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

[novo]

Hey guys I went today to do my paper work and pick up my first 2 firearms purchases. I submitted my background check and got a delay. The lady that was helping me said that usually first time purchases will see a delay? Just wanted to know if this is accurate or not. Anyway I have to wait until next week for my Brady date. Hopefully I get a proceed before that.

 

[42!]

Hey guys I went today to do my paper work and pick up my first 2 firearms purchases. I submitted my background check and got a delay. The lady that was helping me said that usually first time purchases will see a delay? Just wanted to know if this is accurate or not. Anyway I have to wait until next week for my Brady date. Hopefully I get a proceed before that.

Don't answer the knock at the door tonight.

 

[BroncoAZ]

@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?

I believe this text was in the GOAL FAQ a month ago, and was called out in another thread. There was conflicting information on different pages on their site.

ETA: it was on page 90 of this thread.

 

[novo]

Yeah I know right. But I won't be able to pick them up till next week anyway on my Brady date. Unless I get a proceed before that. Hopefully I will get a proceed by Wednesday. I don't know why I would get a delay. I know for a fact im not a prohibited person.

 

[BlastingRaccoon47]

Hey guys I went today to do my paper work and pick up my first 2 firearms purchases. I submitted my background check and got a delay. The lady that was helping me said that usually first time purchases will see a delay? Just wanted to know if this is accurate or not. Anyway I have to wait until next week for my Brady date. Hopefully I get a proceed before that.

Yes this is normal

 

[Hombiez]

I believe this text was in the GOAL FAQ a month ago, and was called out in another thread. There was conflicting information on different pages on their site.

ETA: it was on page 90 of this thread.View attachment 913766View attachment 913767

Yes it was their original interpretation about a month ago. They had even more language that squared with that at the time.

Then a week or two ago they started adding more things that aligned with 8/1 being the date for nearly everything.

Now they’ve pulled much of that back and largely reverted to the original interpretation of 7/20/16 being a meaningful date.

There are still contradictions up (like in the timeline section) but this is a change from what they were updating recently.

 

[MAJoe]

@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?

How could the new feature test, which wasn’t the law or in the AG notice, be applied before the law is effective? The OLD feature test mattered for rifles on 8/1.

 

[BigAce74]

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.

Was just discussing the bolded part with someone the other day and they were insisting that this was not true. Said he read through the whole bill and that this is just gun groups blowing it all out of proportion. I basically told him we'll just have to wait and see what dealers will do after October 23rd.

 

[Hombiez]

How could the new feature test, which wasn’t the law or in the AG notice, be applied before the law is effective? The OLD feature test mattered for rifles on 8/1.

Not my language, that's from GOAL, but both are applicable because of definitions and timing. In this case GOAL should have written "only meet the new features test". In other words according to GOAL 8/1 applies to everything that passes the copies and duplicates test while failing the features test.

Ironically, if you didn't fail any new test, you don't get Assault-Style Firearm grandfathered.

The new law defines what an "Assault-Style Firearm" is while the old law does not. The old law defines "Assault Weapon".

The new law says that 131M sub a) which bans the ownership, possession, sale and so forth of "Assault Style Firearms" does not apply to "Assault-Style Firearms" lawfully possessed on 8/1.

Note that Assault-Style Firearms does not equal Assault Weapons. In order to qualify for grandfathering you have to FAIL any "Assault-Style Firearms" test (copies, features, enumerated, roster) while PASSING the "Assault Weapons" feature test. Practically everything fails the new "Assault-Style Firearms" test due to the barrel shroud.

The Tavor fails the new feature test while passing the old feature test and its not a copy or duplicate regardless of when it was purchased prior to 8/1 so it's grandfathered.

On the flip side, funny enough, if you have a completely compliant pre 8/1 mini 14 ranch rife, you don't get grandfathering because it's not an "Assault-Style Firearm" by enumerated exclusion and features. So you can't upgrade it to have a folding stock like you can with other things that are "Assault-Style Firearms" like an MCX that will be grandfathered.

It's crazy how this has to work.

 

[mothybee]

Hey guys I went today to do my paper work and pick up my first 2 firearms purchases. I submitted my background check and got a delay. The lady that was helping me said that usually first time purchases will see a delay? Just wanted to know if this is accurate or not. Anyway I have to wait until next week for my Brady date. Hopefully I get a proceed before that.

My youngest had that happen on his first.

 

[VTski4x4]

Yawn, people are still trying to make sense of this steaming pile? It's going to be epic to watch Maura and the Moms cry when SCOTUS destroys AWBs and thus this entire bill with the help of FPC.

 

[JFR2]

That newer language on GOAL's website is very similar to what Guida posted on his Facebook page recently. They may be one in the same.

 

[PappyM3]

Was just discussing the bolded part with someone the other day and they were insisting that this was not true. Said he read through the whole bill and that this is just gun groups blowing it all out of proportion. I basically told him we'll just have to wait and see what dealers will do after October 23rd.

It appears he may have read the bill, but didn’t understand how it interacts with existing MGL or CMR. Did he point out where it is mentioned that rifles and shotguns are exempt from the approved firearm rosters and their testing?

Up until this bill, they were exempt because they were discrete/separate definitions from “firearm”. A “firearm” did not include rifles (>16” barrel) or shotguns (>18” barrel). Now, they are all “firearm”s and thus subject to the existing laws mandating testing and approval of “firearm”s for dealers to sell them. They didn’t touch the existing law about that requirement to stipulate rifles and shotguns weren’t included.

 

[MAJoe]

Not my language, that's from GOAL, but both are applicable because of definitions and timing. In this case GOAL should have written "only meet the new features test". In other words according to GOAL 8/1 applies to everything that passes the copies and duplicates test while failing the features test.

Ironically, if you didn't fail any new test, you don't get Assault-Style Firearm grandfathered.

The new law defines what an "Assault-Style Firearm" is while the old law does not. The old law defines "Assault Weapon".

The new law says that 131M sub a) which bans the ownership, possession, sale and so forth of "Assault Style Firearms" does not apply to "Assault-Style Firearms" lawfully possessed on 8/1.

Note that Assault-Style Firearms does not equal Assault Weapons. In order to qualify for grandfathering you have to FAIL any "Assault-Style Firearms" test (copies, features, enumerated, roster) while PASSING the "Assault Weapons" feature test. Practically everything fails the new "Assault-Style Firearms" test due to the barrel shroud.

The Tavor fails the new feature test while passing the old feature test and its not a copy or duplicate regardless of when it was purchased prior to 8/1 so it's grandfathered.

On the flip side, funny enough, if you have a completely compliant pre 8/1 mini 14 ranch rife, you don't get grandfathering because it's not an "Assault-Style Firearm" by enumerated exclusion and features. So you can't upgrade it to have a folding stock like you can with other things that are "Assault-Style Firearms" like an MCX that will be grandfathered.

It's crazy how this has to work.

Yeah I know not your language. It shouldn’t matter assault weapon vs assault style firearm. Assault weapon is a dead term and doesn’t matter anymore. Only ASF matters.

The new law wasn’t in effect on 8/1. The old law was. If it was lawful under the old features test on 8/1 it’s lawful. The only way the new feature test would apply is if there was an emergency preamble that made it effective on or prior to 8/1.

I am also wondering if GOAL is working in this direction, to see the most challenging interpretation which harms the most gun owners, and then supports their upcoming cases. It’s not in GOAL’s best interest to water down the legislation or find all the ways “things are still ok”.

 

[not new guy]

It’s a taking but the state will argue that the 2016 press conference was fair warning that copies and duplicates are unlawful. That of course leaves a gap that includes all the non copies and duplicates that now fail this new feature test.

 

[Taipan01]

It’s a taking but the state will argue that the 2016 press conference was fair warning that copies and duplicates are unlawful. That of course leaves a gap that includes all the non copies and duplicates that now fail this new feature test.

I'm not sure a press conference "warning" somehow creates a law. I think proactively pursuing legally owned firearms after the fact is breaking one though.

 

[not new guy]

I'm not sure a press conference "warning" somehow creates a law. I think proactively pursuing legally owned firearms after the fact is breaking one though.

It didn’t claim to create new law, it was presented as interpretation of existing law. She said everything post 94 is illegal but they weren’t going to prosecute pre press conference guns. Bullshit of course. They seem to have been playing the long game though, as commies do.

 

[drgrant]

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?

Who gives a f***? Crybabies need to sack up instead of being fags for once, maybe. Or they should just sell all their shit if they're afraid of the state, but frankly that's stupid given that absolutely nothing is going to happen.

 

[BigAce74]

It appears he may have read the bill, but didn’t understand how it interacts with existing MGL or CMR. Did he point out where it is mentioned that rifles and shotguns are exempt from the approved firearm rosters and their testing?

Up until this bill, they were exempt because they were discrete/separate definitions from “firearm”. A “firearm” did not include rifles (>16” barrel) or shotguns (>18” barrel). Now, they are all “firearm”s and thus subject to the existing laws mandating testing and approval of “firearm”s for dealers to sell them. They didn’t touch the existing law about that requirement to stipulate rifles and shotguns weren’t included.

That's what I was trying to explain to him, but he wasn't buying it. He just kept circling back to ASF bans and a list for those. Again he doesn't believe it goes that far. He thinks that any rosters won't have anything to do with bolt-actions, shot-guns and semi-autos that aren't ASFs. He believes groups like GOAL, NRA, etc. are just trying to scare everyone. I couldn't convince him otherwise.

 

[Taipan01]

It didn’t claim to create new law, it was presented as interpretation of existing law. She said everything post 94 is illegal but they weren’t going to prosecute pre press conference guns. Bullshit of course. They seem to have been playing the long game though, as commies do.

She can say what she wants and I agree with you on it's bullshit. The only reason they have not sent up a trial procecution ballon is that she would have ended up having it shoved up her ass.

 

[Picton]

The only reason they have not sent up a trial procecution ballon is that she would have ended up having it shoved up her ass.

This.

And it would happen this time, too. NOTHING about that press conference is enforceable in court, even now that the new law tries to make it that way.

 

[not new guy]

This.

And it would happen this time, too. NOTHING about that press conference is enforceable in court, even now that the new law tries to make it that way.

It’s not going to win the day on its own but it’s a claim that might still weigh in the state’s favor when the judge is tallying up the score in his or her mind. Who the hell knows though.

 

[JDL]

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.

It won't matter it will either be misunderstood, or ignored.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

View: https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1822312046597149054?s=46&t=bv1C9X-IfKErpXk7VC470g



View: https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1822346226047856828?s=46&t=bv1C9X-IfKErpXk7VC470g

 

[Jason Flare]

“…2016 when the AG basically re-wrote the law.”

What an idiot.

 

[BigAce74]

It appears he may have read the bill, but didn’t understand how it interacts with existing MGL or CMR. Did he point out where it is mentioned that rifles and shotguns are exempt from the approved firearm rosters and their testing?

Up until this bill, they were exempt because they were discrete/separate definitions from “firearm”. A “firearm” did not include rifles (>16” barrel) or shotguns (>18” barrel). Now, they are all “firearm”s and thus subject to the existing laws mandating testing and approval of “firearm”s for dealers to sell them. They didn’t touch the existing law about that requirement to stipulate rifles and shotguns weren’t included.

That's what I was trying to explain to him, but he wasn't buying it. He just kept circling back to ASF bans and a list for those. Again he doesn't believe it goes that far. He thinks that any rosters won't have anything to do with bolt-actions, shot-guns and semi-autos that aren't ASFs. He believes groups like GOAL, NRA, etc. are just trying to scare everyone. I couldn't convince him so that's why I just said we'll have to see what the dealers are going to be able to sell as far as long guns once this goes into effect.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

That's what I was trying to explain to him, but he wasn't buying it. He just kept circling back to ASF bans and a list for those. Again he doesn't believe it goes that far. He thinks that any rosters won't have anything to do with bolt-actions, shot-guns and semi-autos that aren't ASFs. He believes groups like GOAL, NRA, etc. are just trying to scare everyone. I couldn't convince him so that's why I just said we'll have to see what the dealers are going to be able to sell as far as long guns once this goes into effect.

Sometimes you realize that your just wasting your breath, or in this case electrons.

 

[Emoto]

I will freely confess that I have not read all 149 pages, but I did do a search here and on GOAL's site for "curio" without finding any commentary on what the new law changes. The official text has "Curio" twice:

1. “Curio or relic firearms”, firearms which are of special interest to collectors because they possess some qualities not ordinarily associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive firearms.

2: (f) A bona fide collector of firearms may purchase a firearm that was not previously owned or registered in the commonwealth from a dealer licensed under section 122 if it is a curio or relic firearm as defined in section 121.

---

Prior to this latest legal abomination, my understanding was that an 03 FFL (C&R) who holds an MA LTC could purchase C&R rifles and/or pistols out of state and bring them to MA under direct control or via common carrier, and then needed to file an FA-10 with the state, and that would be perfectly legal as far as MA was concerned.

I am not seeing anything in the new law, no matter what I search for, that indicates that the new law changes or affects the process in my paragraph immediately above. Is my thinking correct or have I overlooked something? TIA!

 

[BigAce74]

Sometimes you realize that your just wasting your breath, or in this case electrons.


View attachment 913887

I decided to waste a few more electrons this morning and sent him this.

 

[PappyM3]

View attachment 913902
I decided to waste a few more electrons this morning and sent him this.

That’s a good spoon feeding. If he still thinks it’s bunk, then let him remain willfully ignorant.