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

Has anyone received a letter like they did the last time they made a major change? I almost think it had to do with the 2016 edict - but maybe not.

Are they waiting until after the election maybe?
 
WJ406 said:
For everyone concerned about the registration requirement, can anyone point to a documented case where an individual was charged under the old law with failure to FA10 a firearm? I certainly have never heard of one.
Click to expand...
Apples to oranges. There were multiple ways under the old law to have a firearm legally without an FA10. Under the new law, that becomes much more narrow (the 7 day window to register).
 
MAJoe said:
Apples to oranges. There were multiple ways under the old law to have a firearm legally without an FA10. Under the new law, that becomes much more narrow (the 7 day window to register).
Click to expand...
With penalties that are more severe.



(e) Whoever fails to register a firearm in violation of subsection (a), or fails to report a transaction, loss or theft in violation of subsections (b) or (c) shall be punished as follows: (i) by a fine of not more than $1,000 for a first offense; (ii) by a fine of not more than $7,500 or imprisonment up to 6 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for a second offense; or (iii) by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not less than 1 year nor more than 5 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for a third or subsequent offense. Failure to report shall also be a cause for suspension or permanent revocation of a person’s license, card or permit.
 
DJBrad said:
With penalties that are more severe.

(e) Whoever fails to register a firearm in violation of subsection (a), or fails to report a transaction, loss or theft in violation of subsections (b) or (c) shall be punished as follows: (i) by a fine of not more than $1,000 for a first offense; (ii) by a fine of not more than $7,500 or imprisonment up to 6 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for a second offense; or (iii) by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not less than 1 year nor more than 5 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for a third or subsequent offense. Failure to report shall also be a cause for suspension or permanent revocation of a person’s license, card or permit.
Click to expand...
I'm just surprised that they didn't make it a full "death penalty" offense. 🤔
 
DJBrad said:
With penalties that are more severe.



(e) Whoever fails to register a firearm in violation of subsection (a), or fails to report a transaction, loss or theft in violation of subsections (b) or (c) shall be punished as follows: (i) by a fine of not more than $1,000 for a first offense; (ii) by a fine of not more than $7,500 or imprisonment up to 6 months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for a second offense; or (iii) by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not less than 1 year nor more than 5 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, for a third or subsequent offense. Failure to report shall also be a cause for suspension or permanent revocation of a person’s license, card or permit.
Click to expand...
Actually the penalties are less severe under the new law. Here is the old text of Ch 140 s 128B

Whoever violates any provision of this section shall for the first offense be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 and for any subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years.
Click to expand...

Under the old law a first offense was a misdemeanor with a minimum $500 fine and a subsequent offense was a max 10 year felony.
 
WJ406 said:
Actually the penalties are less severe under the new law. Here is the old text of Ch 140 s 128B



Under the old law a first offense was a misdemeanor with a minimum $500 fine and a subsequent offense was a max 10 year felony.
Click to expand...
Do you know if anyone has "saved" the pre-change laws?

I'm working on a redline document to help understand the changes, but I'm not sure I'll be able to finish it before the text is updated online.
 
jason6 said:
FWIW, I heard it explained that, the "copies and duplicates test" and the "features test" are two different tests. If a rifle is exempt from the copies and duplicates test, it does not also exempt it from the features test. I'm not stating I necessarily agree with this guidance, or I'm looking to push this on anyone as the correct interpretation, but this is what I heard.



In 2016, the AGO determined that the Features Test is an independent basis for qualification as an assault rifle separate from being a Copy or Duplicate. The AGO enforcement of 7/20/16 stated that the guidance would not apply to possession or ownership of assault weapons obtained prior to 7/20/2016. The Assault-Style Firearm definition in section 121 exempts Copy or Duplicate from the definition if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016. It does not exempt post 9/13/1994 assault weapons with two or more of the listed features as the Features Test is separate from the Copy or Duplicate qualification

Summary of applicable dates:
Enumerated List: Legal if lawfully owned prior to 9/13/1994
Features test: Legal if lawfully owned prior to 9/13/1994
Copy or duplicate: Legal is lawfully owned prior to 7/20/2016
Not previously illegal but prohibited by new definition: Legal if lawfully owned on 8/1/24

Not Exempted
Any post 9/13/1994 assault-style firearm that has two or more of the listed features
Any copy or duplicate made or assembled after 7/20/2016
Any assault-style firearm made or assembled after 8/1/2024
Click to expand...
The 7/20/16 date is for copies and duplicates but the declaration didn't have force of law so compliant firearms remained lawfully possessed.
The 8/1 date exempts ASFs possessed lawfully in the state on 8/1 completely from the ban regardless of why it would be banned if not in state on that day.

Therefore only 1 date truly matters - 8/1.

Pre94 just means old now
 
Picton said:
Yes. And it's working, in spades.

SO many comments on this site reflect that fear. There are people here falling all over themselves to try to obey this pile of garbage. I have to believe that if there are quite a few who are posting about that, there are a whole bunch more NOT posting about it. That's a lot of scaredy-cats.

The state's calculation was correct, sadly. We just don't love freedom enough, as a populace.
Click to expand...
Exactly - no need to prosecute when they are getting the desired results without doing any additional work - no one wants to be the test case so fear keeps most inline. It’s in their best interest NOT to prosecute because this will likely get overturned (or severely weakened) by a likely loss in federal court (state courts are not as friendly).

It doesn’t matter anyway, this is the new normal with the political landscape of MA. Even if this abomination gets torn up by SCOTUS, the politicians here will just pass another bill just like it, and the cycle repeats, costing us time and money. They don’t care and it’s a win win for them - they can pander to moonbats, and if it’s overturned they can screech about Trump’s “illegitimate” Supreme Court.
 
Drix said:
Do you know if anyone has "saved" the pre-change laws?

I'm working on a redline document to help understand the changes, but I'm not sure I'll be able to finish it before the text is updated online.
Click to expand...
The malegislature.gov site still hasn’t been updated yet so you can view the old text there.
 
Drix said:
Do you know if anyone has "saved" the pre-change laws?

I'm working on a redline document to help understand the changes, but I'm not sure I'll be able to finish it before the text is updated online.
Click to expand...
Just download in bulk then do the updates later

It's the change xxx on line yy stuff that's a pain because we don't get a properly formatted text to make it work
Nor will the state supply one.
That needs to change so that people can better understand how a bill changes the law.
 
pastera said:
Just download in bulk then do the updates later

It's the change xxx on line yy stuff that's a pain because we don't get a properly formatted text to make it work
Nor will the state supply one.
That needs to change so that people can better understand how a bill changes the law.
Click to expand...
South Carolina does this with their bills. Deletions are struck out and additions are underlined. Makes it very easy to understand.

Look at the South Carolina constitutional carry bill.
 
WJ406 said:
Actually the penalties are less severe under the new law. Here is the old text of Ch 140 s 128B



Under the old law a first offense was a misdemeanor with a minimum $500 fine and a subsequent offense was a max 10 year felony.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The word “obtain” for private builds or any 4473 purchases was spurious and vague and old law 128B never supplanted the proper 4473 purchases as being a solid paper trail per federal law.

The same 128B is enhanced in section 42 in the new law and has the same exact penalties for face to face transactions/buys/gifts/obtainments. This is different from buying from a Licensee or dealer. Notice the change to include Sections 121 B&C proving that the old law lacked true registration.


SECTION 42. Said chapter 140 is hereby further amended by striking out section 128B, as so appearing, and inserting in place thereof the following section:-
Section 128B. Any resident of the commonwealth who purchases or obtains a firearm from any source within or without the commonwealth, other than from a licensee under section one 122 or a person authorized to sell firearms under section 128A, and any nonresident of the commonwealth who purchases or obtains a firearm from any source within or without the commonwealth, other than such a licensee or person, and receives such firearm within the commonwealth, shall register such firearm and report such information required under sections 121B and 121C. Whoever violates any provision of this section shall for the first offense be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 and for any subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years.
 
DJBrad said:
Yeah. The word “obtain” for private builds or any 4473 purchases was spurious and vague and old law 128B never supplanted the proper 4473 purchases as being a solid paper trail per federal law.

The same 128B is enhanced in section 42 in the new law and has the same exact penalties for face to face transactions/buys/gifts/obtainments. This is different from buying from a Licensee or dealer. Notice the change to include Sections 121 B&C proving that the old law lacked true registration.


SECTION 42. Said chapter 140 is hereby further amended by striking out section 128B, as so appearing, and inserting in place thereof the following section:-
Section 128B. Any resident of the commonwealth who purchases or obtains a firearm from any source within or without the commonwealth, other than from a licensee under section one 122 or a person authorized to sell firearms under section 128A, and any nonresident of the commonwealth who purchases or obtains a firearm from any source within or without the commonwealth, other than such a licensee or person, and receives such firearm within the commonwealth, shall register such firearm and report such information required under sections 121B and 121C. Whoever violates any provision of this section shall for the first offense be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 and for any subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years.
Click to expand...



My brain is fried from all fo this now. A firearme/AR or otherwise was in MA on 8/1 . If said Firearm/AR/AK etc.. Now in another state (NH, ME, VT etc..), can a MA LTC holder still buy it from that other state correct? Given It was in MA on 8/1 /legally possesed but is now out of state.

I think I'm getting stupidder:

“What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”​

 
BigLouieBat said:
My brain is fried from all fo this now. A firearme/AR or otherwise was in MA on 8/1 . If said Firearm/AR/AK etc.. Now in another state (NH, ME, VT etc..), can a MA LTC holder still buy it from that other state correct? Given It was in MA on 8/1 /legally possesed but is now out of state.

I think I'm getting stupidder:

“What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”​

Click to expand...
It’s all retarded.


If it’s out of the state due to sale even though it was lawfully possessed on 8/1 by a licensed individual or licensee not even an ffl can transfer it (131M(a) ) back in. Transfer or possession is only legal ( 131M(e) ) to a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified retired law enforcement officer. Guess what? Even (e) is shit out of luck because what licensee can transfer in that which is now unlawful according to (a)?
 
DJBrad said:
It’s all retarded.


If it’s out of the state due to sale even though it was lawfully possessed on 8/1 by a licensed individual or licensee not even an ffl can transfer it (131M(a) ) back in. Transfer or possession is only legal ( 131M(e) ) to a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified retired law enforcement officer. Guess what? Even (e) is shit out of luck because what licensee can transfer in that which is now unlawful according to (a)?
Click to expand...
A dual resident can import it back into Mas since it is exempt and then transfer to another resident holding an LTC.

And since 131M (e) exempts current or retired LEO, they can just go out of state and buy whatever long guns they wants since the guns are legal for them to possess in Mass.
 
Last edited:
pastera said:
Just download in bulk then do the updates later

It's the change xxx on line yy stuff that's a pain because we don't get a properly formatted text to make it work
Nor will the state supply one.
That needs to change so that people can better understand how a bill changes the law.
Click to expand...
See I see it the other way,

I've done a good job with that, it's the whole re-written sections that hide the changes.
 
Drix said:
See I see it the other way,

I've done a good job with that, it's the whole re-written sections that hide the changes.
Click to expand...
I've done that job several times - it's pain to do.

Putting together a hyperlinks document that let's you jump to referenced sections helps a lot with understanding the whole schema
 

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