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

[Martinilover]

Lots of questions and lots of interpretations of the pending law.

To add another one. Will MA residents be able to drive north and continue to buy ammo? Or with the northern states refuse to sell to folks from the peoples Republic of Massachusetts?

 

[spt_1955]

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.

Actually a very astute position. If you are one of the people (e.g. Guida) taking the position that post July 20, 2016 are not lawfully owned becasue of the Healy "enforcement notice" and are therefore not grandfathered under the 131M you are ignoring the fact that the enforcement notice declared that EVERYTHING after the 1994 law was an illegal duplicate and the enforcement notice was issued to inform us that now the AG was going to start prosecuting these "illegal" weapons going forward but was choosing not to retroactively prosecute illegal purchases made prior to 7/20/16.

 

[drgrant]

To add another one. Will MA residents be able to drive north and continue to buy ammo? Or with the northern states refuse to sell to folks from the peoples Republic of Massachusetts?

Why would any of that functionally change? That activity is not blockable by MA legal faggotry.

 

[drgrant]

Actually a very astute position. If you are one of the people (e.g. Guida) taking the position that post July 20, 2016 are not lawfully owned becasue of the Healy "enforcement notice" and are therefore not grandfathered under the 131M you are ignoring the fact that the enforcement notice declared that EVERYTHING after the 1994 law was an illegal duplicate and the enforcement notice was issued to inform us that now the AG was going to start prosecuting these "illegal" weapons going forward but was choosing not to retroactively prosecute illegal purchases made prior to 7/20/16.

I don't see how legally they can incorporate something into this legislation that was never actual law to begin with.

I think healeyban is distinctly ignorable, but the 8/1 thing obviously is not. I think healeyban is just a distraction to make people "more scared" and try to give up their
shit, when they clearly don't have to.

 

[DJBrad]

Why would any of that functionally change? That activity is not blockable by MA legal faggotry.

Exactly and even if no B&M ammo sellers were available over the border there are not a few online retailers that send it right to your front door.

 

[Picton]

I don't see how legally they can incorporate something into this legislation that was never actual law to begin with.

I think healeyban is distinctly ignorable, but the 8/1 thing obviously is not. I think healeyban is just a distraction to make people "more scared" and try to give up their
shit, when they clearly don't have to.

They declined to prosecute Healyban, and told us so. Meaning people "violated" it in good faith, and those people can prove that.

Ain't gonna be nobody prosecuting any of those post-Healy, pre-8/1 purchases.

 

[Beretta92FS]

Actually a very astute position. If you are one of the people (e.g. Guida) taking the position that post July 20, 2016 are not lawfully owned becasue of the Healy "enforcement notice" and are therefore not grandfathered under the 131M you are ignoring the fact that the enforcement notice declared that EVERYTHING after the 1994 law was an illegal duplicate and the enforcement notice was issued to inform us that now the AG was going to start prosecuting these "illegal" weapons going forward but was choosing not to retroactively prosecute illegal purchases made prior to 7/20/16.

And then we also have the inconvenient fact that the ATF has been approving SBRs based on lowers sold and built after 7/20/16. Obviously the ATF would never ever approve anything that was contradictory to any laws.

 

[scott-o]

Just saying ... 8/1 "Blessing of the Guns" having an in-state FFL or LEO posess each gun in the commonwealth for 1 second, making each gun lawfully posessed on 8/1.

Ok, so assume post 7/20/16 MA Compliant is unlawful, or even a pre 7/20/16 MA Compliant is unlawful, does not negate the effect each gun being posessed lawfully on 8/1.

Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024
State would have to prove it WAS NOT lawfully posessed on 8/1.

 

[Individualist]

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.

The prior AG never made that same proclamation and let existing law stand. I fail to understand how anyone other than the Courts can legally interpret a law, let alone change it with additional restriction.

 

[pastera]

I don't see how legally they can incorporate something into this legislation that was never actual law to begin with.

I think healeyban is distinctly ignorable, but the 8/1 thing obviously is not. I think healeyban is just a distraction to make people "more scared" and try to give up their
shit, when they clearly don't have to.

I agree with both Guida and Neil's positions
The state's position is that because they verbally excluded assault weapons sold before the declaration they are excluding those items from the new definition however those procurred after were and are banned.
But the state knows this position will go over as well as their stun gun ban so they are only looking for voluntary compliance except as a secondary charge where they could create a Rahimi part II but otherwise won't pursue charges (past confiscation and license revocation).

But anything they do pursue will be rubber stamped in the state's favor all the way to the steps of the Supreme Court

 

[pastera]

The prior AG never made that same proclamation and let existing law stand. I fail to understand how anyone other than the Courts can legally interpret a law.

Chevron deference? remember that was controlling caselaw at the time.

 

[kalash]

The summary is not the bill
It is clear that copies and duplicates are only exempt if they were registered by 7/20/16.

This makes no sense to me.

1) Lowers owned prior to 7/20/16 wouldn't have been FA10'ed. Healey said back in 2016 that if you had a lower already, you could build it.
2) Similarly, there are rifles that were lawfully possessed and lawfully not "registered" before 7/20/16.

Retroactively requiring that people register in the past what they didn't have to register is a trap and I can't imagine any court not tossing it.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Lots of questions and lots of interpretations of the pending law.

To add another one. Will MA residents be able to drive north and continue to buy ammo? Or with the northern states refuse to sell to folks from the peoples Republic of Massachusetts?

Why would they refuse to sell to MA residents?
They go by their State laws.

Guys, stop putting so much thought into this, it is not healthy.

 

[drgrant]

And then we also have the inconvenient fact that the ATF has been approving SBRs based on lowers sold and built after 7/20/16. Obviously the ATF would never ever approve anything that was contradictory to any laws.

Well, they stopped it for awhile but I think they started approving things again when attorneys got involved, likely demonstrating that it was equally possible for someone to build something that violated MA laws as it was to build something that easily didnt violate the laws. The ATF literally has no reasonable way of knowing wether the thing you are Form-1ing is "mass legal" or not, so that whole thing is an exercise in futility.

 

[Arto]

Unconstitutional refers to anything that transgresses or is antithetical to a constitution, especially the United States Constitution. In the context of the U.S. legal system, if a law, policy, or action is deemed unconstitutional, it means that it violates some part of the Constitution and is therefore invalid.

unconstitutional

www.law.cornell.edu

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[Broc Tuah]

Actually a very astute position. If you are one of the people (e.g. Guida) taking the position that post July 20, 2016 are not lawfully owned becasue of the Healy "enforcement notice" and are therefore not grandfathered under the 131M you are ignoring the fact that the enforcement notice declared that EVERYTHING after the 1994 law was an illegal duplicate and the enforcement notice was issued to inform us that now the AG was going to start prosecuting these "illegal" weapons going forward but was choosing not to retroactively prosecute illegal purchases made prior to 7/20/16.

GUIDA can s*ck a d*ck.

Healey edict is NOT LAW

Why are people still so f*cking retarded about this? ... if it was law they could have closed half the gun shops in this State and put hundreds, if not thousands, of gun owners in prison.

 

[Broc Tuah]

I just want to point out, open carry is still legal in MA.

 

[Individualist]

Chevron deference? remember that was controlling caselaw at the time.

Not a lawyer so bear with me. Does the fact that it was overturned by TSC have any bearing? Meaning that perhaps it was allowed to be claimed at the time, but has since been found to be not allowable or referenceable in a newly written law?

 

[drgrant]

Guidance can s*ck a d*ck.

Healey edict is NOT LAW.

I don't really understand this fantasy where they can somehow retroactively anoint it as "having been real law" when it never was.

I still maintain that healeyban is kind of a distraction here and likely causing more unnecessary pant shittting.

I also find it comical that anyone that bought a post 7/20 gun is suddenly intimidated because "theres the equivalent of a new strongly worded letter"

I think some of these people are forgetting that the entire affair back then was like the equivalent of a british police officer with a rape whistle chasing a
guy with a machete. "STOP! or ill keep blowing my whistle and telling you to stop!"

 

[pastera]

This makes no sense to me.

1) Lowers owned prior to 7/20/16 wouldn't have been FA10'ed. Healey said back in 2016 that if you had a lower already, you could build it.
2) Similarly, there are rifles that were lawfully possessed and lawfully not "registered" before 7/20/16.

Retroactively requiring that people register in the past what they didn't have to register is a trap and I can't imagine any court not tossing it.

Which is why they didn't prosecute anyone in the past and are unlikely to do so going forward - they know that they will lose.
Also why this steaming shit pile is so contradictory and confusing - they can interpret it to mean anything and just have the lower courts state that we don't have standing.

Things have changed now with Cargill and Loper since the lower courts aren't obligated to accept their interpretations of ambiguous sections and Cargill makes it clear that the letter of the law is what the law means.

I really don't know why they didn't spend the money to have this rewritten to have some chance to survive the Cargill and Loper opinions but it could be the ones that actually wrote it ran out of money or our legislature thought they are smart enough to bypass the SCOTUS opinions.

 

[Broc Tuah]

I don't really understand this fantasy where they can somehow retroactively anoint it as "having been real law" when it never was.

I still maintain that healeyban is kind of a distraction here and likely causing more unnecessary pant shittting.

I also find it comical that anyone that bought a post 7/20 gun is suddenly intimidated because "theres the equivalent of a new strongly worded letter"

I think some of these people are forgetting that the entire affair back then was like the equivalent of a british police officer with a rape whistle chasing a
guy with a machete. "STOP! or ill keep blowing my whistle and telling you to stop!"

People are over analyzing, reading between the lines and letting their brains make up random and irrational BS.

 

[CrackPot]

I don't really understand this fantasy where they can somehow retroactively anoint it as "having been real law" when it never was.

I still maintain that healeyban is kind of a distraction here and likely causing more unnecessary pant shittting.

I also find it comical that anyone that bought a post 7/20 gun is suddenly intimidated because "theres the equivalent of a new strongly worded letter"

I think some of these people are forgetting that the entire affair back then was like the equivalent of a british police officer with a rape whistle chasing a
guy with a machete. "STOP! or ill keep blowing my whistle and telling you to stop!"

The Healey language was in the senate version and is all Creem's. She has her tongue so far up Healey's ass she would do anything to score points. The language MEANS NOTHING. As I posted this morning, it just stops stuff from being a copy or duplicate but EVERYTHING fails the feature test so it does not matter. All that matters is the 131M lawfully owned on 8/1/24 language. The rest is a total distraction with no actual practical impact.

 

[pastera]

Not a lawyer so bear with me. Does the fact that it was overturned by TSC have any bearing? Meaning that perhaps it was allowed to be claimed at the time, but has since been found to be not allowable or referenceable in a newly written law?

Chevron deference forced the court to accept the regulatory agency's interpretation of what a law or regulation meant - therefore if the AG interpreted the ambiguous and undefined "copies and duplicates" definition to mean that there was no method to cure an AW with compliance changes then the court was forced to accept that interpretation


Cargill tells us that if a law is clear in it's meaning then the state cannot read into that language a broader definition of the law - which Mass did since the Mass AWB was a copy (pretty much literal copy) of the federal ban and the federal ban allowed curing the features issues through compliance changes.

Mass will lose this fight but very likely only that the SC level since the 1st is not going to hand down a pro-2a opinion even when forced to do so.

 

[paul73]

our legislature thought they are smart enough to bypass the SCOTUS opinions

they are smart enough to understand that court process will bankrupt most while it may or may not make it up to scotus.
law is a weapon now, and the punishment happens way before the judgement gets made, with people losing jobs, income, insurance, mortgages etc.
everyone understands this, how the process works, and how the punitive measures are getting enforced preemptively.

 

[pastera]

they are smart enough to understand that court process will bankrupt most while it may or may not make it up to scotus.
law is a weapon now, and the punishment happens way before the judgement gets made, with people losing jobs, income, insurance, mortgages etc.
everyone understands this, how the process works, and how the punitive measures are getting enforced preemptively.

Exactly - take a plea to a no jail misdemeanor and give up your license and guns now, or they will crush you and your family financially

 

[alan226]

People are over analyzing, reading between the lines and letting their brains make up random and irrational BS.

Can you really kinda blame them though? Words like arbitrary and capricious enforcement of gun laws in MA come to mind. What's up is down and tomorrow what's down is up. And if you get get caught in this vortex you might go bankrupt in the process, even if you are in the right. Peoples brains make up random and irrational BS because the state is making up random and irrational BS.

Who knows what will shake out in the end?

 

[Individualist]

Hell, I’m still not even clear how it is possible for a God given Right to be infringed by any entity or person, where the 2A specifically protects ALL against that type of infringement.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Can you really kinda blame them though?

Who knows what will shake out in the end?

Yes, I can because people have been telling them the same thing over and over, yet they keep trying to dig around and find new, imaginary junk to freak out over.

 

[wmassregulators]

What if we all just collectively said no.
Just went on with our lives. What would they do, come arrest half a million gun owners for being moral, constitutional people?
Or would they back down?

 

[drgrant]

What if we all just collectively said no.
Just went on with our lives. What would they do, come arrest half a million gun owners for being moral, constitutional people?
Or would they back down?

They're not going to arrest anyone, IMHO nothing "exciting" is going to happen until cases pushed by our side start marinating through the courts or whatever on the issue.

Otherwise the rest of it is going to be like this: