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

[milktree]

I’m done arguing it. You just got wishful thinking.

Don’t you remember when Healy came out in 2016?

I’ll leave it at this. I think you’re just wrong but we’ll have to see you could be the test case… I’ll send something to your GoFundMe though cause I’m a nice guy

Show me anywhere in H.4885 where it says an "assault-style firearm" has to stay in its 8/1 configuration to be exempt.

You can't, because it doesn't say that.

The logic here isn't hard;

A stripped lower possessed in Mass. by an LTC holder or FFL on 8/1 is "lawfully possessed". You agree with that, right? Because H.4885 doesn't go into effect until 10/23, NONE OF IT has any effect on what is legal on 8/1.

When 10/23 comes around, that stripped lower, the same stripped lower that was legally possessed by an LTC holder or FFL on 8/1, BECOMES an "assault-style firearm" based on the NEW definition in C.140§121. 10/22 it's nothing, because the active law does not define a stripped lower as anything. 10/23 it's an "assault-style firearm", because the law that defines it as such goes into effect. With me so far?

Now, on 10/23 when the law that defines that stripped lower as an "assault-style firearm" goes into effect, and the law that bans all possession of "assault-style firearms" - 131M(a) - goes into effect, at the same instant, 131M(b) also goes into effect. 131M(b) says explicitly, that any "assault-style firearm" (using the new definition of "firearm" and "assault-style firearm") is exempt from 131M(a). Exempt. Not "exempt in its 8/1 configuration", but exempt. It's pretty damn clear about that. It is absolutely an "assault-style firearm", because the definitions are in law. But it's not subject to the ban on possession in 131M(a)

 

[MGnoob]

You quoted me, but you didn’t say anything

 

[PappyM3]

The line seems sufficiently blurry that it comes down to personal risk tolerance as it has been since the 7/20 press conference.

The 7/20 press conference was just that, a press conference. This is codified law.

 

[Picton]

The 7/20 press conference was just that, a press conference. This is codified law.

Well.... but this codified law is just as unconstitutional (and unenforceable) as the 7/20 press conference. Which, I suspect, definitely plays into peoples' risk tolerance when they're deciding how much they care about what's in it.

 

[milktree]

You quoted me, but you didn’t say anything

I hit some key combination that clicked "post reply" for me by accident. Then edited the post to add the content I meant to write.

 

[JDL]

I think everyone should just interpret this new law anyway they want and stop arguing about what is or isn't. Do as you feel or think is correct by your own interpretation. It's all a spin of the wheel of chance now. No one really knows what the Massachusetts state legislature was trying to say, I'm not sure they even know and that is what is tricky right now. Not until the state lays out what the interpretation of each part of this law is. it is unknown really. The crazy thing is we may never really know and this can end up being a bigger problem once law enforcement, prosecutors and judges decide what they think the interpretation is. With no guidence from our legislators on this law and each of its parts it will just be a leagle interpretation crap shoot.

 

[drgrant]

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.”

It would all be rather simple.... those cases would just be prosecuted under the /existing/ law assuming the charges go forward at all, and don't get plead out on or dropped. I don't have statistics but when you look up these kinds of cases it's very difficult for a layperson to find outcomes and I think part of the reason is is that most of the time some kind of deal gets made or somebody sucks for crap and it disappears. Despite this stuff supposedly being public record tge state does a great job of hiding this stuff from the public unless someone is making efforts to retrieve data.

 

[mav]

I gave up a while ago on this turd bowl of a state. Now I’m actively figuring out my exit, which could be in 2025. About the only thing I can say with certainty is that I own a bunch of shit that at various times in this state was legal, wasn’t legal, was legal based on some date, was legal if certain features were removed, was not legal again based on some strongly worded letter and now is legal if owned by some date, but is illegal after such a date.

I don’t give a shit anymore. I’m not afraid of the left’s bullshit. I bought what I wanted. I owned what I wanted. I shot what I wanted. I won. None of the left’s shitty anti-2A shennanigans kept me from exercising my 2A right in the manner I saw fit. If fellatio Harris gets elected and wants to try banning shit again? We’ll, welcome to the party a**h***s. Been there done that and I’m still here shooting super killy scary rifles.

Here’s the thing: I’m exercising my 2A rights regardless of their bullshit. That is what this is really about. Not what the king will or won’t allow. Not what the courts will or won’t overturn. Take back your f***ing manhood, get your balls back from your wife, and stop asking for permission from shitbag commies and bureaucrats who live off of your tax dollars. Or continue to be cucks bowing and scraping to avowed commies and people who are the equivalent of lampreys on the ass of society. IRDGAFA. They have already taken up too much space in my head over the years. I’m not giving them space rent free anymore.

 

[PappyM3]

Well.... but this codified law is just as unconstitutional (and unenforceable) as the 7/20 press conference. Which, I suspect, definitely plays into peoples' risk tolerance when they're deciding how much they care about what's in it.

Eh, just as unconstitutional, sure. Just as enforceable? No. There will certainly be people charged under this new law. Same as people have been charged under the prior AWB. Guaranteed unless it gets overturned by courts in the not too distant future.

 

[Picton]

Here’s the thing: I’m exercising my 2A rights regardless of their bullshit. That is what this is really about. Not what the king will or won’t allow. Not what the courts will or won’t overturn. Take back your f***ing manhood, get your balls back from your wife, and stop asking for permission from shitbag commies and bureaucrats who live off of your tax dollars. Or continue to be cucks bowing and scraping to avowed commies and people who are the equivalent of lampreys on the ass of society. IRDGAFA. They have already taken up too much space in my head over the years. I’m not giving them space rent free anymore.

 

[paul73]

Eh, just as unconstitutional, sure. Just as enforceable? No. There will certainly be people charged under this new law. Guaranteed unless it gets overturned by courts soon.

people to be charged is expected, as as soon as registration will begin - next step will be some sort of a draconian taxation per an every registered item.
they know that it is not kosher to confiscate stuff by force, so they will for sure try to tax it into an oblivion, so people will be forced to give it up.

 

[TheRoland]

This is a pretty minor issue, but I don’t see any issue with the sterilization language and the Sig P365 or other fire-control-unit based firearms……. From the definition, it sounds like the FCU is a “frame” now….. Right?

 

[DJBrad]

This is a pretty minor issue, but I don’t see any issue with the sterilization language and the Sig P365 or other fire-control-unit based firearms……. From the definition, it sounds like the FCU is a “frame” now….. Right?

Right.

 

[PappyM3]

This is a pretty minor issue, but I don’t see any issue with the sterilization language and the Sig P365 or other fire-control-unit based firearms……. From the definition, it sounds like the FCU is a “frame” now….. Right?

Except you won’t be able to buy them on or after 10/23. They will need to be on the approved firearm roster and standalone receivers are not going to be tested to be added onto the rosters. Buy them while you can.

 

[CrackPot]

I’m done arguing it. You just got wishful thinking.

Don’t you remember when Healy came out in 2016?

I’ll leave it at this. I think you’re just wrong but we’ll have to see you could be the test case… I’ll send something to your GoFundMe though cause I’m a nice guy

Argue with me then. Healey did not come out in 2016. Some lame politician held a press conference and all the panty wetters acted like Moses came off the mount with new tablets. I have OPENLY sold ARs and AR receivers uninterrupted since that press conference. I comply with the ACTUAL law. According to the press conference receivers of AWs are AWs so my selling them would be illegal. According to the press conference once an AW, always an AW so all the guns I did compliance on would be illegal. I have sold easily 4000 rifles or lowers since that date and the state is well aware of this. They regularly call my chief asking him to make me stop. He asks what law was broken to which they sputter (they is the AG office). I have multiple emails from state officials stating that the sale of receivers is unregulated by MA.

I have never been arrested. I am the ideal person to go after for enforcement of Healey yet I am still posting here and calling out panty wetters.

NOTHING in H4885 requires you to maintain any type of feature compliance with grandfathered ASFs. MGL 140 131M (a) says ASFs are illegal. (b) says any ASF lawfully possessed by a LTC holder or MA dealer is not subject to (a). Done. Since it is not subject to (a), the fact that it has all these evil features does not matter. It is still not illegal since it is not subject to (a).

That is the law they wrote. Live it. Love it. But if you are going to wet your panties, do it in private. Or join a GOAL Kumbaya session. They seem to like your interpretation contrary to what words are actually in the law.

I plan to do what I have always done. PUBLICLY comply with the ACTUAL written words of the law and not care what any politician interprets or statist lawyer who used to work for the state says it all means.

 

[TheRoland]

Except you won’t be able to buy them on or after 10/23. They will need to be on the approved firearm roster and standalone receivers are not going to be tested to be added onto the rosters. Buy them while you can.

Sure, but every target roster P365 comes with a FCU (unless I’ve eaten too much paste this month).

Certainly if I wanted some off-roster FCU (didn’t some other tiny company try something similar?) I’d have a clock there….

 

[Rockrivr1]

So with the current anti 2A laws in the pipeline to the SC now, what happens in MA if a ruling from one of those cases goes against the State’s new law? I don’t see MA following along. I doubt they’d even recognize it and still try to prosecute people with this draconian law. Sure someone will ultimately win again those charges in court, but at what cost? Can you recoup by suing the State civilly?

States and Courts seem to ignore SC decisions all the time. That’s one of the problems of the SC. They can rule but have no authority to hold anyone accountable. If the Judicial branch is in favor of the struck down law I doubt they would do anything either. Big gap in how this is run.

 

[DJBrad]

Argue with me then. Healey did not come out in 2016. Some lame politician held a press conference and all the panty wetters acted like Moses came off the mount with new tablets. I have OPENLY sold ARs and AR receivers uninterrupted since that press conference. I comply with the ACTUAL law. According to the press conference receivers of AWs are AWs so my selling them would be illegal. According to the press conference once an AW, always an AW so all the guns I did compliance on would be illegal. I have sold easily 4000 rifles or lowers since that date and the state is well aware of this. They regularly call my chief asking him to make me stop. He asks what law was broken to which they sputter (they is the AG office). I have multiple emails from state officials stating that the sale of receivers is unregulated by MA.

I have never been arrested. I am the ideal person to go after for enforcement of Healey yet I am still posting here and calling out panty wetters.

NOTHING in H4885 requires you to maintain any type of feature compliance with grandfathered ASFs. MGL 140 131M (a) says ASFs are illegal. (b) says any ASF lawfully possessed by a LTC holder or MA dealer is not subject to (a). Done. Since it is not subject to (a), the fact that it has all these evil features does not matter. It is still not illegal since it is not subject to (a).

That is the law they wrote. Live it. Love it. But if you are going to wet your panties, do it in private. Or join a GOAL Kumbaya session. They seem to like your interpretation contrary to what words are actually in the law.

I plan to do what I have always done. PUBLICLY comply with the ACTUAL written words of the law and not care what any politician interprets or statist lawyer who used to work for the state says it all means.

Sticky this post

 

[67ray]

If they were in inventory on 8/1 they are 100% exempt as of 10/23 along with being perfectly legal now.
Why not sell them before 10/23 when the roster requirements kick in.

That's the big question: were they in inventory on 8/1? Shooting Supply said they were getting shipments everyday so . . .

I think even @CrackPot agrees transferring complete rifles after 8/2 will not be grandfathered - if it is legal for an FFL at all

 

[alan226]

“10% off and tax free!” On a PTR that is over 300% it’s normal price.

Mark it up 40% and then take 10% off. Sounds like a deal

 

[CrackPot]

That's the big question: were they in inventory on 8/1? Shooting Supply said they were getting shipments everyday so . . .

I think even @CrackPot agrees transferring complete rifles after 8/2 will not be grandfathered - if it is legal for an FFL at all

Transferring rifles after 8/2 is grandfathered if the rifle was lawfully possessed in MA by a LTC holder or MA dealer on 8/1.

 

[drgrant]

I think everyone should just interpret this new law anyway they want and stop arguing about what is or isn't. Do as you feel or think is correct by your own interpretation. It's all a spin of the wheel of chance now. No one really knows what the Massachusetts state legislature was trying to say, I'm not sure they even know and that is what is tricky right now. Not until the state lays out what the interpretation of each part of this law is. it is unknown really. The crazy thing is we may never really know and this can end up being a bigger problem once law enforcement, prosecutors and judges decide what they think the interpretation is. With no guidence from our legislators on this law and each of its parts it will just be a leagle interpretation crap shoot.

I agree but most gun owners in this state are pant shitting retards and they "want somebody to tell them the thing to make them feel good" or sleep well at night because they're afraid of everything.

So with the current anti 2A laws in the pipeline to the SC now, what happens in MA if a ruling from one of those cases goes against the State’s new law? I don’t see MA following along. I doubt they’d even recognize it and still try to prosecute people with this draconian law. Sure someone will ultimately win again those charges in court, but at what cost? Can you recoup by suing the State civilly?

States and Courts seem to ignore SC decisions all the time. That’s one of the problems of the SC. They can rule but have no authority to hold anyone accountable. If the Judicial branch is in favor of the struck down law I doubt they would do anything either. Big gap in how this is run.

That's cute but they bent in about 10 seconds after Caetano and Bruen. It really depends on the scope of the rulings. Part of the problem is rulings are specific. So even if they say, strike down big parts of the ban, it's not absurd to think that the state will "get cute" in terms of compliance. Like for example with Caetano they defaulted to "ooooly ooih stun guns are legal, but only with an ltc" which is still pretty retarded. So another spite bill and shitty restrictions will likely follow. With more lawsuits. This isn't a short game.

 

[pastera]

That's the big question: were they in inventory on 8/1? Shooting Supply said they were getting shipments everyday so . . .

I think even @CrackPot agrees transferring complete rifles after 8/2 will not be grandfathered - if it is legal for an FFL at all

No idea - I don't follow shooting supply closely.
Question is what guns are being shipped in and from where?
Non-AW - doesn't matter since they will be legal to possess on 10/23; dealers just won't be able to transfer

An AR or similar ASF, then as long as it was in state then it is exempt - even if it was in a distributors warehouse.

 

[milktree]

So with the current anti 2A laws in the pipeline to the SC now, what happens in MA if a ruling from one of those cases goes against the State’s new law? I don’t see MA following along. I doubt they’d even recognize it and still try to prosecute people with this draconian law. Sure someone will ultimately win again those charges in court, but at what cost? Can you recoup by suing the State civilly?

States and Courts seem to ignore SC decisions all the time. That’s one of the problems of the SC. They can rule but have no authority to hold anyone accountable. If the Judicial branch is in favor of the struck down law I doubt they would do anything either. Big gap in how this is run.

I'm pretty sure that if you got nailed on a law that had been ruled unconstitutional, there's no way in hell Mass.gov and all its enforcers could claim qualified immunity, which means a 1983 suit with a huge payout. The AG and governor and everyone else who has a hand in this garbage are smart enough to know this.

If the Supreme Court says, "Assault weapons bans are unconstitutional", they'll leave the laws on the books and never prosecute even flagrant violations, because doing so could be incredibly expensive to them, even as individuals.

 

[MGnoob]

If you really want to reinterpret this law, I guess anything that might’ve been considered illegal is now legal. It sounds like a goddamn border policy.

Just wait another 5. 10 or 15 years…


Constitution be damned you have no rights

 

[Agnotology]

That's the big question: were they in inventory on 8/1? Shooting Supply said they were getting shipments everyday so . . .

I think even @CrackPot agrees transferring complete rifles after 8/2 will not be grandfathered - if it is legal for an FFL at all

once the FFL orders something, the next day it's transferred to them. So anything ordered on 7/30 was on their books as of 7/31. Legally possessed on paper, which is all that matters. Which is why there will be no shortage of lowers or complete AR's anytime soon, just elevated prices. Get price raped at your own discretion. If your go-to FFL is asking $100 for an Anderson lower, you weren't that important of a customer to begin with.

 

[drgrant]

Get price raped at your own discretion. If your go-to FFL is asking $100 for an Anderson lower, you weren't that important of a customer to begin with.

That's not even expensive at this point. Even in free states during covid they were getting that easily in some places. Hell during one of the obamascares I paid like $175 for an LRB inbounded. Admittedly its much nicer than an Anderson but functionally similar

 

[Agnotology]

That's not even expensive at this point. Even in free states during covid they were getting that easily in some places. Hell during one of the obamascares I paid like $175 for an LRB inbounded. Admittedly its much nicer than an Anderson but functionally similar

I'll have to measure tolerances some day...... first I need a set of calipers, then I need the energy to do it.

I have a feeling the lowers are closer in quality than one might suspect, same material to same material.

 

[pastera]

I'll have to measure tolerances some day...... first I need a set of calipers, then I need the energy to do it.

I have a feeling the lowers are closer in quality than one might suspect, same material to same material.

Agree - any real difference is going to be in the post process cosmetic stuff.

 

[drgrant]

I'll have to measure tolerances some day...... first I need a set of calipers, then I need the energy to do it.

I have a feeling the lowers are closer in quality than one might suspect, same material to same material.

IME most Andersons will be just fine, they often just look like shit. (The anodizing they use literally matches nothing) I honestly think you're way more likely to find an out of spec cheap upper vs an Anderson lower.