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

TG Pioneer said:
Yes. Norton and Rehoboth, respectively. I’m still learning and only listening for now. @Coyote33 asked me to start a separate thread about our group and how we are going to use GMRS. I’m still gathering information. I’ll have something in a day or two.
Click to expand...

Very cool! Nothing in my area for GMRS. Looking forward to the thread
 
HARRYM said:
I'm sorry but I won't sign it. I WILL NOT ALLOW MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to be put to a vote like its a privilege subject to someones opinion. I just won't do it or be a part of it.
Click to expand...
I fully get what you’re saying. I wish they would just leave us alone. But if it puts up a road block for them it’s something. Until we can get a win. If they’re going by death by a thousand cuts. For us this is a little cut back.
 
HARRYM said:
I'm sorry but I won't sign it. I WILL NOT ALLOW MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to be put to a vote like its a privilege subject to someones opinion. I just won't do it or be a part of it.
Click to expand...

Sure, but part of our rights also include the freedom to air our grievances. And that includes making a statement through something like this referendum.
 
Night_solstice said:
FightbackMA has a chart that explains the process:
View attachment 907214

From https://malegislature.gove/StateHouse/Glossary#R:

View attachment 907217

The process is covered in: Part I -> Title VIII -> Chapter 54 -> Section 54

Click to expand...

Thank you @Night_solstice for your attempt to parse out a possible strategy behind this.

Can someone point me to where @GOAL lays out this strategy to members, in order we might be motivated to support an otherwise bound to lose referendum?

There must be an explanation by @GOAL somewhere right, and if not, why not? If the objective is a delay then just say so, it is not top secret squirrel news that has to be keep from the anti-gunners, and support does not happen in a vacuum.


🐯
 
PappyM3 said:
Sure, but part of our rights also include the freedom to air our grievances. And that includes making a statement through something like this referendum.
Click to expand...
Biden beat Trump in MA like 66% to 32% so all this will do is "legitimize" MA stating MA residents want this bill.

The referendum is shortsighted and opens the Constitution to a vote which is what the Left actually wants.
 
MFSP101 said:
I fully get what you’re saying. I wish they would just leave us alone. But if it puts up a road block for them it’s something. Until we can get a win. If they’re going by death by a thousand cuts. For us this is a little cut back.
Click to expand...
The courts are the only recourse as long as the SCOTUS remains Conservative.
 
HARRYM said:
Biden beat Trump in MA like 66% to 32% so all this will do is "legitimize" MA stating MA residents want this bill.

The referendum is shortsighted and opens the Constitution to a vote which is what the Left actually wants.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree. Just pointing out another viewpoint.

I really wish they hadn’t of submitted this. But, now that it’s submitted, I’m not sure how to proceed.
 
MFSP101 said:
I would think we could use this as an advantage. It doesn’t need to be LTC holders. We could get anyone to sign it. So the general public can help get this on the ballet. Even if they don’t like guns.
Click to expand...
That was the idea. Lots of Dems and Libertarians will sign if it's to get something on a ballot. The plus is that those who don't really care would sign to get it on the ballot then not vote on it, many will look at the bill as written and be confused, and not vote.

And the outcome doesn't matter.
HARRYM said:
Biden beat Trump in MA like 66% to 32% so all this will do is "legitimize" MA stating MA residents want this bill.

The referendum is shortsighted and opens the Constitution to a vote which is what the Left actually wants.
Click to expand...

The STATE vote has no affect on the constitutionality of the law. And the US isn't MA, a change to the constitution isn't going to happen, its not even in the works.
 
42! said:
That was the idea. Lots of Dems and Libertarians will sign if it's to get something on a ballot. The plus is that those who don't really care would sign to get it on the ballot then not vote on it, many will look at the bill as written and be confused, and not vote.
Click to expand...
Tell the soccer moms it's a petition to get this "tough on guns" law up for a vote....they probably won't know it's already been signed. :)
 
Curious why they changed the new pre-ban date from '94 to 8/1. (for rifles, mags are still '94?) Im not complaining, but why wouldnt they just stick with the old date?
 
headednorth said:
Curious why they changed the new pre-ban date from '94 to 8/1. (for rifles, mags are still '94?) Im not complaining, but why wouldnt they just stick with the old date?
Click to expand...
My $.02 guess is it's because they wanted to expand the ban categories but would run into ex-post facto issues without a grandfathering mechanism.
 
DJBrad said:
Clear as day really. Here’s the current law in force:

Section 131M: Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment

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. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.




And the new law which will replace it on 10/23:

Section 131. The issuance and possession of a license to carry firearms shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions: (a) A license shall entitle a holder thereof of a license to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry firearms, including large capacity firearms and ammunition therefor. The license shall not entitle a holder thereof to transfer, possess or carry large capacity feeding devices or assault-style firearms unless such transfer, possession or carry is permitted under section 131M.

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.

(c) Subsection (a) shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 only if such possession is: (i) on private property owned or legally controlled by the person in possession of the large capacity feeding device; (ii) on private property that is not open to the public with the express permission of the property owner or the property owner’s authorized agent; (iii) while on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purpose of lawful repair; (iv) at a licensed firing range or sports shooting competition venue; or (v) while traveling to and from these locations; provided, that the large capacity feeding device is stored unloaded and secured in a locked container in accordance with sections 131C and 131L. A person authorized under this subsection to possess a large capacity feeding device may only transfer the device to an heir or devisee, a person residing outside the commonwealth, or a licensed dealer.
Click to expand...
Large Capacity mags stored at home do not have to be secured in a locked container. How kind of them.
 
headednorth said:
You know what I mean. Im not complaining about who knows how many thousands of rifles that are now grandfathered with the change from '94 to 8/1.
Click to expand...
I hate this law and the infringement it's creating BUT moving the preban date up to 8/1/2024 has opened up so many options for me with guns I've had with locked stocks and awful compensators. I'm converting everything back to how God intended them to be. Flash hiders and collapsible stocks
 
Lxpony said:
I hate this law and the infringement it's creating BUT moving the preban date up to 8/1/2024 has opened up so many options for me with guns I've had with locked stocks and awful compensators. I'm converting everything back to how God intended them to be. Flash hiders and collapsible stocks
Click to expand...
Wait so are we now able to have collapsing stocks and flash hiders on rifles purchased before 8/1?
 
Picton said:
Post a WTS magazine ad. Make sure all the pics in the ad are of National Geographics. If a few legally-owned gun parts happen to show up in the background of the pics, so be it.

I'm being serious.
Click to expand...
So I should sell my 30 pack boxes of "As Received" hobby magazines?
What about "American Karting" magazines, not popular enough to sell individually so I'd like to sell in sets or 20 or 30...
 
HARRYM said:
Biden beat Trump in MA like 66% to 32% so all this will do is "legitimize" MA stating MA residents want this bill.

The referendum is shortsighted and opens the Constitution to a vote which is what the Left actually wants.
Click to expand...
This isn't about you, me or any other individuals.
The referendum is a delay of the enactment so that dealers and instructors can survive.

You aren't letting other people vote on your rights anymore than you already have by living in this state.

Bianchi is ripe for cert - the 4th circuit opinion is such a shit show cert is essentially a given.

Dealers and instructors need relief NOW - not in a year. The referendum would delay the bill long enough to allow Bianchi to filter back down from a SCOTUS decision before the vote anyway.

Again, it's not about letting others vote on your rights, they already did that. It's about maintaining the status quo long enough to get a good decision out of scotus.
 
headednorth said:
If Im understanding this right, 8/1 is the new "pre-ban" date for firearms. '94 is still the pre-ban date for mags. Pre-Healy doesnt and didnt mean shit.
Click to expand...
There is still the 7/20 date in the definition that the courts will need to sort out.
But that will likely come after Bianchi hits SCOTUS so none of the dates will actually matter past June of 25.
 

Similar threads

Check out TSUSA @ the Great American Outdoor Show
Replies
0
Views
39
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Fox News has gone woke?
Replies
11
Views
378
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The H&K P7 M13 is Coming Back? The P7 Pro at SHOT Show 2025!
2
Replies
59
Views
591
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Cam Edward's wife has passed away
Replies
3
Views
287
Reptile
Reptile
Holiday Deals Day 9: The Deals are STILL HERE — Don't Miss Out!
Replies
0
Views
56
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Back
Top Bottom