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

drgrant said:
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" [rofl]

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!" [rofl]
Click to expand...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIPSvIz9NDs
 
CrackPot said:
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.



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?
Click to expand...
And the only thing I could think of is they have an argument "Well on 8/1 according to the new bill and definitions you didn't lawfully possess it" But that could only happen in my eyes if they got an emergency order. If the bill doesn't go into effect for 90 days... Then 8/1, 8/2, 8/3 I'm still lawfully under possession of my receiver under the old/current law.
 
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...

Sounds like family that should be cut off anyway... and co-workers and neighbors that you shouldn't be getting friendly with to begin with. And you say all that like it's a bad thing. Sounds like a great opportunity to move to a waaaaaay more free state and have a fresh start.

Guys, if it gets bad enough where there's a threat of getting locked up over something that was legal yesterday... MOVE. No, not just for guns, this state sucks for near everything, so there's that. Make your vote count in a state that needs more R voters. MA has always been a blue hellhole and it's only gotten a LOT worse over the past 10 years. Where will this state be in 20 years?

Think about it, people here are discussing whether or not their stripped AR lower they bought in 2015 but never built or FA10'ed will be legal to own after this BS passes. That's f***ing madness. Take your tax dollars and LEAVE the state. Can SCOTUS smack this BS down? Sure, maybe, then there's next time, and all the hoops we already have to jump through. We are being discriminated against and our lives are being put at risk by living here. Yeah chances of something happening is slim for reasons already stated by other posters, but come on. People are afraid to contact their reps because they think it may lead to getting red flagged.

Imagine if every R voter in CA and MA up-assed themselves and moved to states that need the votes?
 
safetyfirst2125 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Since when has the constitution limited what Mass will do to its subjects?
Even if they know it won't pass muster, they can still destroy you with the process
 
A properly produced fixed mag lower for compliance should lack some of the features required for a standard mag release to be mounted - therefore it would have never been able to accept a detachable magazine and would require machining to modify it to do so (not readily convertible)
Click to expand...

@pastera Thank you for the response. That then begs the question what constitutes 'readily convertible'? IMO a lower with an MA Lock installed isn't readily convertible by definition (without delay or difficulty; easily) as you need a specialized tool and skill to remove it. Others may disagree.
 
Last edited:
jaypap said:
What are Guida and Neil's positions? Were they posted here?
Click to expand...
Guida stated that pre 7/16 was good to go but after that was grey area and opens you up to prosecution.
Niel pretty much said prosecution was highly unlikely

Both can be, and likely are, true at the same time.

If you don't get red flagged or do stupid shit, you could likely just ignore all of these silly laws and never come close to an issue.
 
fournwoof said:
@pastera Thank you for the response. That then begs the question what constitutes 'readily convertible'? IMO a MA Lock isn't readily convertible by definition (without delay or difficulty; easily) as you need a specialized tool and skill to do so. Others may disagree.
Click to expand...
An 80% lower is not readily convertible since it requires machining to finish out - similarly, if the pocket for a standard mag release button isn't fully machined then the lower is not readily convertible since it would require special equipment and skills to modify so that it works with a removeable magazine.

Could also be done with an 80% if you install a locking mag kit before finishing it out (and document that process).
 
CrackPot said:
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.



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?
Click to expand...

Thanks. And this is what I'm thinking as well. And lawful posession doesn't even mean you had to have bought it. You can lawfully loan a gun to someone who is licensed, right? And while they are borrowing it, they are lawfully in possession, right?
 
pastera said:
Since when has the constitution limited what Mass will do to its subjects?
Even if they know it won't pass muster, they can still destroy you with the process
Click to expand...
This one is really out there in terms of extremes, even for MA: it's like passing a state law declaring anyone who has purchased or possessed a refrigerator a felon punishable by time in prison.
 
safetyfirst2125 said:
This one is really out there in terms of extremes, even for MA: it's like passing a state law declaring anyone who has purchased or possessed a refrigerator a felon punishable by time in prison.
Click to expand...
Unless there is an emergency preamble added by the governor, there will be 90 days to comply before it could be enforced.
 
pastera said:
Unless there is an emergency preamble added by the governor, there will be 90 days to comply before it could be enforced.
Click to expand...

Enforced or applied (with enforcement to follow)? Meaning 8/1 is still the operative date, they just won't prosecute anyone for 90 days?
 
CrackPot said:
Post 94 to be lawfully owned on 8/1/24 must be in compliance
Click to expand...
and, like it was predicted so many times, all those 'precious' pre-ban 'investment grade' lowers now will become same non-transferrable entities just like $30 andersen lowers.
 
I think the main parts of this bill that could get the every day Joe pinched is the new transport regulations regarding mags over 10 rounds and requiring semiautos to be transported in a locked container. The rest of it is f*** all.
 
pastera said:
Unless there is an emergency preamble added by the governor, there will be 90 days to comply before it could be enforced.
Click to expand...
Adding an emergency preamble to a state law that provides a 90-day compliance period before enforcement does not resolve the issue of the law being ex post facto if it still retroactively changes the legal consequences of past actions. The core problem with an ex post facto law is not necessarily the time allowed for compliance but the retroactive change in the legal consequences of actions that were committed before the law was enacted.

Here’s why:
  1. Nature of Ex Post Facto Laws: The ex post facto prohibition in the U.S. Constitution is concerned with laws that retroactively alter the legal consequences of actions that were lawful or carried different penalties when originally committed. A law is considered ex post facto if it:
    • Makes an action criminal that was not criminal when done.
    • Increases the punishment for a crime after it was committed.
    • Changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier.
    • Alters the legal rules of evidence and requires less or different testimony to convict.
  2. Retroactivity Issue: Even with a 90-day compliance period, if the law retroactively imposes new penalties or disabilities on individuals for actions taken before the law was passed, it still constitutes an ex post facto law. The compliance period does not change the fact that the law is altering the legal consequences of past actions.
  3. Emergency Preamble: The presence of an emergency preamble or delayed enforcement period typically addresses immediate implementation concerns and provides individuals or entities time to adjust to new regulations. However, it does not change the retrospective nature of the law itself.
  4. Judicial Interpretation: Courts have consistently held that the key issue with ex post facto laws is the retroactive application, not the time allowed for compliance. For example, in cases like Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386 (1798), the Supreme Court laid out the fundamental principles of what constitutes an ex post facto law, emphasizing the retrospective change in legal consequences.
Providing a 90-day compliance period before enforcement would not make an otherwise ex post facto law constitutional.

The primary concern is the retroactive alteration of legal consequences, and if a law changes the legal status or penalties for actions taken before its enactment, it remains an ex post facto law regardless of any compliance period.

Therefore the law remains unconstitutional.
 
Ron Jablonski said:
The panic buying of on roster guns has got me scratching head a bit, there's a lot of other soon to be gone items to get if you've got 5k kicking around.
Click to expand...

VTski4x4 said:
Nighthawk is always a good answer.
Click to expand...

Nighthawk was suggested, by another so I stated Nighthawk was on the roster.

I didn't realize how big the Nighthawk line up was until I visited the website.

I'd agree, why buy anything on the roster now?
 
CrackPot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I had no idea they had a decent variety till I seen the website. just unsure how well those sell at the prices. Do I appreciate a top quality product 🤔... Absolutely!
 
chris_1001 said:
Well, MFS is swamped...

blaming some of this on them in the first place...

View attachment 899529
Click to expand...

I think local FFLs are getting a little nervous about getting stuck with guns in limbo if they can't get them transferred before 8/1. I'm working on bringing one in and it's something to keep an eye on, at least this far out from Ate One.
 
Just spoke with both FFLs I use and they said that they are no longer taking anything on consignment and have to have whatever is being transferred into MA "logged" before 8/1.

So my question is, if you purchase a firearm that is rostered right now, and it is delivered to the FFL on 07/31 (signed for delivery), does the 4473 have to be completed by 8/1?
 
MAJoe said:
If they’re in the state by 8/1, they’re transferable.
Click to expand...
Since the 8/1 date pertains to assault-style weapons and a law typically doesn't go into effect until 90 days after it's signed (unless an emergency preamble is added by Healey), would it still be possible to transfer handgun frames within that 90-day period?
 
I think you'd need to take that up with your FFL, but I could see plenty of them not wanting to touch that given the potential hassle.
 

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