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

Broc Tuah said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, because if you read these threads it's NOT the same thing over and over. It's all different and all over the map, including the opinions of lawyers on this board.

In the end, it's probably what the state wants
 
pastera said:
I agree with @nstassel - we are highly unlikely to see primary charge prosecutions for pre 8/1.
Click to expand...
Prosecutions based on pre 8/1 legal possession would be 100% unconstitutional based on Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution under Ex Post Facto. A challenge based on such a prosecution would at least bring injunctive relief if not torpedo the ENTIRE BILL.

Once again Democrats have ignored the Constitution, and it will probably cost them their entire emotionally reactive SCOTUS tantrum of a bill.
 
alan226 said:
No, because if you read these threads it's NOT the same thing over and over. It's all different and all over the map, including the opinions of lawyers on this board.

In the end, it's probably what the state wants
Click to expand...
Dude, because I read the threads I can see it is literally the same. People are still mentioning the 2016 letter, they have been for years and they have been given the same answer for years.

On top of that, they start making their own imaginary BS like asking if we will be able to drive to NH and buy ammo.
 
Last edited:
pastera said:
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
Click to expand...

What are Guida and Neil's positions? Were they posted here?
 
CrackPot said:
All that matters is the 131M lawfully owned on 8/1/24 language. The rest is a total distraction with no actual practical impact.
Click to expand...

So what is the definition of this part becaue. Lawfully owned before 8/1/24 is different than registered via FA10 before 8/1/24.
 
LuvDog said:
So what is the definition of this part becaue. Lawfully owned before 8/1/24 is different than registered via FA10 before 8/1/24.
Click to expand...
In the current law, "possessed lawfully" means registered (unless if brought into the state?) and licensed.
 
CrackPot said:
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.
Click to expand...
So does MA compliant work even matter then?
 
My biggest question is why hasn't this been signed into law yet?

Perhaps LE realized they can't get the things they want imported by an FFL? You bet your a$$ it's going to be an issue for them at that point of realization.
 
jaypap said:
What are Guida and Neil's positions? Were they posted here?
Click to expand...

Here in this thread? Or here on the site?

Guida's tweet was posted someplace, on one of the several threads about this. You're not likely to have much luck searching it up here, though, since someone else screenshotted the tweets.

His position is as conservative as it gets.

Neil has posted to the thread, but is being careful about what he says. And I don't blame him.
 
Broc Tuah said:
Dude, becauae I read the threads I can see it is literally the same. People are still mentioning the 2016 letter, they have been for years and they have been given the same answer for years.

On top of that, they start making their own imaginary BS like asking if we will be able to drive to NH and buy ammo.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240722-133913.png
    Screenshot_20240722-133913.png
    877.2 KB · Views: 62
paul73 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Plus the social punishment. Being accused of gun crimes and potentially getting ostracized by family, co-workers, neighbors, etc because they think you're a maniac. A guy could end up with no money, no job, no family over it.
 
mtnbiker26 said:
Plus the social punishment. Being accused of gun crimes and potentially getting ostracized by family, co-workers, neighbors, etc because they think you're a maniac. A guy could end up with no money, no job, no family over it.
Click to expand...

You may win the case but you still lose……everything else and are bankrupted by trying to stay out of jail.

The age old classic…..”heads I win tails you lose”
 
souper said:
In the current law, "possessed lawfully" means registered (unless if brought into the state?) and licensed.
Click to expand...
This is not an obvious conclusion. (though I think the law makes references to registered as well)

Under current (pre 8/1) law:

1. There is a requirement that firearms legally procured be registered.

2. It is an offense to fail to report such aquisition via FA-10. Statuse of limitations apply as long as the person who commits the "fail to report" offense lives in MA while it runs out.

3. There is no such offense under current law as "possession of an unregistered gun" or "possession of a firearm, rifle or shotgun not in the MIRCS database"

Furthermore, the offense for #1 is committed by the seller, not the buyer, in a private sale.

So how is possession of a gun the seller failed to report an offense? Can you cite the section under which the person possessing such a gun would be charged?

As always, the only thing that counts for score it what a court decides, not speculation from anyone (including me) on NES.

An for bonus points: Is someone who possessed a pre-ban (any of the ban dates) AR lower in a better or worse legal shape if the seller reported in via FA10?
 
Last edited:
Gunowner80 said:
So does MA compliant work even matter then?
Click to expand...
Post 94 to be lawfully owned on 8/1/24 must be in compliance with todays AWB definition. So if that the the compliance work you are talking about, yes.

One type of compliance work that the new bill does not permit is to turn a detachable mag gun into a fixed mag gun. That is not permitted as it retains its detachable mag attribute according to the new AWS definition.
 
808 said:
Nighthawk pistols are on the tell me what I'm permitted buy list!
Click to expand...
They have been on the target roster for a few years. I have been a Nighthawk dealer since 2017 and almost always have multiple in stock. I will have to limit myself to this list in the future.

CA has a roster too. Nighthawk does a deal where you buy a roster gun w/ a express gunsmithing package that "turns" it into another gun they make. Its all documented on their website.

I am talking to Nighthawk to see if I can get them to offer a similar service here in MA.
 
Woodsloafer said:
With all this craziness I just wish I could think of something to buy that I really wanted, feeling left out not dumping money. Still might make a big ammo order to make me feel better.
Click to expand...
Old Timers with shit in their safes aren't gonna feel nearly as much heat from this as the new wannabe's.

Christ...I'll be a free stater with ability to buy anything and even I don't have a huge list. I already have all the hicap mags/ammo I need from me buying and storing down there at my kids place. Will likely just buy a can first off, new G17, And probably build some stuff, like an SBR, some 80% pistols. Ill be getting an AK as well. Probably a Bullpup shotty that takes a mag. Other than that, my list isn't that crazy......

Will be nice to get mail order from anywhere now....that is for sure. PSA, etc....and the obvious no worry about any anti gun communism, storage or transpo laws......thats more to me than what I will be buying really.
 
Last edited:
souper said:
In the current law, "possessed lawfully" means registered (unless if brought into the state?) and licensed.
Click to expand...
Current as in the law that has been on the books for the last 20 years? Because the current law does not require you to register or report frames or receivers until they are capable of discharging a shot. But the new law does define a frame or receiver as an assault firearm. Therefore, legally possessed and now grandfathered. It mentions zero about features.
 
mtnbiker26 said:
Plus the social punishment. Being accused of gun crimes and potentially getting ostracized by family, co-workers, neighbors, etc because they think you're a maniac. A guy could end up with no money, no job, no family over it.
Click to expand...

Lol to some of us that isnt punishment but would be a fringe benefit. It saves us from doing things like having to vacuum the driveway continuously. [rofl]

That would be the least concern, honestly. The 5 or 6 digits you pay to a lawyer would be a much bigger one.

Also its worth noting that these kinds of "gun crimes" rarely exist in a vacuum. So someone is more likely to get ostracized for beating their wife up or
getting caught driving under the influence. gun infractions end up being turd cake frosting.

"Gun charges" on their own dont bounce up out of the ground like a rubber couch, in most cases.
 
LuvDog said:
So what is the definition of this part becaue. Lawfully owned before 8/1/24 is different than registered via FA10 before 8/1/24.
Click to expand...

The new language is lawfully possessed ON 8/1/24. It does not say registered. It does not say before. You must have it lawfully in your possession on that date. Up to the state to prove otherwise. The language also says you must subsequently register it in accordance with section 121B and it must have a serial in accordance with 121C. Both 121B and 121C have delayed effectiveness because they require work. one year delay on 121B for a new IT system. I think its 6 months for 121C (too lazy to go back and look) to publish rules and implement automatic request for serial numbers.

souper said:
In the current law, "possessed lawfully" means registered (unless if brought into the state?) and licensed.
Click to expand...

No. Lawfully possessed means exactly that. Possessed lawfully. For example if you have an AR lower you cannot record a transaction/FA10 it. We do not HAVE registration, we have the recording of transactions.

Even if you have had it a year, you still possess it lawfully. Failure to record a transaction is a violation under MGL 140 128B. It does not make the possession unlawful, just the failure to record the transaction is unlawful. And good luck to the state to prove a violation of 140 128B. How do they prove WHEN it was brought into the state or assembled?
 

Similar threads

Check out TSUSA @ the Great American Outdoor Show
Replies
0
Views
32
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Overheard at the airport
4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
3K
dcmdon
dcmdon
Post in the correct forums
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
The H&K P7 M13 is Coming Back? The P7 Pro at SHOT Show 2025!
2
Replies
59
Views
582
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
H&K suppressor sights
Replies
0
Views
37
Sam P
S
Back
Top Bottom