furthering that same tyrannical reign.

 

[pastera]

This is a 'brewsters millions' situation. Since many of us don't want to give up our privacy, someone who is already publicly committed could run for office as an independent for the House of Rep seat. Filing deadline is 8/27 or so and only 2000 signatures are needed. By doing so they might get some media air time and explain how the many inadequacies of this law, and what it will cost the people of the commonwealth in their wasted tax dollars (want really matters to them). In any case, newspaper ads could print those arguments under the guise of a platform, without ever really expecting to win.
I don't want to out myself in my neighborhood but will contribute to a campaign or publicity fund.

I would have no problem "outing myself" but I have had most of my neighbors shooting in my yard.

However I'm limited by the hatch act to only non-partizen positions.

 

[Harry Christopher]

 

[freddieMA]

I have been exceedingly clear that the time for a Mass case to SCOTUS is three years in a best case scenario.
However, I was also very clear that I wasn't relying on a Mass case to make it to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS Sends Seven Gun Control Challenge Cases to its May 16th Conference for Consideration

In a move with potential national implications, the US Supreme Court has assigned seven gun ban-related cases to a May 16, 2024 conference for review. The cases, six from Illinois and the Bianchi case…

www.shootingnewsweekly.com

I have pointed out repeatedly that the 7th and 4th are in a race to SCOTUS and at least one should reach the court next session. One, or both as a consolidated case, will very likely be heard next spring. I doubt both the 4th and the 7th will be able to slow roll these already GVR'd cases for another year.

Will that shorter delay cause problems for FFLs, of course it will. Unfortunately that's a feature not a bug from the new law. And there isn't much we can do here in the 1st circuit since the Supreme Court has made it clear they will not take a firearms case on interlocutory appeal.

i can't remember the case, but very recently some more conservative judge in dissent in the 9th spit fire at SCOTUS, saying they'd like to be able to apply 2a law, but SCOTUS is enabling this tennis game.

let's see what happens after november.

 

[Harry Christopher]

This is apparently the context behind the FPC letter that I posted above:

 

[alan226]

I asked the AG for some clarification on the dates in the bill and the grandfathering provision. Recieved a response today.

"Thank you for reaching out to the community engagement division. Unfortunately, we cannot give legal advice on individual circumstances, but the new bill specifically exempts assault-style firearms lawfully possessed as of August 1, 2024. It would be expected that there will be a number of explainers coming out from various agencies before the law takes effect on October 23."

Can u post the actual letter, minus your name, so we can make a copy for our records?

 

[MGnoob]

As far as I’m concerned, it’s business as usual if you’re having problems you’re dealing with the wrong people

 

[MGnoob]

View attachment 906081
As far as I’m concerned, it’s business as usual if you’re having problems you’re dealing with the wrong people

Quoting yourself is never very classy.. no one‘s ever accuse me of being a classy.

What just occurred to me was but I bought this gun. It’s been fired, whatever it’s a full auto uzi. I don’t know how much I’ve shot it but I’m guessing a lot I never considered how much it was shot before I got it. These new springs look f***ing fantastic $14 apiece “used” Imi manufacturer. by used they must’ve been in a gun at one point. the one that I’m taking out is all f***ed up. That must last like a couple hundred thousand rounds if I had to guess I must have somewhere between 30 and 50,000 rounds on it since I bought it so 14 bucks great deal..

But don’t worry make sure you FA-10 all your shit

 

[71montess]

View attachment 906081
As far as I’m concerned, it’s business as usual if you’re having problems you’re dealing with the wrong people

Are those for loading your staple gun ?

 

[MGnoob]

Are those for loading your staple gun ?

It’s actually a recoil spring for a sybian that I bought from @Reptile. It was used and so filthy probably used for anal sex.
<pic deleted>

But just like the SYBIAN.., it’s delivered to your doorstep no signature required?

 

[drgrant]

No cocks pls.

 

[MGnoob]

I got moderated!

 

[dukeofsoul]

Are those for loading your staple gun ?

 

[drgrant]

I got moderated!

Japanese literally put

"arm in muh bread!"
"arm in muh bread!!!!"

 

[DJBrad]

No cocks pls.

“Last edited by a moderator”

 

[Picton]

No cocks pls.

You're not the boss of me.

 

[MGnoob]

Japanese literally put

"arm in muh bread!"
"arm in muh bread!!!!"

View attachment 906089

That’s more disturbing than the photo I posted. Especially the black one.

Put your whole Arm in my bread YouTube - Google Search

 

[2/1Marine]

Can u post the actual letter, minus your name, so we can make a copy for our records?

@alan226 whose records? I sent an email not a letter. The email has a decent amount of identifiable information in it where I don't think I'd want to post it on a forum. A summarized version would be as follows:

I purchased, built out, and registered 2 lower receivers (now firearms) through a MA federal firearms dealer that complied with the current MGL pertaining to assault weapons post 7-20-2016. Are these items legally grandfathered in on the 8-1-24 date? When reading through the bill I have a hard time understanding if the 2 specific rifles I own today will be made retroactively illegal and in effect turn me into a felon with the passage of this bill. In 2016 the AG issued an enforcement notice that looks to be incorporated into the bill that was passed. Back in 2016 this notice was issued but it was never codified into the MGL nor was the definition of an assault weapon changed in MGL at that time. Since that time I know many individuals that have purchased rifles through legal means in the state of MA from authorized dealers and registered those rifles as required by law. Reading the bill, it appears to take the AGs enforcement notice and incorporate it into the statute retroactive to July 20, 2016. This would appear to make any rifle that does not comply with the AG enforcement notice purchased or built between July 20, 2016 and August 1, 2024 illegal and possession of such rifle a felony. There is language in the bill about an August 1st registration grandfathering date but the language regarding this 2016 stuff seems to contradict that….

Will the legislature or AG’s office issue guidance on how to navigate this?

 

[pastera]

I, for one, do not believe goal. I think they have serious misunderstandings of the law.

GOAL is taking a very pessimistic view of the law
That way when before the court the state has to admit one of the following

1 - copies and duplicates were always dangerous and unusual therefore illegal but they allowed them to be sold for 30 years

2 - copies and duplicates produced and owned for 1994 through 2016 are fine but those 2016 forward are dangerous and unusual. Which they also allowed to be sold for the last eight years.
Further they have no evidence that the now banned arms are actually any more dangerous than any other clad of arms.

The state can either admit goal is right and get smacked down
Or admit that all assault-style firearms are exempt but then we are back to the question of why are they exempt if they are so dangerous and unusual that they must, and can, be banned going forward.

 

[drgrant]

@alan226 whose records? I sent an email not a letter. The email has a decent amount of identifiable information in it where I don't think I'd want to post it on a forum. A summarized version would be as follows:

I purchased, built out, and registered 2 lower receivers (now firearms) through a MA federal firearms dealer that complied with the current MGL pertaining to assault weapons post 7-20-2016. Are these items legally grandfathered in on the 8-1-24 date? When reading through the bill I have a hard time understanding if the 2 specific rifles I own today will be made retroactively illegal and in effect turn me into a felon with the passage of this bill. In 2016 the AG issued an enforcement notice that looks to be incorporated into the bill that was passed. Back in 2016 this notice was issued but it was never codified into the MGL nor was the definition of an assault weapon changed in MGL at that time. Since that time I know many individuals that have purchased rifles through legal means in the state of MA from authorized dealers and registered those rifles as required by law. Reading the bill, it appears to take the AGs enforcement notice and incorporate it into the statute retroactive to July 20, 2016. This would appear to make any rifle that does not comply with the AG enforcement notice purchased or built between July 20, 2016 and August 1, 2024 illegal and possession of such rifle a felony. There is language in the bill about an August 1st registration grandfathering date but the language regarding this 2016 stuff seems to contradict that….

Will the legislature or AG’s office issue guidance on how to navigate this?

No

Honestly you're better off thinking for yourself based on what sounds the most reasonable to you. Everything else is a crapshoot.

Honestly IMHO anything you lawfully owned in MA on 8/1 is good to go. Anything else about 7/20 etc is just a distraction. But guida and the pant shitter club likely has their own interpretations on this pile of waste law.

Asking the state for clarity btw in mass generally doesn't result in clarity.

 

[2/1Marine]

No

Honestly you're better off thinking for yourself based on what sounds the most reasonable to you. Everything else is a crapshoot.

Honestly IMHO anything you lawfully owned in MA on 8/1 is good to go. Anything else about 7/20 etc is just a distraction. But guida and the pant shitter club likely has their own interpretations on this pile of waste law.

Asking the state for clarity btw in mass generally doesn't result in clarity.

Agree 100% I just figured I'd give it a shot and see what I got back in return. Much like you said, I got 0 clarification. FWIW I'm onboard with everything I currently own being legal and lawful. It just sucks that we are going to need to wait years for this to work it's way though the courts.

 

[PappyM3]

@alan226 whose records? I sent an email not a letter. The email has a decent amount of identifiable information in it where I don't think I'd want to post it on a forum. A summarized version would be as follows:

I purchased, built out, and registered 2 lower receivers (now firearms) through a MA federal firearms dealer that complied with the current MGL pertaining to assault weapons post 7-20-2016. Are these items legally grandfathered in on the 8-1-24 date? When reading through the bill I have a hard time understanding if the 2 specific rifles I own today will be made retroactively illegal and in effect turn me into a felon with the passage of this bill. In 2016 the AG issued an enforcement notice that looks to be incorporated into the bill that was passed. Back in 2016 this notice was issued but it was never codified into the MGL nor was the definition of an assault weapon changed in MGL at that time. Since that time I know many individuals that have purchased rifles through legal means in the state of MA from authorized dealers and registered those rifles as required by law. Reading the bill, it appears to take the AGs enforcement notice and incorporate it into the statute retroactive to July 20, 2016. This would appear to make any rifle that does not comply with the AG enforcement notice purchased or built between July 20, 2016 and August 1, 2024 illegal and possession of such rifle a felony. There is language in the bill about an August 1st registration grandfathering date but the language regarding this 2016 stuff seems to contradict that….

Will the legislature or AG’s office issue guidance on how to navigate this?

The AG’s office is not going to give you appropriate information. Hell, they already have issued claims that are in direct contravention of VERY clear and explicit MGL text. The AG’s office is full of politicians, not people in pursuit of anything else.