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

[42!]

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.

First I want to make an observation. A lot of the confusion looks to me to be from people trying to interpret the new law in the best light for their specific circumstances. They have a personal interest and that equals a bias. I'm not entirely immune to this but as a NH resident who owns nothing that falls in the grey areas (it either is or it isn't), I at least have no personal risk. I am still involved in the fight because while I escaped the PRMA, it is still my home state and I don't want the cancer to spread.

@headednorth with all due respect, I believe you are incorrect. As are those that said they could now alter their pre 8/1.
The text of the law:
1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the
1530 commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under

So what was a lawfully possessed ASW before the 8/1 law became affective?
If it's pre-94 or on appendix-A then there are no further requirements. Otherwise;
It can exceed the evil features as was required prior to 8/1.
The stock would have to be pinned.
The muzzle device welded.

This weapon, as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1 would still be lawful to posses.
This mean with the pinned stock and other limited evil features.
If you alter it before 8/1 then it was not lawfully possessed on 8/1.
If you alter it on or after 8/1 then it is not as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, or not do. Or saying what they will or won't prosecute. Just that if someone does find them selves in court over this, I won't be betting you walk away.
Remember, the judge will instruct the jury on what the law means.

 

[BlastingRaccoon47]

First I want to make an observation. A lot of the confusion looks to me to be from people trying to interpret the new law in the best light for their specific circumstances. They have a personal interest and that equals a bias. I'm not entirely immune to this but as a NH resident who owns nothing that falls in the grey areas (it either is or it isn't), I at least have no personal risk. I am still involved in the fight because while I escaped the PRMA, it is still my home state and I don't want the cancer to spread.

@headednorth with all due respect, I believe you are incorrect. As are those that said they could now alter their pre 8/1.
The text of the law:
1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the
1530 commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under

So what was a lawfully possessed ASW before the 8/1 law became affective?
If it's pre-94 or on appendix-A then there are no further requirements. Otherwise;
It can exceed the evil features as was required prior to 8/1.
The stock would have to be pinned.
The muzzle device welded.

This weapon, as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1 would still be lawful to posses.
This mean with the pinned stock and other limited evil features.
If you alter it before 8/1 then it was not lawfully possessed on 8/1.
If you alter it on or after 8/1 then it is not as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, or not do. Or saying what they will or won't prosecute. Just that if someone does find them selves in court over this, I won't be betting you walk away.
Remember, the judge will instruct the jury on what the law means.

That makes far more sense from a legal perspective. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[DJBrad]

First I want to make an observation. A lot of the confusion looks to me to be from people trying to interpret the new law in the best light for their specific circumstances. They have a personal interest and that equals a bias. I'm not entirely immune to this but as a NH resident who owns nothing that falls in the grey areas (it either is or it isn't), I at least have no personal risk. I am still involved in the fight because while I escaped the PRMA, it is still my home state and I don't want the cancer to spread.

@headednorth with all due respect, I believe you are incorrect. As are those that said they could now alter their pre 8/1.
The text of the law:
1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the
1530 commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under

So what was a lawfully possessed ASW before the 8/1 law became affective?
If it's pre-94 or on appendix-A then there are no further requirements. Otherwise;
It can exceed the evil features as was required prior to 8/1.
The stock would have to be pinned.
The muzzle device welded.

This weapon, as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1 would still be lawful to posses.
This mean with the pinned stock and other limited evil features.
If you alter it before 8/1 then it was not lawfully possessed on 8/1.
If you alter it on or after 8/1 then it is not as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, or not do. Or saying what they will or won't prosecute. Just that if someone does find them selves in court over this, I won't be betting you walk away.
Remember, the judge will instruct the jury on what the law means.

Here’s the rationale:
Pre ‘94 it’s an ASF
Pre 7/20/16 it’s an ASF
Pre 8/1/24 it’s an ASF

They are all grandfathered so it doesn’t matter what features they have as even the stripped lower is an ASF. New law defines post 8/1 as unlawful. It’s that simple. Grandfathering is grandfathering.

 

[MGnoob]

First I want to make an observation. A lot of the confusion looks to me to be from people trying to interpret the new law in the best light for their specific circumstances. They have a personal interest and that equals a bias. I'm not entirely immune to this but as a NH resident who owns nothing that falls in the grey areas (it either is or it isn't), I at least have no personal risk. I am still involved in the fight because while I escaped the PRMA, it is still my home state and I don't want the cancer to spread.

@headednorth with all due respect, I believe you are incorrect. As are those that said they could now alter their pre 8/1.
The text of the law:
1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the
1530 commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under

So what was a lawfully possessed ASW before the 8/1 law became affective?
If it's pre-94 or on appendix-A then there are no further requirements. Otherwise;
It can exceed the evil features as was required prior to 8/1.
The stock would have to be pinned.
The muzzle device welded.

This weapon, as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1 would still be lawful to posses.
This mean with the pinned stock and other limited evil features.
If you alter it before 8/1 then it was not lawfully possessed on 8/1.
If you alter it on or after 8/1 then it is not as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, or not do. Or saying what they will or won't prosecute. Just that if someone does find them selves in court over this, I won't be betting you walk away.
Remember, the judge will instruct the jury on what the law means.

I agree with you

I wish it was what everybody is saying though… meaning everything’s preban now but I think it’s like you’re saying they still have the massified but you can keep them, but nobody’s been following the assault weapons bans from 1994 anyway..

You have to figure if they still need to be pre-1994 magazines to be pre-ban it’s the same thing with evil features…

Not that applying logic to this makes any sense but this new law doesn’t supersede the old one as far as I’m aware. I personally don’t care either way other than the whole things bullshit..
If your post 1994 has evil features, I think you’re violating the law. But you get the skirt by with a new interpretation of what a copy and duplicate is which is made up by healing and now just codified to into law.


But hey, what the hell do I know I know is you can go down to the gun show and buy an AK that had evil features and a bunch of postman magazines and nobody seem to give a f***

 

[straightshooterjake]

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

Wait so are we now able to have collapsing stocks and flash hiders on rifles purchased before 8/1?

Unless you're part of the guida glue sniffers club the answer is yes. All 8/1 "ASWs" will basically become one entities, legally.

I understand big boy rules and all of that. But strictly as a matter of rule, don't the current rules remain in place until 10/23/2024?

I'm not sure about this, but I feel like we are in a gray area where the grandfathering date of 8/1 has passed, but the new rules for assault style firearms will not replace the previous assault weapons definition until 10/23. Have I misunderstood this?

This question is not so interesting if the current situation will only exist for a few more weeks. But if the referendum ends up headed for the 2026 ballot, and we will remain in the current state for an extended period, then the question of exactly what rules apply right now gets more important.

I have been following all of this stuff pretty carefully, and I am aware that I don't quite understand this aspect. But if people want to build pre 8/1 bare AR15 lowers into pistols in Massachusetts, then these details matter.

 

[TLB]

First I want to make an observation. A lot of the confusion looks to me to be from people trying to interpret the new law in the best light for their specific circumstances. They have a personal interest and that equals a bias. I'm not entirely immune to this but as a NH resident who owns nothing that falls in the grey areas (it either is or it isn't), I at least have no personal risk. I am still involved in the fight because while I escaped the PRMA, it is still my home state and I don't want the cancer to spread.

@headednorth with all due respect, I believe you are incorrect. As are those that said they could now alter their pre 8/1.
The text of the law:
1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the
1530 commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under

So what was a lawfully possessed ASW before the 8/1 law became affective?
If it's pre-94 or on appendix-A then there are no further requirements. Otherwise;
It can exceed the evil features as was required prior to 8/1.
The stock would have to be pinned.
The muzzle device welded.

This weapon, as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1 would still be lawful to posses.
This mean with the pinned stock and other limited evil features.
If you alter it before 8/1 then it was not lawfully possessed on 8/1.
If you alter it on or after 8/1 then it is not as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, or not do. Or saying what they will or won't prosecute. Just that if someone does find them selves in court over this, I won't be betting you walk away.
Remember, the judge will instruct the jury on what the law means.

Where does the law say it must be kept in the same configuration as it was when it is was legally possessed before 8/1? How about unbuilt lowers possessed before 8/1?

 

[42!]

Here’s the rationale:
Pre ‘94 it’s an ASF
Pre 7/20/16 it’s an ASF
Pre 8/1/24 it’s an ASF

They are all grandfathered so it doesn’t matter what features they have as even the stripped lower is an ASF. New law defines post 8/1 as unlawful. It’s that simple. Grandfathering is grandfathering.

Sorry but no. It says lawfully possessed on 8/1, that mean it had to meet the legal requirements in affect on prior to 8/1. These will be different depending on if it's pre 94 or between 94 and 8/1 (with the additions if you include the 7/20/16 decree).
This is as lawfully possessed, you don't get to make it into something that would have been unlawful to possess.

Suck, I agree, but that is what it is.

The comments on what happens if they get the referendum ballot. It says the law is suspended until voted on, that's the entire law, not just parts. So the only way to interpret it is that the old law is still in affect. Will this create conflicts if/when the vote goes bad, yup sure will, and some court will have to address that. In the meantime it would be business as usual.

 

[MGnoob]

Here’s the rationale:
Pre ‘94 it’s an ASF
Pre 7/20/16 it’s an ASF
Pre 8/1/24 it’s an ASF

They are all grandfathered so it doesn’t matter what features they have as even the stripped lower is an ASF. New law defines post 8/1 as unlawful. It’s that simple. Grandfathering is grandfathering.

You probably go back and read the 1994 ban I would but IDGAF the whole point of the 94 awb was to define an “AW” it’s basically just a copy of the now defunct federal law. It was owned before 1994. It was not in the assault weapon. Nothing has changed… in that respect… they specifically named models and features that major post 94 weapons “AW”


It’s hard to tell now cause you can’t find the old text very easily of you google it. It just keeps talking about 2016 and the new bullshit because they’re trying to pretend like it never happened.

The only thing I saw was the Gabby Gifford’s bullshit office of bullet riding brains…
And it’s just a summary of their interpretation, which is complete bullshit

 

[drgrant]

Sorry but no. It says lawfully possessed on 8/1, that mean it had to meet the legal requirements in affect on prior to 8/1. These will be different depending on if it's pre 94 or between 94 and 8/1 (with the additions if you include the 7/20/16 decree).
This is as lawfully possessed, you don't get to make it into something that would have been unlawful to possess.

None of this will functionally matter in the real world when the line is crossed because nobody is going to be unraveling that extension cord mess. That's basically between whoever owns whatever it is, and god.

 

[drgrant]

To illustrate how f***ing stupid that whole clause is... Basically you could have a pile of guns that were otherwise illegal. Make them not illegal the night before 8/1, put them in a box inside massachusetts. Then at midnight magically those guns got grandfathered because they were not illegal.

It's stupid to even think or even examine that road beyond one level, thats how retarded that clause is. In the real world that clause will only likely ever get used around stolen property and that kind of thing. EG, so that someone who stole a gun before 8/1 from someone else and got caught with it way down the road could get charged with an AW violation. Or so a guy who was riding dirty with no license for a year could get bagged. Those would be a lot easier to prove than any of that configuration horseshit.

This is just as dumb and unprovable as the old Fed AWB clause that stated your gun had to be in "ban" configuration on 9/13/94. I've never heard of a single case federally where someone got rapped where that wasn't just assumed, because the whole clause is worthless to begin with. Basically all that shit will be defacto legal unless theres a very
specific set of circumstances where the state could easily prove it wasn't lawfully possessed... and good f***ing luck with that.

Thats part and parcel of course why this whole bill/law is a huge pile of shit. Because nobody thought about how it would work in the real world, and I hate to break it to the pant
shitters around here but like half the shit in the law will never fly in court or prosecutorially.

ETA: a bit of advice for anyone seriously overanalyzing this clause... just buy a fistful of powerball tickets instead, your odds are better.

 

[HARRYM]

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.


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.

It's a very bad precedent.

 

[HARRYM]

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.

It's a very bad precedent.

 

[drgrant]

I understand big boy rules and all of that. But strictly as a matter of rule, don't the current rules remain in place until 10/23/2024?

yes

I'm not sure about this, but I feel like we are in a gray area where the grandfathering date of 8/1 has passed, but the new rules for assault style firearms will not replace the previous assault weapons definition until 10/23. Have I misunderstood this?

no

This question is not so interesting if the current situation will only exist for a few more weeks. But if the referendum ends up headed for the 2026 ballot, and we will remain in the current state for an extended period, then the question of exactly what rules apply right now gets more important.

I've never heard of this "getting it under referendum temporarily stays the law" business. I've never seen that happen with anything else. Example- there was a referendum to remove sales tax from alcohol. We still paid sales tax for alcohol up until the referendum was actually voted on and passed. Getting it on the ballot did not stay the sales tax on alcohol until the vote. Unless theres some precedent where someone can go get an injunction after getting it on the ballot. Even if that is the case that assumes a shitty MA court would grant an injunction based on that. Good luck with that.

I have been following all of this stuff pretty carefully, and I am aware that I don't quite understand this aspect. But if people want to build pre 8/1 bare AR15 lowers into pistols in Massachusetts, then these details matter.

In the "up until 10/23" window? sure, because the old shit still applies. So if this magical referendum thing somehow magically stays the law, you can't do any of that. But that is a flying leap at this point.

 

[drgrant]

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.

Where is the mechnaism in the law that actually does this? I've never seen it with other referendum votes. (doesnt mean it doesnt exist, but never heard of it) Or is it some special circumstance that is only triggered when a law is recently passed? Also if there is any way the state can "dodge" that or screw us, its best to assume that they will pull that lever.

Or is the idea to obtain an injunction based on the referendum existing? If thats the case, then its going to fail because a moonbat court will shit on it, citing "public safety" or some
nonsense.

 

[drgrant]

It's a very bad precedent.

lol the notion of "rights being subject to referendum stupidly" is not new. The opposite happened a long time ago when a bunch of moonbats tried to get a full on handgun ban in
mass, which failed. But that was ages ago and the voter retardation level was not nearly as f***ed up as it is now.

 

[drgrant]

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?

Because it eliminates a takings issue (we're talking like many thousands of guns) and a bunch of other stuff which they may have feared would draw an injunction. It also cleans up a lot of other confusing garbage. It's almost like different entities wrote different parts of the law and it got glued together. Whoever wrote the 8/1 thing probably said "look at this
raft of garbage, we'll just append this in here and null all thatt shit out, but we wont say anything about it because it will kill the bill/down the process. " One thing to keep in mind, given how long this dragged out, is it was obviously a contentious thing but likely not for the reasons we think. There was a lot of parliamentary infighting on this not pro vs anti but a bunch of ego tripping retardation. Like take a bunch of moonbats and hop them up on meth or something and this is the outcome. /puke.

 

[DJBrad]

Sorry but no. It says lawfully possessed on 8/1, that mean it had to meet the legal requirements in affect on prior to 8/1. These will be different depending on if it's pre 94 or between 94 and 8/1 (with the additions if you include the 7/20/16 decree).
This is as lawfully possessed, you don't get to make it into something that would have been unlawful to possess.

Suck, I agree, but that is what it is.

The comments on what happens if they get the referendum ballot. It says the law is suspended until voted on, that's the entire law, not just parts. So the only way to interpret it is that the old law is still in affect. Will this create conflicts if/when the vote goes bad, yup sure will, and some court will have to address that. In the meantime it would be business as usual.

Eh, no. This is not some tiered ASF program. The language is clear. Everything is an assault style weapon. Everything.

 

[drgrant]

I'm not telling anyone what to do, or not do. Or saying what they will or won't prosecute. Just that if someone does find them selves in court over this, I won't be betting you walk away.
Remember, the judge will instruct the jury on what the law means.

I think if someone was caught with a "gun thatt violates the current AWB" during the window they could get charged for it. Sure, thats not rocket science. After 10/22? good luck with that. Then the state has to prove someones gun wasn't lawfully possessed here on 8/1, for starters. Theres a handful of captain obvious things that could create a chip shot/free bingo square conviction (example, gun got traced, and it was manufactured on 8/5/24 or something) and then after that handful, the other attack vectors for the state end up being way more complicated.

 

[LuvDog]

You have to figure if they still need to be pre-1994 magazines to be pre-ban it’s the same thing with evil features…

1994 still exists for mags because you could never lawfully possess a post 94 standard cap mag.

But you could have lawfully possessed a ASF post ‘94. So on 8/1 if you lawfully possessed an ASF it’s now grandfathered and follows those rules

 

[DJBrad]

I’ve heard there are maybe 1-3 awb cases in Ma currently. We may not find this info out but one of our resident NES lawyers has alluded to this. I’m very curious about the charges and how it stuck if/when at all. Because everything is illegal in Ma if they want an addendum then that is easy to do.

“Sir, you did not wave your lantern when you crossed the roadway with your tethered horse.”

 

[MGnoob]

1994 still exists for mags because you could never lawfully possess a post 94 standard cap mag.

But you could have lawfully possessed a ASF post ‘94. So on 8/1 if you lawfully possessed an ASF it’s now grandfathered and follows those rules

I believe I read the correct section. It says your pre- 8/1 are grandfathered…. They weren’t legally possessed if they had evil features… just cause they were grandfather. I don’t see how that means. You can then add the evil features….
That seems ripe for somebody to reinterpreted after the fact to

It doesn’t really matter it’s so rarely enforced if ever


I am curious to see how it all plays out

Edit.
I want to believe you’re correct the receiver I have that could possibly fall into that category isn’t a duplicate copy it.. and just a host for my auto sear.. and if they really interpreted it that far since it’s a belt that I would just cut off the mag well. my serial number isn’t on the Mag well and if it was, you could still just cut off the Maxwell below it…. or one step better it’s a two-piece receiver so I would just get a foward piece that doesn’t have a Mgwell.. or I could just weld or pin the S.A.W box holder onto it..

I don’t think much of this out very much. There’s still tons of ways to get around this shit if they do interpret it for the worst, which I’m assuming they will.

I was want to drill a hole through my receiver so I could pin the auto seer right into it. That way it wouldn’t need to be timed for each upper.

But that’s a huge no-no federally

 

[rcwhat]

Sorry but no. It says lawfully possessed on 8/1, that mean it had to meet the legal requirements in affect on prior to 8/1. These will be different depending on if it's pre 94 or between 94 and 8/1 (with the additions if you include the 7/20/16 decree).
This is as lawfully possessed, you don't get to make it into something that would have been unlawful to possess.

Suck, I agree, but that is what it is.

The comments on what happens if they get the referendum ballot. It says the law is suspended until voted on, that's the entire law, not just parts. So the only way to interpret it is that the old law is still in affect. Will this create conflicts if/when the vote goes bad, yup sure will, and some court will have to address that. In the meantime it would be business as usual.

Sorry but YOU are wrong. Read and understand the text. Stop making assumptions and go by the exact language as written. The did not state anywhere about any requirements of pre 8/1 firearms, they only needed to be legally possessed. Stop being their best friend.

 

[pastera]

First I want to make an observation. A lot of the confusion looks to me to be from people trying to interpret the new law in the best light for their specific circumstances. They have a personal interest and that equals a bias. I'm not entirely immune to this but as a NH resident who owns nothing that falls in the grey areas (it either is or it isn't), I at least have no personal risk. I am still involved in the fight because while I escaped the PRMA, it is still my home state and I don't want the cancer to spread.

@headednorth with all due respect, I believe you are incorrect. As are those that said they could now alter their pre 8/1.
The text of the law:
1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the
1530 commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under

So what was a lawfully possessed ASW before the 8/1 law became affective?
If it's pre-94 or on appendix-A then there are no further requirements. Otherwise;
It can exceed the evil features as was required prior to 8/1.
The stock would have to be pinned.
The muzzle device welded.

This weapon, as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1 would still be lawful to posses.
This mean with the pinned stock and other limited evil features.
If you alter it before 8/1 then it was not lawfully possessed on 8/1.
If you alter it on or after 8/1 then it is not as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, or not do. Or saying what they will or won't prosecute. Just that if someone does find them selves in court over this, I won't be betting you walk away.
Remember, the judge will instruct the jury on what the law means.

The 8/1 date is in 131m
If you legally possessed as of that date, you can restore to free state as of 23 Oct.
The only question is what a court will say about copies and duplicates around the 7/20 date in the definition
The court may agree with you that C&D are good to go in their compliant state post 7/20/16 through 8/1/24 but are fully exempt prior. Or it could go with C&D were always banned therefore only pre 7/20/16 in a compliant state are allowed since they are exempt from C&D and featureless.

 

[JDL]

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.


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

I think if someone was caught with a "gun thatt violates the current AWB" during the window they could get charged for it. Sure, thats not rocket science. After 10/22? good luck with that. Then the state has to prove someones gun wasn't lawfully possessed here on 8/1, for starters. Theres a handful of captain obvious things that could create a chip shot/free bingo square conviction (example, gun got traced, and it was manufactured on 8/5/24 or something) and then after that handful, the other attack vectors for the state end up being way more complicated.

I am not sure how someone with a firearm that violates this ASW ban the way it is written would get caught? It dosent seem as any law enforcement entity is going to be going house to house. In fact there isn't anything in the law that outlines confiscating firearms. I really don't know how many law enforcement entententies are going to be out trolling clubs and ranges or doing random stop and search of motor vehicles. The only way I can see someone getting jammed up is if they are doing some other nefarious act or end up on the wrong side of a red flag and this just becomes an added charge. I know, I know someone will come up with one of those rare casses where someone had a hart attack in there home while cleaning there gun and got jammed up.

 

[HARRYM]

Article XVII.​

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

 

[Woodsloafer]

The 8/1 date is in 131m
If you legally possessed as of that date, you can restore to free state as of 23 Oct.
The only question is what a court will say about copies and duplicates around the 7/20 date in the definition
The court may agree with you that C&D are good to go in their compliant state post 7/20/16 through 8/1/24 but are fully exempt prior. Or it could go with C&D were always banned therefore only pre 7/20/16 in a compliant state are allowed since they are exempt from C&D and featureless.

The new laws are definitely not clear and somebody is going to get tripped up, right or wrong, and their lives will be upended till, and maybe after, it is all sorted out. And when they come to take that person's firearms, etc., there is always the possibility of additional charges if you happen to have something they consider verboten. When it comes to gunz, there is no innocent until proven guilty in MA.

 

[PappyM3]

First I want to make an observation. A lot of the confusion looks to me to be from people trying to interpret the new law in the best light for their specific circumstances. They have a personal interest and that equals a bias. I'm not entirely immune to this but as a NH resident who owns nothing that falls in the grey areas (it either is or it isn't), I at least have no personal risk. I am still involved in the fight because while I escaped the PRMA, it is still my home state and I don't want the cancer to spread.

@headednorth with all due respect, I believe you are incorrect. As are those that said they could now alter their pre 8/1.
The text of the law:
1529 (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the
1530 commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under

So what was a lawfully possessed ASW before the 8/1 law became affective?
If it's pre-94 or on appendix-A then there are no further requirements. Otherwise;
It can exceed the evil features as was required prior to 8/1.
The stock would have to be pinned.
The muzzle device welded.

This weapon, as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1 would still be lawful to posses.
This mean with the pinned stock and other limited evil features.
If you alter it before 8/1 then it was not lawfully possessed on 8/1.
If you alter it on or after 8/1 then it is not as it was lawfully possessed before 8/1.

I'm not telling anyone what to do, or not do. Or saying what they will or won't prosecute. Just that if someone does find them selves in court over this, I won't be betting you walk away.
Remember, the judge will instruct the jury on what the law means.

Absolutely nowhere in the law does it say that ASFs lawfully possessed on 8/1 need to remain in their pre-new-AWB configuration. You’re making stuff up out of whole cloth.

 

[pastera]

You stated above. Your not complaining.

You should be. They win.

The 7/20 and 8/1 dates attempt to bypass a takings issue with banning previously lawful possession.

None of this matters now that Bianchi is ripe for SC review

The referendum simply locks us into the status quo until assault weapons, assault-style firearms, etc are shown to be squarely under the 2nd's protection.

Bellyaching that GOAL is using an available means to protect dealers and instructors is shortsighted.
Yes, it sucks that we will be placing a question on a ballot for antis to feel good about voting down.
However, if scotus takes up Bianchi then the assault-style stuff and likely the roster will go away (the roster is a defacto ban on common arms).
It also delays the registration and red flag expansion which helps every one of us.

 

[MAJoe]

Absolutely nowhere in the law does it say that ASFs lawfully possessed on 8/1 need to remain in their pre-new-AWB configuration. You’re making stuff up out of whole cloth.

I think the confusion is people are reading this as appending the current law. It doesn’t. It completely replaces the assault weapon definition in MA. 9/13/94 becomes 8/1/24. If it was lawfully possessed ON that date in MA, then I don’t see where any of the old law would still apply. It’s no longer the law. Even if you modified it today to an illegal config, if was lawfully possessed ON 8/1 then I don’t see it jeopardizing it being grandfathered, but you could be charged under the current law until 10/23.

 

[aphextwin11]

Unless you're part of the guida glue sniffers club the answer is yes. All 8/1 "ASWs" will basically become one entities, legally.