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

[42!]

Random thoughts.
Until the the affective date of the law, I don't think anything can be filed against it. Lawyer types, is this correct? That is, except for moving forward on the referendum vote (delaying the impact tactic).
References to 2016 and 8/1 are probably going to be easy parts to deal with, even in MA courts. You just can't enact a law and just say "oh by the way, we are criminalizing stuff you did years ago". Even the MA courts will shoot this down. Unfortunately they will likely just change the restriction referencing dates to the 10.23 date or the date of the ruling. So better, but not enough.

 

[william_munny]

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?

How are we still talking about this. The AG can't change the law by using creative interpretation. Chevron deference getting kicked in the dick reinforces that. Anything that was lawfully possessed within the state of MA on 8/1 is good to go. I'll give you 250 bucks and a rodeo cheeseburger for one of your chainsaw lowers.

 

[42!]

How are we still talking about this. The AG can't change the law by using creative interpretation. Chevon deference getting kicked in the dick reinforces that. Anything that was lawfully possessed within the state of MA on 8/1 is good to go. I'll give you 250 bucks and a rodeo cheeseburger for one of your chainsaw lowers.

1. you are talking about how the law is supposed to work, not necessarily how it does.
2. and why 8/1? The law doesn't go into affect till 10/23, so even the pending laws with the8/1 date mean nothing till 10/23. Then all of a sudden things bought over 2 1/2 months earlier suddenly become illegal. It's not supposed to work that way, but here we are.

 

[william_munny]

This is why I drink.

 

[pastera]

Random thoughts.
Until the the affective date of the law, I don't think anything can be filed against it. Lawyer types, is this correct? That is, except for moving forward on the referendum vote (delaying the impact tactic).
References to 2016 and 8/1 are probably going to be easy parts to deal with, even in MA courts. You just can't enact a law and just say "oh by the way, we are criminalizing stuff you did years ago". Even the MA courts will shoot this down. Unfortunately they will likely just change the restriction referencing dates to the 10.23 date or the date of the ruling. So better, but not enough.

Showing standing will be an issue if the bill is placed on the ballot.

For the 7/20/16 exemption date - prior to the switchblade opinion I would have said that both Mass courts and the 1st circuit would have used the rules of interpretation to say that the 7/20 text must be interpreted to have meaning per scotus and legislative intent prevails. However the criteria set forth in the switchblade opinion throws a massive wrench into those lower courts agenda - the Mass courts are bound by the SJC's opinion and the methodology is extremely clear.
If assault-style firearms are subjected to the same standard of review, 131m fails without question (as does the current assault weapon ban)

Very strange times we are living in.

 

[Chappy7]

Very strange times we are living in.

I'd say FUBAR times!!!

 

[EJFudd]

Showing standing will be an issue if the bill is placed on the ballot.

For the 7/20/16 exemption date - prior to the switchblade opinion I would have said that both Mass courts and the 1st circuit would have used the rules of interpretation to say that the 7/20 text must be interpreted to have meaning per scotus and legislative intent prevails. However the criteria set forth in the switchblade opinion throws a massive wrench into those lower courts agenda - the Mass courts are bound by the SJC's opinion and the methodology is extremely clear.
If assault-style firearms are subjected to the same standard of review, 131m fails without question (as does the current assault weapon ban)

Very strange times we are living in.

Agree with your post except that I don't understand the part I bolded. Can you please explain. Thanks!

 

[pastera]

Agree with your post except that I don't understand the part I bolded. Can you please explain. Thanks!

Think of the referendum as a public veto of the governor's signature.
The law reverts back to a bill that is then approved by direct vote.
So once the appropriate number of signatures are collected, there is no law to challenge therefore rendering any case moot until the public votes to accept the bill as law.
Courts can only accept "actual cases and controversies" so anything without the force of law simply isn't capable of being heard.

 

[EJFudd]

Think of the referendum as a public veto of the governor's signature.
The law reverts back to a bill that is then approved by direct vote.
So once the appropriate number of signatures are collected, there is no law to challenge therefore rendering any case moot until the public votes to accept the bill as law.
Courts can only accept "actual cases and controversies" so anything without the force of law simply isn't capable of being heard.

Okay, I get your point. This all assumes that Maura does not do something to put the new law into immediate effect (i.e., emergency preamble or equal)... because if she does do that (thus preventing any suspension of the new law), all lawsuits challenging the new law can begin immediately.

So it's not so much that we won't have standing. What you are saying is that if the new law is suspended until 2026, there won't even be a new law in effect to challenge for a couple years. Whether that is a good or bad thing seems to depend a lot on one's personal or business situation and how the new law is affecting you.

 

[Coyote33]

Showing standing will be an issue if the bill is placed on the ballot.
...
Very strange times we are living in.

If only we could make the legislature "show standing" before passing a bill!

 

[pastera]

If only we could make the legislature "show standing" before passing a bill!

They are supposed to have a judiciary committee review but they simply rubber stamp anything antigun.

 

[Picton]

Okay, I get your point. This all assumes that Maura does not do something to put the new law into immediate effect (i.e., emergency preamble or equal)... because if she does do that (thus preventing any suspension of the new law), all lawsuits challenging the new law can begin immediately.

So it's not so much that we won't have standing. What you are saying is that if the new law is suspended until 2026, there won't even be a new law in effect to challenge for a couple years. Whether that is a good or bad thing seems to depend a lot on one's personal or business situation and how the new law is affecting you.

This is why some of us are so convinced nobody will ever do anything to enforce this (or several other) infringing laws: because the standing would be immediate and incontrovertible.

It benefits TPTB to have this law in place. They understand it is not going to withstand court scrutiny. The best way for them to keep this law in place is to prevent it from going to the courts.

 

[pastera]

Okay, I get your point. This all assumes that Maura does not do something to put the new law into immediate effect (i.e., emergency preamble or equal)... because if she does do that (thus preventing any suspension of the new law), all lawsuits challenging the new law can begin immediately.

So it's not so much that we won't have standing. What you are saying is that if the new law is suspended until 2026, there won't even be a new law in effect to challenge for a couple years. Whether that is a good or bad thing seems to depend a lot on one's personal or business situation and how the new law is affecting you.

Yes, lack of standing assumes the law is delayed.
We currently have standing because the law will be in effect well before any court action can reasonably be expected.

But if the law is suspended, we will still be able to go after the legacy rules which also fail under the SJC's framework for review.
And there are strong cases in other circuits that may strike down the ASF stuff

The biggest issue is the red flag BS since the state has plenty of crappy plaintiffs like Rahimi.

 

[EJFudd]

We currently have standing because the law will be in effect well before any court action can reasonably be expected.

I did not realize that.

But if the law is suspended, we will still be able to go after the legacy rules which also fail under the SJC's framework for review.
And there are strong cases in other circuits that may strike down the ASF stuff

The biggest issue is the red flag BS since the state has plenty of crappy plaintiffs like Rahimi.

Yep. The "red flag" BS is so nasty, evil and threatening that I still can't wrap my mind around it.

 

[42!]

Okay, I get your point. This all assumes that Maura does not do something to put the new law into immediate effect (i.e., emergency preamble or equal)... because if she does do that (thus preventing any suspension of the new law), all lawsuits challenging the new law can begin immediately.

So it's not so much that we won't have standing. What you are saying is that if the new law is suspended until 2026, there won't even be a new law in effect to challenge for a couple years. Whether that is a good or bad thing seems to depend a lot on one's personal or business situation and how the new law is affecting you.

The delay would also emphasize the problems with the dates within the law, that give us another angle of attack and reason for a stay. The better we control the battlefield the more likely the win.

 

[Chappy7]

This is why some of us are so convinced nobody will ever do anything to enforce this (or several other) infringing laws: because the standing would be immediate and incontrovertible.

It benefits TPTB to have this law in place. They understand it is not going to withstand court scrutiny. The best way for them to keep this law in place is to prevent it from going to the courts.

They also understand that they are not held personally liable for not upholding the Constitution and passing garbage that wastes time and taxpayers money.

 

[EJFudd]

The delay would also emphasize the problems with the dates within the law, that give us another angle of attack and reason for a stay. The better we control the battlefield the more likely the win.

That would seem to be the case, and yet we see a hard split within the membership for how to proceed relative to the initiative petition drive.

 

[milktree]

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!

I read it the same way. You will still be able to get C&R guns in person or shipped from away as long as you FA10/register (when the system exists) them.

The only gotcha is “large capacity feeding devices” which cannot be mailed into the state.

 

[pastera]

That would seem to be the case, and yet we see a hard split within the membership for how to proceed relative to the initiative petition drive.

As of right now, the petition is a good thing in order to keep the dealers open.
Snope (Bianchi) is headed towards SCOTUS and the switchblade opinion opens a massive hole for state review of even the legacy assault weapons bans so we simply don't need standing on the new law in order to move forward with effective cases.

Pushing the enactment out also has the chance to save more people from red flag overreach also

 

[EJFudd]

As of right now, the petition is a good thing in order to keep the dealers open.

... and yet we see the dealers here taking both pro and con positions on the petition effort... many against it.

I'll be honest: My first concern in all of this mess is for the healthy survival of the dealers. Without them, we are screwed. I can have this attitude because I am in a good place licensing-wise and on the owned 'guns & ammo' side. Yes, there will always be something more or new to add to the arsenal, but I'm in good shape.

And consider this: We need the dealers for more than just buying. We will need them for transfers and selling too... especially out-of-state selling if the new Monstrosity anti-2A law survives.

 

[440Sixpack]

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.

It's so frustrating to hear this type of argument, and I heard it direct from Senator Rodrigues when I met with him as part of a small group a few months back - "gun groups are biased and their info can't be trusted". Good lord, when a new law goes into effect, who do you think is going to parse it the must closely - the out of touch politicians that wrote it, or the people directly affected by said new law?

 

[Coyote33]

A while back, GOAL and Comm2A were looking for plaintiffs who are under 21 years old looking for an LTC. Does anybody know the status of what is happening with that?

 

[citoriguy]

@pastera

Why can’t someone go into a properly licensed FFL (in good standing with the SoS, etc.) and be denied a previously rostered gun (with the FFL being explicit about the as-written 08/01 rule), and then sue the state for denying the individual’s 2A rights?

 

[Coyote33]

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.

Even if just kept in the home? I thought that was OK as long as they did not sell them. Maybe I'm confused on that. Anyone have any clarification? Would hate to send out incorrect information.

 

[Picton]

Even if just kept in the home? I thought that was OK as long as they did not sell them. Maybe I'm confused on that. Anyone have any clarification? Would hate to send out incorrect information.

Like every other non-antique firearm, a "ghost gun" always required an LTC. I think that's what he's saying.

 

[Coyote33]

They are supposed to have a judiciary committee review but they simply rubber stamp anything antigun.

If only there were some way to enforce that on them.

Like every other non-antique firearm, a "ghost gun" always required an LTC. I think that's what he's saying.

Even in the home? (Never a worry for me, so I really haven't studied up on that.)

 

[Picton]

Even in the home? (Never a worry for me, so I really haven't studied up on that.)

Uhhhhhhhh... yes.

Any gun in MA requires an LTC for mere possession. That's probably going to go away eventually, but not yet.

 

[Coyote33]

Uhhhhhhhh... yes.
Any gun in MA requires an LTC for mere possession. That's probably going to go away eventually, but not yet.

You would be astounded how many people think otherwise.

 

[Picton]

You would be astounded how many people think otherwise.

I doubt I would. I know more ignorant people than geniuses.

But to those people I would loudly say: God bless you. Keep and bear your evil Ghost Gun without EVER letting the state know it exists. Go in peace.

I once got the notion to build a fabled ghost gun, largely out of fun and expense, but I ran out of steam and sold off the parts. Had I finished that sucker? No way would the Commonwealth have ever known it existed. No way in hell.

But I digress. Yes, the State says you need an LTC to own a homemade firearm that takes modern ammo.

 

[pastera]

@pastera

Why can’t someone go into a properly licensed FFL (in good standing with the SoS, etc.) and be denied a previously rostered gun (with the FFL being explicit about the as-written 08/01 rule), and then sue the state for denying the individual’s 2A rights?

Only firearms are subject to the roster. And that currently is only pistols and revolvers.
So there are no previously rostered long guns.
Once the new definition of firearms takes effect, then anyone wanting to purchase a long gun will have standing as will the dealers