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

Where did Healey touch you? “ come on man.” “I’m serious.” “Something about popcorn”
“ I was arrested with Nelson Mandela”

“ I grew up in a Puerto Rican community/black community/wherever I’m standing at the moment.. come on man I’m your next president
You’re not black unless you vote for me and Obama has AIDS and gay


We got some real leaders on our hands here
 
souper said:
No one understands, it’s all speculation. I’d say the majority opinion is that all ARs will be legal to possess if registered prior to 8/2/2024. Time will tell if that is the correct interpretation… or likely never.
Click to expand...
Can you cite actual 2a attorneys that have made that statement?
Other the Guida, who disagrees with your position.
If the opinions your talking about are gun dealers and the like, then don't call it a majority.

This thing is a heaping pile of of conflicting and ambiguous excrement so no one will know exactly what it means until a Massachusetts court tells you it means all gun owner are evil and need to be jailed
 
pastera said:
Can you cite actual 2a attorneys that have made that statement?
Other the Guida, who disagrees with your position.
If the opinions your talking about are gun dealers and the like, then don't call it a majority.

This thing is a heaping pile of of conflicting and ambiguous excrement so no one will know exactly what it means until a Massachusetts court tells you it means all gun owner are evil and need to be jailed
Click to expand...
I truly believe no one will have any idea what is actually going to happen until the law becomes effective and MA courts apply it and this is alot of speculation from everyone until then. Everyone needs to asses their own situation and risk tolerance. That being said, I really have a tough time wrapping my head the 7/20/16 date being consequential in anyway. The only place it appears in the entire document is in section 16 of the document which is the replacement for the current section 121 which mostly deals with defining what an assault weapon is currently. In the new document it lists the five new definitions of assault weapons as parts A-E. Part F of the new document provides what I would see as their interpretation of what actually classifies a "clone or duplicate" by spelling out interchangeable parts, receivers and ect. The current/original law lacks this definition of what a copy/duplicate actually is in anyway. The next line after that is "provided further, that the firearm 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. This to me only states that they would not consider a firearm registered prior to 7/20/16 a copy or duplicate ever. It is only in reference of copies or duplicates imo. Section 131M, which currently spells out the penalties when not lawfully possessing an assault weapon prior to 9/13/94, is replaced in the new law with amended 131M states only that any lawfully possessed assault weapon on 8/1/2024 is not subject to penalties "grandfathering" it. It does not make any further reference to 7/20/16, and that would fall into the Ex-Post-Facto issue if tried to retroactively enact it. The truth is their have been zero prosecutions, action by ATF/PD/AG/Governor or any other regulatory/enforcement body. 7/20/16 was never codified into law prior to this and would I imagine have very little to zero legal standing in a court of law. The only thing I see is they are never copies or duplicates of assault weapons and the again imo the much more important penalties and enforcement part of the law states nothing legally possessed prior to 8/1/24 is an issue. Could you make an argument that post 7/16 weapons were not legally owned? Possibly, but again the "ruling" was never codified into any state laws and this would be an ex post facto implementation at this point.

​

 
drgrant said:
There's plenty of "reasons" to repair a rifle. [rofl] Whether its legal or not and whether someone is comfortable with that or not is a whole other story.
Click to expand...
More so meaning, if doing so would give “special status” to a current rifle in how it could be legally configured after 8/1.
 
souper said:
No one understands, it’s all speculation. I’d say the majority opinion is that all ARs will be legal to possess if registered prior to 8/2/2024. Time will tell if that is the correct interpretation… or likely never.
Click to expand...
This registration you mention, is that the FA10?
 
pastera said:
Can you cite actual 2a attorneys that have made that statement?
Other the Guida, who disagrees with your position.
If the opinions your talking about are gun dealers and the like, then don't call it a majority.

This thing is a heaping pile of of conflicting and ambiguous excrement so no one will know exactly what it means until a Massachusetts court tells you it means all gun owner are evil and need to be jailed
Click to expand...
Another opinion:
www.northeastshooters.com

MA Gun Grab 2024: H.4885 - Passed legislature, headed to the governor

Is that exemption codified in the new bill (not law yet)? Is it .22's, or "rimfire"? What about .17 WSM, like the Jard rifles? I think it only says 22 rimfire, which is asinine given the other rimfires that exist and are common.
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
 
drosie said:
. Everyone needs to asses their own situation and risk tolerance. That being said, I really have a tough time wrapping my head the 7/20/16 date being consequential in anyway. The only place it appears in the entire document is in section 16 of the document which is the replacement for the current section 121 which mostly deals with defining what an assault weapon is currently. In the new document it lists the five new definitions of assault weapons as parts A-E. Part F of the new document provides what I would see as their interpretation of what actually classifies a "clone or duplicate" by spelling out interchangeable parts, receivers and ect. The current/original law lacks this definition of what a copy/duplicate actually is in anyway. The next line after that is "provided further, that the firearm 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. This to me only states that they would not consider a firearm registered prior to 7/20/16 a copy or duplicate ever. It is only in reference of copies or duplicates imo. Section 131M, which currently spells out the penalties when not lawfully possessing an assault weapon prior to 9/13/94, is replaced in the new law with amended 131M states only that any lawfully possessed assault weapon on 8/1/2024 is not subject to penalties "grandfathering" it. It does not make any further reference to 7/20/16, and that would fall into the Ex-Post-Facto issue if tried to retroactively enact it. The truth is their have been zero prosecutions, action by ATF/PD/AG/Governor or any other regulatory/enforcement body. 7/20/16 was never codified into law prior to this and would I imagine have very little to zero legal standing in a court of law. The only thing I see is they are never copies or duplicates of assault weapons and the again imo the much more important penalties and enforcement part of the law states nothing legally possessed prior to 8/1/24 is an issue. Could you make an argument that post 7/16 weapons were not legally owned? Possibly, but again the "ruling" was never codified into any state laws and this would be an ex post facto implementation at this point.

​

Click to expand...
You responded to my post asking for a cite of a 2a attorney that supports the idea that the 8/1/24 date supercedes the specific exemption date in the definition with what you feel based on your inability to grasp the consequence of the 7/20/16 date.
We have an opinion from a prominent attorney well versed in exactly this section of law - that opinion might be too conservative for our liking but is one that has the best chance of keeping people out of trouble.

The answer is that we don't 100% know however we can look to at least one highly instructive document for help, the Supreme Court's "Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation"
There we find rule 3: Every word within a statute is there for a purpose and should be given its due significance.
Followed by rule 4 which covers legislative intent.

Since we already know the legislative intent because they plainly have it to us in the summary then applying it to the text in light of rule 3 results in an interpretation the same or close to what Attorney Guida has given us.

Anything else is pure hopium until and unless SCOTUS takes on an assault weapons case and strikes down all of these restrictions.
 
drosie said:
I truly believe no one will have any idea what is actually going to happen until the law becomes effective and MA courts apply it and this is alot of speculation from everyone until then. Everyone needs to asses their own situation and risk tolerance. That being said, I really have a tough time wrapping my head the 7/20/16 date being consequential in anyway. The only place it appears in the entire document is in section 16 of the document which is the replacement for the current section 121 which mostly deals with defining what an assault weapon is currently. In the new document it lists the five new definitions of assault weapons as parts A-E. Part F of the new document provides what I would see as their interpretation of what actually classifies a "clone or duplicate" by spelling out interchangeable parts, receivers and ect. The current/original law lacks this definition of what a copy/duplicate actually is in anyway. The next line after that is "provided further, that the firearm 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. This to me only states that they would not consider a firearm registered prior to 7/20/16 a copy or duplicate ever. It is only in reference of copies or duplicates imo. Section 131M, which currently spells out the penalties when not lawfully possessing an assault weapon prior to 9/13/94, is replaced in the new law with amended 131M states only that any lawfully possessed assault weapon on 8/1/2024 is not subject to penalties "grandfathering" it. It does not make any further reference to 7/20/16, and that would fall into the Ex-Post-Facto issue if tried to retroactively enact it. The truth is their have been zero prosecutions, action by ATF/PD/AG/Governor or any other regulatory/enforcement body. 7/20/16 was never codified into law prior to this and would I imagine have very little to zero legal standing in a court of law. The only thing I see is they are never copies or duplicates of assault weapons and the again imo the much more important penalties and enforcement part of the law states nothing legally possessed prior to 8/1/24 is an issue. Could you make an argument that post 7/16 weapons were not legally owned? Possibly, but again the "ruling" was never codified into any state laws and this would be an ex post facto implementation at this point.

​

Click to expand...
It would only be ex post facto if they went after someone who had a post 7/20 AR who did not continue possession after this law went into effect.
 
MAJoe said:
Another opinion:
www.northeastshooters.com

MA Gun Grab 2024: H.4885 - Passed legislature, headed to the governor

Is that exemption codified in the new bill (not law yet)? Is it .22's, or "rimfire"? What about .17 WSM, like the Jard rifles? I think it only says 22 rimfire, which is asinine given the other rimfires that exist and are common.
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
Click to expand...

I agree with @nstassel - we are highly unlikely to see primary charge prosecutions for pre 8/1.
This isn't indicative of what is truly prohibited within the bill but rather indicates they know it's a house of cards only intended to cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
 
pastera said:
I agree with @nstassel - we are highly unlikely to see primary charge prosecutions for pre 8/1.
This isn't indicative of what is truly prohibited within the bill but rather indicates they know it's a house of cards only intended to cause Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Click to expand...
Aka......"The Sword of Damocles".........in reverse......as it's held over the heads of the ruled rather than the ruler/s.
 
pastera said:
Can you cite actual 2a attorneys that have made that statement?
Other the Guida, who disagrees with your position.
If the opinions your talking about are gun dealers and the like, then don't call it a majority.

This thing is a heaping pile of of conflicting and ambiguous excrement so no one will know exactly what it means until a Massachusetts court tells you it means all gun owner are evil and need to be jailed
Click to expand...

One attorney’s opinion is not enough to convince me one way or another, and based on everything that I’ve been reading over the past week my feeling is that most people disagree with Guida’s take.

You have repeatedly stated that post 2016 rifles will become illegal to possess. Yet that is your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions..

I think there’s a decent chance Guida is right but it seems irrational and pessimistic.
 
Last edited:
souper said:
One attorney’s opinion is not enough to convince me one way or another, and based on everything that I’ve been reading over the past week my feeling is that most people disagree with Guida’s take.

You have repeatedly stated that post 2016 rifles will become illegal to possess. Yet that is your opinion, and you know they say about opinions..

I think there’s a decent chance Guida will be right but it seems irrational and pessimistic. Hope I’m right.
Click to expand...
Did you read the Supreme Court's rules of statutory construction and interpretation?
Apply that to your interpretation and discuss why the Supreme Court's own process does not apply here.
 
souper said:
I don’t think this ever goes to court so that seems like a moot point. This will always remain ambiguous so interpret the law as you see fit and live life accordingly.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is that we have a MA AG (Andrea) who is pretty much incapable of explaining anything about the new anti-gunowner law. Her interests are elsewhere. I think we'll be waiting a long time for some AG's office junior staff member to put out an FAQ which, like under old law and Maura's fake law, will have to stand as what the AG's office thinks the new law really means. 🤔
 
EJFudd said:
The sad thing is that we have a MA AG (Andrea) who is pretty much incapable of explaining anything about the new anti-gunowner law. Her interests are elsewhere. I think we'll be waiting a long time for some AG's office junior staff member to put out an FAQ which, like under old law and Maura's fake law, will have to stand as what the AG's office thinks the new law really means. 🤔
Click to expand...
That's a feature not a bug
 
My perspective

It’s amazingly simple on the grandfathering. I honestly am baffled why people are confused.



First, is the object an ASW: Under the new law pre Healey are not copies or duplicates of ASWs so are evaluated solely on features under the new law to determine if they are ASWs. This is important. All the 2016 language in the new law does is exempt pre Healey from being copies or duplicates. That is the totality of what it does. It even has two flaws saying they have to be “registered” and that it’s before 7/20;2016. Since MA does not as of 2016 have registration, just recorded transfers, AND the system is fundamentally incomplete and flawed, this is a problem. But let’s pretend this is ok and a fa10 means registered. All the language does is exempt from copy or duplicate. You still have to evaluate based on features. Also the pre Healey language only covers the person who bought it and owned and registered it before 7/20/16. Worth noting that a lot of people bought ON 7/20/2016 and this does not help them. But in practice this language is useless since all the guns fail the feature test under the new law.

Post Healey are copies or duplicates so therefore most are now ASWs based on the feature test and being copies or duplicates. That barrel shroud language wipes everything out.

Second, is it lawfull for you to possess. If it’s not an ASW, yes. If it is an ASW, was it lawfully possessed on 8/1/24. If it was lawfully possessed on 8/1/24 then it continues to be lawful to possess.

That is what the law says. There is no ex post facto anything going on. Nothing is retroactive or changes what WAS legal or not. It’s not hard to understand what the law says and means about ASWs.

Now the practical.

But we still have a couple challenges. If the law takes effect before 8/1, then NOTHING is grandfathered and everything gets evaluated based on the new law. That causes a huge constitutional problem as a taking. But because of the new ASW definition for rifles with the barrel shroud feature, most are toast.

If the law takes effect after 8/1 you can still buy stuff but it won’t be grandfathered is a concern. BUT if the dealer lawfully possessed on 8/1 then it meets the grandfather criteria. It does not say you, just that it was lawfully possessed ON 8/1 by LTC holder or state dealer.

The final issue is about right now. Are post Healey ARs lawful to possess right now. If no, then still no. If yes, then yes after new law. The argument about Healey is not that it was written into the new law, but whether the 2016 press conference meant something. People who say post Healey BECOME illegal under the new law are wrong. Post Healey are only illegal under the new law if they are already illegal.

This is not that hard. We are seeing a lot of people with logic failure and/or confirmation bias. A number of GOAL lawyers believe post Healey are already illegal so they come up with arguments that new law codifies this. It does not. It just exempts pre Healey as not a copy or duplicate.

All the new law language about pre Healey is a total ho-hum. It just makes some guns extra legal. It changes nothing. Because of before 7/20/2016 and the new criteria for features, it just doesn’t matter. Everyone relies on the 8/1 lawfully possessed language.

So bottom line, if post Healey are illegal now, they remain illegal. If they are legal now based on features, they remain legal.
 
CrackPot said:
My perspective

It’s amazingly simple on the grandfathering. I honestly am baffled why people are confused.



First, is the object an ASW: Under the new law pre Healey are not copies or duplicates of ASWs so are evaluated solely on features under the new law to determine if they are ASWs. This is important. All the 2016 language in the new law does is exempt pre Healey from being copies or duplicates. That is the totality of what it does. It even has two flaws saying they have to be “registered” and that it’s before 7/20;2016. Since MA does not as of 2016 have registration, just recorded transfers, AND the system is fundamentally incomplete and flawed, this is a problem. But let’s pretend this is ok and a fa10 means registered. All the language does is exempt from copy or duplicate. You still have to evaluate based on features. Also the pre Healey language only covers the person who bought it and owned and registered it before 7/20/16. Worth noting that a lot of people bought ON 7/20/2016 and this does not help them. But in practice this language is useless since all the guns fail the feature test under the new law.

Post Healey are copies or duplicates so therefore most are now ASWs based on the feature test and being copies or duplicates. That barrel shroud language wipes everything out.

Second, is it lawfull for you to possess. If it’s not an ASW, yes. If it is an ASW, was it lawfully possessed on 8/1/24. If it was lawfully possessed on 8/1/24 then it continues to be lawful to possess.

That is what the law says. There is no ex post facto anything going on. Nothing is retroactive or changes what WAS legal or not. It’s not hard to understand what the law says and means about ASWs.

Now the practical.

But we still have a couple challenges. If the law takes effect before 8/1, then NOTHING is grandfathered and everything gets evaluated based on the new law. That causes a huge constitutional problem as a taking. But because of the new ASW definition for rifles with the barrel shroud feature, most are toast.

If the law takes effect after 8/1 you can still buy stuff but it won’t be grandfathered is a concern. BUT if the dealer lawfully possessed on 8/1 then it meets the grandfather criteria. It does not say you, just that it was lawfully possessed ON 8/1 by LTC holder or state dealer.

The final issue is about right now. Are post Healey ARs lawful to possess right now. If no, then still no. If yes, then yes after new law. The argument about Healey is not that it was written into the new law, but whether the 2016 press conference meant something. People who say post Healey BECOME illegal under the new law are wrong. Post Healey are only illegal under the new law if they are already illegal.

This is not that hard. We are seeing a lot of people with logic failure and/or confirmation bias. A number of GOAL lawyers believe post Healey are already illegal so they come up with arguments that new law codifies this. It does not. It just exempts pre Healey as not a copy or duplicate.

All the new law language about pre Healey is a total ho-hum. It just makes some guns extra legal. It changes nothing. Because of before 7/20/2016 and the new criteria for features, it just doesn’t matter. Everyone relies on the 8/1 lawfully possessed language.

So bottom line, if post Healey are illegal now, they remain illegal. If they are legal now based on features, they remain legal.
Click to expand...
Another note on Healey 2016 - the actual claim made in the notice was that all post ‘94 compliance guns were illegal copies and duplicates and therefore illegally possessed but they were just deferring prosecution as a matter of discretion (where GOALs ‘felons in waiting’ came from). So if you’re basing ‘lawfully possessed on 8/1’ on the notice, all post ‘94 ARs are illegal.
 
pastera said:
...

That's where the 7/20/16 language comes in.
So if you have something that meet the features definition of assault-style isn't an enumerated gun or a copy/duplicate you are fine as ong as it is in the transaction portal before 8/1.
...
Click to expand...
I might add "For now".
The conspiracy theorist in me can imagine the authors of this abomination thinking: "Register the ones we've missed now. We'll get them in the next iteration."
 
LuvDog said:
But FA10 is about transfers. Why wouldn’t the 4473 be considered the “registration”?
Click to expand...

Submitting a FA10 is de facto registration, according to the caucus summary (not official wording):

Registration, Reporting & Tracing

Updates existing firearm reporting system into one state database for firearm registration, reporting and tracing maintained by the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services. Requires registration of firearms not appearing on existing transfer portal. Requires law enforcement to immediately report crime gun data to the state database which will automatically populate the Federal ATF system for interstate tracing purposes. Includes surrendered firearms in law enforcement reporting requirements
Click to expand...

4473 is federal and not something MA can manipulate.
 
Admin said:
what do you guys want me to do with the two threads? Merge or keep this one going and lock the other one? Having two is dumb.
Click to expand...
I would keep this one going and lock the other one. The locked one would still be able to be read, correct? I don’t know why GOAL felt the need for two threads, especially where they could, and did, change the title of the first thread.

ETA: this thread is more manageable to read and perttains specifically to the current bill.
 
souper said:
It's not law, but I would think a summary written by the law makers would provide some evidence in a case where one has to interpret the law for legal purposes. How can they argue that the existing transaction portal is not sufficient when they provide a clear and concise interpretation of said law?
Click to expand...
I would think that a summary written by an intern that works in the office of a lawmaker who probably doesn't know anything about firearms and written solely for the purpose of letting the other lawmakers (who also know nothing) what they are voting to approve (a 100% certainty in this state) is not worth the paper it is written on.

Actually I forgot to mention that the summary is also written to give the liberal lawmakers something to post on their weekly newsletters.
 

Similar threads

Check out TSUSA @ the Great American Outdoor Show
Replies
0
Views
32
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Overheard at the airport
4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
3K
dcmdon
dcmdon
Post in the correct forums
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
The H&K P7 M13 is Coming Back? The P7 Pro at SHOT Show 2025!
2
Replies
59
Views
582
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
H&K suppressor sights
Replies
0
Views
37
Sam P
S
Back
Top Bottom