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

[Horatio Alger Jr]

Agree 100%. Either Baby Face Day really is that clueless about what the Legislature actually passed, or he's just doing that "repeat the lie enough times" and hope that naive, stupid liberals with zero knowledge of guns or MA gun law will believe him.

"Simple" is a word that cannot be combined with anything to do with the new 100+ page Monstrosity gun law.

Stupid liberals do not care if they have knowledge about firearms, or the laws about them. Neither do the politicians.

They have no interest in learning. They simple want them banned.

 

[Picton]

I actually had a moment when I thought, "wow, maybe this will be a somewhat decent story" after hearing the lead in say something like "unintended consequences of the new gun laws", but no. It was Jim Wallace saying we're all confused, Day looking like King Douche, and the same vague oversimplifications of what the law actually does. Oh and the same "don't listen to biased interest groups that are trying to boost sales" line. Guess he doesn't know GOAL is the Gun OWNERS Action League, not the Gun SELLERS Action League.

Has anyone actually put together a simple "this is what the government/media says the new laws are, this is the reality" document? It would be nice to have something like that for the general public to try and clarify what the issues are.

We've covered this in this thread a few times before. The "general public" lacks the context to understand this.

The media has neither the motivation nor the interest in producing the document you want; their readers don't care.

The politicians have neither the motivation nor the interest in producing the document you want; their constituents don't care.

The RKBA organizations have tried to produce the document you want; they found many things they could not explain, and besides? They're only talking to people like us.

You are not going to get a "simple" document that explains this particular law. It is not possible to clarify its many glaring problems. You are at the mercy of threads like this, which is almost undoubtedly the best source of information about this law. You're in the right place.

 

[Reptile]

I actually had a moment when I thought, "wow, maybe this will be a somewhat decent story" after hearing the lead in say something like "unintended consequences of the new gun laws", but no. It was Jim Wallace saying we're all confused, Day looking like King Douche, and the same vague oversimplifications of what the law actually does. Oh and the same "don't listen to biased interest groups that are trying to boost sales" line. Guess he doesn't know GOAL is the Gun OWNERS Action League, not the Gun SELLERS Action League.

Has anyone actually put together a simple "this is what the government/media says the new laws are, this is the reality" document? It would be nice to have something like that for the general public to try and clarify what the issues are.

Stay tuned.

EOPSS is finalizing their "guidance" and will release a FAQ, soon.

 

[drgrant]

Stay tuned.

EOPSS is finalizing their "guidance" and will release a FAQ, soon.

Talking to people you shouldn't be talking to again?

 

[pastera]

We also have the ATF guidance which says a permanently attached device is part of the barrel.

What about barrels that thread into the breach or trunnion? It doesn’t say what end of the barrel… see where this can go?

The breach end threads are not "designed to accommodate" a muzzle mounted device.

(iv) a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor or muzzle break or similar feature

 

[pastera]

I think the logic they will use is that if the pinned and welded device becomes part of the barrel thus negating the threaded barrel, and is used in the calculation of barrel length, so that the extending device becomes part of the barrel, then the threads on the device, which is part of the barrel, thus the threads are on part of the barrel as well.

This is what happens when you grow up with lawyers in the family.

But what if your pinned muzzle device has threads designed for concussion redirector

Kineti-Tech Muzzle Brake with Concussion/Redirector Sleeve

Glock Slides, Glock triggers, Shrouds for AR 15, Saiga 12, Smith & Wesson 15 /22 and many others. All Kineti-tech barrel shrouds are mil spec anodized. Our Saiga and AR 15 shrouds are the most sought after barrels shrouds on the market.

www.kineti-tech.com

That's not designed to accommodate ...

 

[Reptile]

Talking to people you shouldn't be talking to again?

I ain’t no rat!

That information is in the article.

 

[440Sixpack]

You are not going to get a "simple" document that explains this particular law. It is not possible to clarify its many glaring problems. You are at the mercy of threads like this, which is almost undoubtedly the best source of information about this law. You're in the right place.

Yeah I get it, I guess I'm basically wishing for a straightforward tool to try and show on a small scale level, here's the lie behind the story being sold. I'm not great at explaining it despite intuitively knowing the bullshit, so if I want to say go to someone who's your normal, ambivalent citizen who chugs along through life generally happy with this state and try to explain, our wonderful government is screwing us and it won't stop here, such a tool would be handy. My mind works way better than my mouth.

 

[Picton]

Yeah I get it, I guess I'm basically wishing for a straightforward tool to try and show on a small scale level, here's the lie behind the story being sold. I'm not great at explaining it despite intuitively knowing the bullshit, so if I want to say go to someone who's your normal, ambivalent citizen who chugs along through life generally happy with this state and try to explain, our wonderful government is screwing us and it won't stop here, such a tool would be handy. My mind works way better than my mouth.

If a citizen is normal and ambivalent, there's a reason for that. They're likely to try to stay that way. They like the coccoon it gives them. You (and I) want them to care about things they're going to try hard NOT to care about. In a word, they need to be redpilled.

I'd suggest that's unlikely to happen when guns are the issue.

 

[Drix]

"Despite the debate, it's clear the new law has had an impact on gun sales in Massachusetts.

Our investigative team analyzed state data about dealer sales for about two and a half weeks at the end of July — when it was clear the bill was about to become law.

There were 11,927 guns sold by dealers in that short time period, about four times the amount sold in that same time period in 2023 (3,113) and in 2022 (3,115).

How do I get my hands on those numbers?

 

[drgrant]

I ain’t no rat!

That information is in the article.

Link? Or its earlier in thread my bad

 

[drgrant]

How do I get my hands on those numbers?

Probably EOPS FA10 transfer via dealer number... Probably FOIA would produce it. It's kind of a shit number, a more interesting # is the total number of NICS proceeds in MA between the ban signing and now. Sure some of these are going to represent used guns but its a strong indicator of purchasing activities.

 

[not new guy]

The state is also regularly updating those public spreadsheets reporting all licensees and transactions, though the transactions one hasn't been updated since March.

 

[APFSDS]

Yeah I get it, I guess I'm basically wishing for a straightforward tool to try and show on a small scale level, here's the lie behind the story being sold. I'm not great at explaining it despite intuitively knowing the bullshit, so if I want to say go to someone who's your normal, ambivalent citizen who chugs along through life generally happy with this state and try to explain, our wonderful government is screwing us and it won't stop here, such a tool would be handy. My mind works way better than my mouth.

I took a whack at it. Everyone feel free to correct/rehash/add:

See Revision 1 later in the thread.

The bill bans “ghost guns”

Ghost guns (guns that don’t have a serial number and are home-built, sometimes from a kit that requires significant milling/drilling and assembly) were already felony illegal for someone without a MA firearm license to own. The new bill just requires that licensees etch a serial number on ones they build. Licensees were already required to register them if they built them.

The bill requires live fire training, making us safer

Live fire training was not required, as the firearm accident rate among licensees was already non-existent. There are very few firing ranges where this training can be conducted, meaning it will be much, much harder for someone to complete the required training, which seems to be the intent of this new requirement. It will also put most trainers out of business, again making it nearly impossible to get a license which is required to even possesses a firearm in this state.

The bill expands “red flag laws,” making us safer

Red flag laws are due-process free and ripe for abuse. This law makes it possible for anyone that has had “contact” (speaking with them, a hand wave, email, text etc.) with a licensee three or more times to have the licensee’s firearms confiscated with a harassment protection order. In order to get their license restored and property returned the licensee must hire a lawyer and spend 10,000+ dollars. This can be repeated over and over again, and can be used to silence free speech as even a short email exchange between a licensee and a political staffer expressing displeasure over a bill or policy can be grounds for a red flag confiscation.

The bill improves the ban on “assault weapons,” keeping us safer

The bill bans the sale of every single rifle and shotgun, even single-shot target rifles and double barrel, Elmer Fudd style hunting shotguns. Rifles and shotguns must now be added to a roster after meeting extensive testing standards which are meant for pistols and have not been updated to apply to rifles. To my knowledge, no such rifles or shotguns exist that would comply with these standards, but if they do the testing and bureaucratic process to add them will take years. The bill also creates a roster for semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, including target rifles and sport shotguns. Rifles and shotguns can be added and removed at any time, so if you purchase any semi-automatic rifle that is legal at the time, it can be made illegal later. Your only options then are to sell your property of out state or destroy it. This effectively bans all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, which was obviously the intent.

All of these new requirements and the new registration system are unfunded. The State police indefinitely paused the processing of all new licenses until they were threatened with multiple lawsuits. None of the other requirements have been thought through or prepared for ahead of time, and many take effect in October 2024. I talked to a firearm dealer and they have received zero communication from the state on the new requirements or how to comply.

There are more non-nonsensical restrictions but these are the most egregious.

 

[milktree]

The bill expands “red flag laws,” making us safer

This law makes it possible for anyone that has had “contact” (speaking with them, a hand wave, email, text etc.) with a licensee three or more times to have the licensee’s firearms confiscated

Please cite the bolded bits.

I agree the gross expansion of the “petitioner” is absurd, but I don’t think it’s as far as “anybody” and the number of times isn’t mentioned in MGL or H.4885 that I can find.

 

[APFSDS]

Please cite the bolded bits.

I agree the gross expansion of the “petitioner” is absurd, but I don’t think it’s as far as “anybody” and the number of times isn’t mentioned in MGL or H.4885 that I can find.

It's in the Harassment Protection Order verbiage, here: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/find-out-what-qualifies-as-harassment

You can ask for a Harassment Prevention Order (a "258E Order) from a judge if you’re suffering from harassment because someone has committed 3 or more acts:

• That were willful and malicious. This means it was done on purpose and was done for cruelty, hostility or revenge
• Were aimed at you.
• Were intended to cause you fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property. “Abuse” means causing or attempting to cause physical harm, or causing fear of imminent serious physical harm.
• Did in fact cause you fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property

 

[wcorey]

I took a whack at it. Everyone feel free to correct/rehash/add:

The bill improves the ban on “assault weapons,” keeping us safer

The bill bans the sale of every single rifle and shotgun, even single-shot target rifles and double barrel, Elmer Fudd style hunting shotguns. Rifles and shotguns must now be added to a roster after meeting extensive testing standards which are meant for pistols and have not been updated to apply to rifles. To my knowledge, no such rifles or shotguns exist that would comply with these standards, but if they do the testing and bureaucratic process to add them will take years. The bill also creates a roster for semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, including target rifles and sport shotguns. Rifles and shotguns can be added and removed at any time, so if you purchase any semi-automatic rifle that is legal at the time, it can be made illegal later. Your only options then are to sell your property of out state or destroy it. This effectively bans all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, which was obviously the intent.

Really this paragraph deals more with the roster issue than ASF's, should be two separate categories.

You could, as you did with the live fire training, start the ASF paragraph with something to the effect of;
"As the number of crimes committed in Ma using legally acquired 'assault style fires arms' is statistically all but non existent, the ban imposes onerous restrictions on thousands of legal gun owners while providing very little improvement to public safety. The law as written has many ambiguities and even contradictions making it virtually impossible to comply with legally and potentially turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen.

 

[drgrant]

Has anyone ever really been hit with erpo in mass? Suitability for the longest time effectively did the same thing, wondering if kopsch have now pivoted to telling whiners to seek an erpo instead?

 

[APFSDS]

Actually, I'm doubting that the bill states HPOs can be used to red flag someone. That might have been in one of the drafts. I can't find "HPO" or "harrassment protection order" in the actual H4885 bill text

 

[APFSDS]

Really this paragraph deals more with the roster issue than ASF's, should be two separate categories.

You could, as you did with the live fire training, start the ASF paragraph with something to the effect of;
"As the number of crimes committed in Ma using legally acquired 'assault style fires arms' is statistically all but non existent, the ban imposes onerous restrictions on thousands of legal gun owners while providing very little improvement to public safety. The law as written has many ambiguities and even contradictions making it virtually impossible to comply with legally and potentially turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen.

True...i was thinking that the average person this is aimed at would be 100% for getting "weapons of war off the streets" and trying to explain how dumb the concept of an "assault weapon" or "assault style firearm" is would take more than just a few sentences. I like your verbiage though, it's succinct and drives home how "safe" AW/ASF whatever they want to call them actually are compared to, say, pistols, or cars, or opioids etc.

 

[PappyM3]

Actually, I'm doubting that the bill states HPOs can be used to red flag someone. That might have been in one of the drafts. I can't find "HPO" or "harrassment protection order" in the actual H4885 bill text

It’s already in MGL, hence not in H4885.

What H4885 does is require police to come seize your guns if your LTC is revoked (such as because of an HPO). Previously, they were not allowed to do they without a warrant. It was previously up to the individual to come turn them in.

 

[APFSDS]

Revision 1:

The bill bans “ghost guns”

Ghost guns (guns that don’t have a serial number and are home-built, sometimes from a kit that requires significant milling/drilling and assembly) were already felony illegal for someone without a MA firearm license to own. The new bill just requires that licensees etch a serial number on ones they build. Licensees were already required to register them if they built them.

The bill requires live fire training, making us safer

Live fire training was not previously required, as the firearm accident rate among licensees was already non-existent. Live-fire training and extensive changes to the training course needed for a firearm license are now a requirement. There are very few firing ranges where this training can be conducted, meaning it will be much, much harder for someone to complete the required training, which seems to be the intent of this new requirement. It will also put most trainers out of business, again making it nearly impossible to get a license which is required to even possesses a firearm in this state.

The bill expands “red flag laws,” making us safer

Red flag laws are due-process free and ripe for abuse. Previously, when a license was revoked or suspended, a licensee was required to turn in their guns to the police or turn them over to another licensee. Now, police are required to enter a licensee’s home--without a warrant and using force if they deem it necessary--and confiscate their property, putting both the licensee and police in danger. This law also vastly expands who can request an Extreme Risk Protection Order. And of course it is still possible for anyone that has had “contact” (speaking with them, a hand wave, email, text etc.) with a licensee three or more times to have the licensee’s firearms confiscated with a harassment protection order. In order to get their license restored and property returned the licensee must hire a lawyer and spend 10,000+ dollars. This can be repeated over and over again, and can be used to silence free speech as even a short email exchange between a licensee and a political staffer expressing displeasure over a bill or policy can be grounds for a red flag confiscation.

The bill improves the ban on “assault weapons,” keeping us safer

As the number of crimes committed in Ma using legally acquired 'assault style fire arms' is statistically all but non existent, the ban imposes onerous restrictions on thousands of legal gun owners while providing no improvement to public safety. The law as written has many ambiguities and even contradictions making it virtually impossible to comply with and potentially turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen.

The bill also bans the sale of every single rifle and shotgun, even single-shot target rifles and double barrel, Elmer Fudd style hunting shotguns. Rifles and shotguns must now be added to an approved sale roster after meeting extensive testing standards which are meant for pistols and have not been updated to apply to rifles. To my knowledge, no such rifles or shotguns exist that would comply with these standards, but if they do the testing and bureaucratic process to add them will take years. The bill also creates another roster for banned and approved semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, including target rifles and sport shotguns. Rifles and shotguns can be added and removed at any time, so if you purchase any semi-automatic rifle that is legal at the time, it can be made illegal later. Your only options then are to sell your property out of state or destroy it. This effectively bans all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, which was obviously the intent. This will also put most if not all legal licensed firearm dealers out of business, which again was almost certainly the intent.

All of these new requirements and the new registration system are unfunded. The State police indefinitely paused the processing of all new licenses until they were threatened with multiple lawsuits. None of the other requirements have been thought through or prepared for ahead of time, and many take effect in October 2024. I talked to a firearm dealer and they have received zero communication from the state on the new requirements or how to comply.

There are more non-nonsensical restrictions but these are the most egregious.

 

[440Sixpack]

Revision 1:

The bill bans “ghost guns”

Ghost guns (guns that don’t have a serial number and are home-built, sometimes from a kit that requires significant milling/drilling and assembly) were already felony illegal for someone without a MA firearm license to own. The new bill just requires that licensees etch a serial number on ones they build. Licensees were already required to register them if they built them.

The bill requires live fire training, making us safer

Live fire training was not previously required, as the firearm accident rate among licensees was already non-existent. Live-fire training and extensive changes to the training course needed for a firearm license are now a requirement. There are very few firing ranges where this training can be conducted, meaning it will be much, much harder for someone to complete the required training, which seems to be the intent of this new requirement. It will also put most trainers out of business, again making it nearly impossible to get a license which is required to even possesses a firearm in this state.

The bill expands “red flag laws,” making us safer

Red flag laws are due-process free and ripe for abuse. Previously, when a license was revoked or suspended, a licensee was required to turn in their guns to the police or turn them over to another licensee. Now, police are required to enter a licensee’s home--without a warrant and using force if they deem it necessary--and confiscate their property, putting both the licensee and police in danger. This law also vastly expands who can request an Extreme Risk Protection Order. And of course it is still possible for anyone that has had “contact” (speaking with them, a hand wave, email, text etc.) with a licensee three or more times to have the licensee’s firearms confiscated with a harassment protection order. In order to get their license restored and property returned the licensee must hire a lawyer and spend 10,000+ dollars. This can be repeated over and over again, and can be used to silence free speech as even a short email exchange between a licensee and a political staffer expressing displeasure over a bill or policy can be grounds for a red flag confiscation.

The bill improves the ban on “assault weapons,” keeping us safer

As the number of crimes committed in Ma using legally acquired 'assault style fires arms' is statistically all but non existent, the ban imposes onerous restrictions on thousands of legal gun owners while providing no improvement to public safety. The law as written has many ambiguities and even contradictions making it virtually impossible to comply with and potentially turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen.

The bill also bans the sale of every single rifle and shotgun, even single-shot target rifles and double barrel, Elmer Fudd style hunting shotguns. Rifles and shotguns must now be added to an approved sale roster after meeting extensive testing standards which are meant for pistols and have not been updated to apply to rifles. To my knowledge, no such rifles or shotguns exist that would comply with these standards, but if they do the testing and bureaucratic process to add them will take years. The bill also creates another roster for banned and approved semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, including target rifles and sport shotguns. Rifles and shotguns can be added and removed at any time, so if you purchase any semi-automatic rifle that is legal at the time, it can be made illegal later. Your only options then are to sell your property out of state or destroy it. This effectively bans all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, which was obviously the intent. This will also put most if not all legal licensed firearm dealers out of business, which again was almost certainly the intent.

All of these new requirements and the new registration system are unfunded. The State police indefinitely paused the processing of all new licenses until they were threatened with multiple lawsuits. None of the other requirements have been thought through or prepared for ahead of time, and many take effect in October 2024. I talked to a firearm dealer and they have received zero communication from the state on the new requirements or how to comply.

There are more non-nonsensical restrictions but these are the most egregious.

This is great, thank you! This is the kind of counterpoint I was envisioning. Call me an idealist I guess though, given that Picton is probably right that anyone who doesn't already care about this issue isn't going to be swayed by arguments like this.

 

[Hombiez]

@GOAL did you all get new information from the state on their interpretation of the law? I've seen language on your site for a few weeks that aligned with the majority opinion on here that nearly everything 8/1 would be grandfathered and the 7/20/16 date was a red herring, but this is new:

Because of the terminology used, it appears that the only guns grandfathered after the July 20, 2016 are the those that meet the new two feature test, such as the Tavor. So, because of the “lawfully possessed” and how that will be interpreted, it appears that there are now three different groups of guns with two different dates that must be dealt with.

1. Copies and duplicates of the enumerated list are only grandfathered if they were acquired prior to July 20, 2016.
2. Any gun that is not on the enumerated list, or their copies and duplicates, but now meets the new two feature test and is lawfully possessed in Massachusetts on August 1, 2024. We believe this group also includes the pre-September 13, 1994 assault weapons."

I'm curious on why the reversion to this interpretation of the law? I can't logically figure out how they'd make that case given the actual text of the law. The 2016 date is in the definition of Assault Style Firearm while the 131M enforcement section doesn't reference that at all. If they wanted to exclude 2016 rifles from grandfathering shouldn't they have written that in 131M?

 

[Picton]

I can't logically figure out how they'd make that case given the actual text of the law.

*sigh* That's because you're trying to apply logic. You shouldn't waste your time; the writers of this statute didn't apply any. Why should you?

They're not going to bother trying to "make that case." They've already achieved what they're trying to do: scare people into complying. Anyone still worrying about how to make themselves legal falls into that category, and it's a HUGE category.

I'm not blaming you for trying to follow the law, I guess; the importance of laws has been conditioned into a lot of us from childhood. I used to be worried about that, too. But there comes a point at which you start to think more critically about government and its role, and we've all had plenty of opportunity to reach that point here in MA. I'm just shaking my head at the notion that anyone who reads NES is still bothering to worry about compliance.

 

[DJBrad]

Revision 1:

The bill bans “ghost guns”

Ghost guns (guns that don’t have a serial number and are home-built, sometimes from a kit that requires significant milling/drilling and assembly) were already felony illegal for someone without a MA firearm license to own. The new bill just requires that licensees etch a serial number on ones they build. Licensees were already required to register them if they built them.

The bill requires live fire training, making us safer

Live fire training was not previously required, as the firearm accident rate among licensees was already non-existent. Live-fire training and extensive changes to the training course needed for a firearm license are now a requirement. There are very few firing ranges where this training can be conducted, meaning it will be much, much harder for someone to complete the required training, which seems to be the intent of this new requirement. It will also put most trainers out of business, again making it nearly impossible to get a license which is required to even possesses a firearm in this state.

The bill expands “red flag laws,” making us safer

Red flag laws are due-process free and ripe for abuse. Previously, when a license was revoked or suspended, a licensee was required to turn in their guns to the police or turn them over to another licensee. Now, police are required to enter a licensee’s home--without a warrant and using force if they deem it necessary--and confiscate their property, putting both the licensee and police in danger. This law also vastly expands who can request an Extreme Risk Protection Order. And of course it is still possible for anyone that has had “contact” (speaking with them, a hand wave, email, text etc.) with a licensee three or more times to have the licensee’s firearms confiscated with a harassment protection order. In order to get their license restored and property returned the licensee must hire a lawyer and spend 10,000+ dollars. This can be repeated over and over again, and can be used to silence free speech as even a short email exchange between a licensee and a political staffer expressing displeasure over a bill or policy can be grounds for a red flag confiscation.

The bill improves the ban on “assault weapons,” keeping us safer

As the number of crimes committed in Ma using legally acquired 'assault style fires arms' is statistically all but non existent, the ban imposes onerous restrictions on thousands of legal gun owners while providing no improvement to public safety. The law as written has many ambiguities and even contradictions making it virtually impossible to comply with and potentially turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen.

The bill also bans the sale of every single rifle and shotgun, even single-shot target rifles and double barrel, Elmer Fudd style hunting shotguns. Rifles and shotguns must now be added to an approved sale roster after meeting extensive testing standards which are meant for pistols and have not been updated to apply to rifles. To my knowledge, no such rifles or shotguns exist that would comply with these standards, but if they do the testing and bureaucratic process to add them will take years. The bill also creates another roster for banned and approved semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, including target rifles and sport shotguns. Rifles and shotguns can be added and removed at any time, so if you purchase any semi-automatic rifle that is legal at the time, it can be made illegal later. Your only options then are to sell your property out of state or destroy it. This effectively bans all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, which was obviously the intent. This will also put most if not all legal licensed firearm dealers out of business, which again was almost certainly the intent.

All of these new requirements and the new registration system are unfunded. The State police indefinitely paused the processing of all new licenses until they were threatened with multiple lawsuits. None of the other requirements have been thought through or prepared for ahead of time, and many take effect in October 2024. I talked to a firearm dealer and they have received zero communication from the state on the new requirements or how to comply.

There are more non-nonsensical restrictions but these are the most egregious.

Nothing like a common sense explanation for a “common sense” gunlaw. Nothing like it.





(some will get it lolz)

 

[Reptile]

If GOAL says post 2016 AR guns are illegal…

What are people to do who have them?

What will be the consequences?

Without a plan from the state to punish citizens- who would bother complying with this law?

What about AR 15 stripped lowers that were in state before 2016 but never registered?

 

[chris_1001]

If GOAL says post 2016 AR guns are illegal…

What are people to do who have them?

What will be the consequences?

Without a plan from the state to punish citizens- who would bother complying with this law?

What about AR 15 stripped lowers that were in state before 2016 but never registered?

Really???

 

[Hombiez]

*sigh* That's because you're trying to apply logic. You shouldn't waste your time; the writers of this statute didn't apply any. Why should you?

They're not going to bother trying to "make that case." They've already achieved what they're trying to do: scare people into complying. Anyone still worrying about how to make themselves legal falls into that category, and it's a HUGE category.

I'm not blaming you for trying to follow the law, I guess; the importance of laws has been conditioned into a lot of us from childhood. I used to be worried about that, too. But there comes a point at which you start to think more critically about government and its role, and we've all had plenty of opportunity to reach that point here in MA. I'm just shaking my head at the notion that anyone who reads NES is still bothering to worry about compliance.

While I do fall into the comply with the law bucket and I am quite risk adverse, that's not exactly why I'm asking. I agree and I don't think it helps for lawful gun owners to be scared. I think language like this coming from the most prominent 2A organization in the state will scare a lot of people.

I'm asking because I want to know whether they're getting this from the state or from the legal counsel they've retained. The state is always going to claim the 2016 enforcement notice meant something and therefore that post 7/20/16 rifles weren't lawfully possessed on 8/1. They currently claim that all those rifles aren't legal to own. Nothing has changed, this is all status quo and this should surprise no one if it's coming from the state. This doesn't appear to be giving any meaning to the 2016 language in section 121 (this remains meaningless) - this appears to be based on accepting the 2016 AG notice as controlling law on 8/1.

What I'm interested in is whether the counsel that @GOAL is retaining agrees with this or if this is information they're getting from the state. If it's from the state, I think GOAL should offer their own interpretation of the law along side the AG's and disclose them as such. It is clearly not open and shut either way and only giving the scariest version (and contradictory versions) of this doesn't help people make an informed decision.

I'd also love to understand how people are reaching these conclusions - the logical inconsistencies could make my head explode.

For example, this interpretation rests on the fact that the 2016 enforcement notice is correct. If we accept that then the enforcement notice claimed pre 2016 rifles were also illegal to posses but wouldn't be prosecuted as a matter of priorities. The new copies and duplicate language didn't control what was legal on 8/1 so nothing post 94 is legal.

As a matter of de facto law no one is getting jammed up over pre 2016 rifles for now, but an overzealous prosecutor in the future could do this if they wanted if we accept that interpretation.

The only way that pre 2016 copies and duplicates are legal is if post 2016 copies and duplicates are legal based on this writing. Consensus interpretation only helps.

 

[Picton]

While I do fall into the comply with the law bucket and I am quite risk adverse, that's not exactly why I'm asking. I agree and I don't think it helps for lawful gun owners to be scared. I think language like this coming from the most prominent 2A organization in the state will scare a lot of people.

I'm asking because I want to know whether they're getting this from the state or from the legal counsel they've retained. The state is always going to claim the 2016 enforcement notice meant something and therefore that post 7/20/16 rifles weren't lawfully possessed on 8/1. They currently claim that all those rifles aren't legal to own. Nothing has changed, this is all status quo and this should surprise no one if it's coming from the state. This doesn't appear to be giving any meaning to the 2016 language in section 121 (this remains meaningless) - this appears to be based on accepting the 2016 AG notice as controlling law on 8/1.

What I'm interested in is whether the counsel that @GOAL is retaining agrees with this or if this is information they're getting from the state. If it's from the state, I think GOAL should offer their own interpretation of the law along side the AG's and disclose them as such. It is clearly not open and shut either way and only giving the scariest version (and contradictory versions) of this doesn't help people make an informed decision.

I'd also love to understand how people are reaching these conclusions - the logical inconsistencies could make my head explode.

For example, this interpretation rests on the fact that the 2016 enforcement notice is correct. If we accept that then the enforcement notice claimed pre 2016 rifles were also illegal to posses but wouldn't be prosecuted as a matter of priorities. The new copies and duplicate language didn't control what was legal on 8/1 so nothing post 94 is legal.

As a matter of de facto law no one is getting jammed up over pre 2016 rifles for now, but an overzealous prosecutor in the future could do this if they wanted if we accept that interpretation.

The only way that pre 2016 copies and duplicates are legal is if post 2016 copies and duplicates are legal based on this writing. Consensus interpretation only helps.

As a general rule, I would expect any kind of legal advice to be as conservative as possible, in the sense that they're always trying to keep their clients out of trouble. So if GOAL is getting legal advice, then spewing it out to us, I'd expect that advice to err on the side of caution.

I'm no longer interested in caution. That's a choice I've made; the state has pushed me quite far enough, thank you.

I truly and honestly believe that this law fully intends to be opaque and impossible to follow. I think it is the screeching tantrum of a whiny bitch in the Legislature and his cronies, all of whom are ambitious for other things within their party: this law IS NOT INTENDED TO BE FOLLOWED. It is intended to be a resume builder for loudmouthed a**h***s, and they're counting on you and me to help them build that resume.

I don't know about you, but I think they can kindly go f*** themselves. There is no way to follow this law while remaining faithful to the United States Constitution, so for those of us with a patriotic bent? The way forward is clear. Once I realized that (which took all of three or four seconds), I stopped caring a whit about the wording of this law. Because it'll all end up in the toilet soon enough, anyway.