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

[Waher]

"They carve out LEO exemptions but then make it impossible for LEOs to get said exempt weapons".

There's no way LEOs know about this and are not coming out full force against it.

The legislature will slip an amendment into an unrelated bill to 'fix' whatever problems come up with the police unions and chiefs.

I'm hoping the manufactures and distributors band together and flat out say, no more LE sales or service to MA. It would be a real swift kick in the pants if the legislature became responsible for law enforcement being unable to arm themselves in MA.

Unfortunately Glock will get down on their knees and Kamala Harris their way into snapping up any procurement opportunities boycotted by the others.

 

[pro]

Uhhh I think the fact we can’t buy any rifles or shotguns at all is a bigger deal (and after that’s ironed out, pretty much any semi autos).

"a roster of firearms approved for sale and use in the commonwealth using the parameters set forth in section 123"

The key word is sale. I don't see anything in the bill that would disallow you from buying a long gun out of state (assuming it is not an assault-style firearm) and bringing it into the state. However, there is a new language on firearm registration, which would probably apply to such situations: "Firearm registration shall be completed at the time of firearm import". Then I guess that the moment you import the firearm to the state is the moment you cross the state border with this newly imported firearm, so you would need to stop your car right after crossing the MA state border, and use your phone internet to do an eFA-10. Very safe and effective! /s

 

[doolz]

Can they transfer one in from another state?

From my understanding, yes*

*If the seller (either a company or personal) is willing to transfer into MA and if the recieving FFL will accept the transfer.

Through my experience, most companies make it clear that, even if you are LEO, they will not ship into MA. That being said, most times LE's will call and verify their credentials to have something transferred in, and, then, it is on the receiving FFL to accept the transfer. For the most part it's a three part process.

 

[maltc]

My perspective

It’s amazingly simple on the grandfathering. I honestly am baffled why people are confused.



First, is the object an ASW: Under the new law pre Healey are not copies or duplicates of ASWs so are evaluated solely on features under the new law to determine if they are ASWs. This is important. All the 2016 language in the new law does is exempt pre Healey from being copies or duplicates. That is the totality of what it does. It even has two flaws saying they have to be “registered” and that it’s before 7/20;2016. Since MA does not as of 2016 have registration, just recorded transfers, AND the system is fundamentally incomplete and flawed, this is a problem. But let’s pretend this is ok and a fa10 means registered. All the language does is exempt from copy or duplicate. You still have to evaluate based on features. Also the pre Healey language only covers the person who bought it and owned and registered it before 7/20/16. Worth noting that a lot of people bought ON 7/20/2016 and this does not help them. But in practice this language is useless since all the guns fail the feature test under the new law.

Post Healey are copies or duplicates so therefore most are now ASWs based on the feature test and being copies or duplicates. That barrel shroud language wipes everything out.

Second, is it lawfull for you to possess. If it’s not an ASW, yes. If it is an ASW, was it lawfully possessed on 8/1/24. If it was lawfully possessed on 8/1/24 then it continues to be lawful to possess.

That is what the law says. There is no ex post facto anything going on. Nothing is retroactive or changes what WAS legal or not. It’s not hard to understand what the law says and means about ASWs.

Now the practical.

But we still have a couple challenges. If the law takes effect before 8/1, then NOTHING is grandfathered and everything gets evaluated based on the new law. That causes a huge constitutional problem as a taking. But because of the new ASW definition for rifles with the barrel shroud feature, most are toast.

If the law takes effect after 8/1 you can still buy stuff but it won’t be grandfathered is a concern. BUT if the dealer lawfully possessed on 8/1 then it meets the grandfather criteria. It does not say you, just that it was lawfully possessed ON 8/1 by LTC holder or state dealer.

The final issue is about right now. Are post Healey ARs lawful to possess right now. If no, then still no. If yes, then yes after new law. The argument about Healey is not that it was written into the new law, but whether the 2016 press conference meant something. People who say post Healey BECOME illegal under the new law are wrong. Post Healey are only illegal under the new law if they are already illegal.

This is not that hard. We are seeing a lot of people with logic failure and/or confirmation bias. A number of GOAL lawyers believe post Healey are already illegal so they come up with arguments that new law codifies this. It does not. It just exempts pre Healey as not a copy or duplicate.

All the new law language about pre Healey is a total ho-hum. It just makes some guns extra legal. It changes nothing. Because of before 7/20/2016 and the new criteria for features, it just doesn’t matter. Everyone relies on the 8/1 lawfully possessed language.

So bottom line, if post Healey are illegal now, they remain illegal. If they are legal now based on features, they remain legal.

Although I appreciate your clarification I’m still confused about pre 94 AR’s that under MGL were able to have all the features. If a pre ban lower was efa10’d after healey decree- is it under this new bill grandfathered w/ the ability to have all the features?

 

[Rocky Mosasaurus]

We should all just become reserve officers, exempt from this political chicanery, and let our schlongs hang low.

 

[Laderbuilt]

Here is an excerpt from the summary page on goals site

(
SECTION 49. License to Carry
• Bans the possession of large capacity firearms and semi-automatic firearms)

Now if the new definition of all guns are firearms that makes a pistol a firearm for this law. Would a semi auto pistol now be banned from carry?? I think that may be their intention

 

[808]

Can they transfer one in from another state?

The guy who said this is an FFL out of state, so I assume he'd know a thing or two .

 

[808]

From my understanding, yes*

*If the seller (either a company or personal) is willing to transfer into MA and if the recieving FFL will accept the transfer.

Through my experience, most companies make it clear that, even if you are LEO, they will not ship into MA. That being said, most times LE's will call and verify their credentials to have something transferred in, and, then, it is on the receiving FFL to accept the transfer. For the most part it's a three part process.

So if FFLs refused to transfer is the way.

 

[BlastingRaccoon47]

How can things possibly improve if they do stay and fight these laws?

I see no path to, or realistic hope of improving things in states like MA. There comes a point when it’s too far gone and the demographics are such that there’s no way things will ever change using the same system that you’ve been using.

Right now I have zero criticism for anyone that wants to stay for whatever reasons they give. I respect that. But it’s also true that things will continue to be awful in MA and continue to get worse. And not just guns. So those who don’t have a reason, you might want to move. Life is a very short thing. And it’s amazing when it’s lived somewhere that you love and where you have the right to live as you choose.

This is loser mentality. Do you think the founding fathers just gave up when they were some shitty colony that was up against the most powerful navy in the world? They said F it… let’s kick some ass anyway.

 

[MAJoe]

Although I appreciate your clarification I’m still confused about pre 94 AR’s that under MGL were able to have all the features. This bill appears to omit that, and only grandfathers pre ban mags when specifically referring to sept 94. If a pre ban lower was efa10’d after healey decree- is it under this new bill grandfathered w/ the ability to have all the features?

Sounds like it’s in the same boat as all the other lowers/ARs. While the FAQ page was clear about these things, the new bill is not.

 

[Foudre]

This is loser mentality. Do you think the founding fathers just gave up when they were some shitty colony that was up against the most powerful navy in the world? They said F it… let’s kick some ass anyway.

I concur, enough blackpilling. I understand if some people want to leave the state, a part of me thinks about it but this is my home. We gun owners have a right to exist here, as it is American clay therefore bound to the constitution, no matter what some karens in Boston think.

 

[maltc]

Sounds like it’s in the same boat as all the other lowers/ARs. While the FAQ page was clear about these things, the new bill is not.

So in other words pre bans will need compliance work? Or are pre bans not considered “assault style” weapons, therefore exempt?

 

[CrackPot]

Although I appreciate your clarification I’m still confused about pre 94 AR’s that under MGL were able to have all the features. This bill appears to omit that, and only grandfathers pre ban mags when specifically referring to sept 94. If a pre ban lower was efa10’d after healey decree- is it under this new bill grandfathered w/ the ability to have all the features?

Your preban firearm is lawfully possessed on 8/1/24 is still lawful. You can’t bring into the state new preban firearms but the existing ones are fine. They don’t need to discuss preban firearms behind the language in 140 131m.

They discuss the mags because they want to further restrict them by eliminating them from use for carry and other purposes outside the home or range.

 

[Mark from ?]

absolutely

I see your pantshitting about this bill about as much as I am.

 

[MAJoe]

So in other words pre bans will need compliance work? Or are pre bans not considered “assault style” weapons, therefore exempt?

What CrackPot said. If you had it before 8/1 the new law makes no differentiation.

 

[maltc]

Your preban firearm is lawfully possessed on 8/1/24 is still lawful. You can’t bring into the state new preban firearms but the existing ones are fine. They don’t need to discuss preban firearms behind the language in 140 131m.

They discuss the mags because they want to further restrict them by eliminating them from use for carry and other purposes outside the home or range.

I appreciate the response. Just so I can wrap my head around this, because it’s pre sept 13, 94’ it is NOT an ASW therefore not subject to features test and can utilize all features. Did I get that right? The bill is not reverting that?

 

[LakeTrout]

This is loser mentality. Do you think the founding fathers just gave up when they were some shitty colony that was up against the most powerful navy in the world? They said F it… let’s kick some ass anyway.

It’s not loser mentality, it’s honest mentality. And neither one of the two of us are willing to do what the people you’re talking about did, so don’t think you can use that as an argument against what I’m saying any more than I can use it against what you’re doing. Or more accurately: Not doing.

 

[BlastingRaccoon47]

It’s not loser mentality, it’s honest mentality. And neither one of the two of us are willing to do what the people you’re talking about did, so don’t think you can use that as an argument against what I’m saying any more than I can use it against what you’re doing. Or more accurately: Not doing.

Speak for yourself. Unlike some I choose to grab my balls every morning, look at the flag, and say I got this today… I don’t need a handout, Im a f***in American!

 

[william_munny]

So in other words pre bans will need compliance work? Or are pre bans not considered “assault style” weapons, therefore exempt?

What CrackPot said. If you had it before 8/1 the new law makes no differentiation.

I'd rather hear it from someone smarter than me, but I think if something is already failing the "two feature" test but remains legal to own because it was legally possessed on 8/1, then it's possible you can undo compliance work once the law is in effect.

 

[scott-o]

So, if the law says you are supposed to log your transaction, but, doesn't say you are NOT supposed to log others transactions... Overclaiming compliance, there are alot of things in your house with a serial number.. fridge, stove, pc, etc... my chair can be transacted as a firearm.

 

[808]

The legislature will slip an amendment into an unrelated bill to 'fix' whatever problems come up with the police unions and chiefs.

I'm hoping the manufactures and distributors band together and flat out say, no more LE sales or service to MA. It would be a real swift kick in the pants if the legislature became responsible for law enforcement being unable to arm themselves in MA.

Unfortunately Glock will get down on their knees and Kamala Harris their way into snapping up any procurement opportunities boycotted by the others.

I'm hoping the manufacturers and distributors [add in FFLs] band together and flat out say, no more LE sales or service to MA. It would be a real swift kick in the pants if the legislature became responsible for law enforcement being unable to arm themselves in MA.

LEO swore an oath to uphold and defend our constitution don't forget that!

"I, ___ , do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution thereof and the constitution of the United States, that I will obey the lawful orders of all my superior officers, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as ___ according to the best of my ability and understanding, agreeably to the rules and regulations of the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth and the United States. So help me, God".

 

[HorizontalHunter]

"a roster of firearms approved for sale and use in the commonwealth using the parameters set forth in section 123"

The key word is sale. I don't see anything in the bill that would disallow you from buying a long gun out of state (assuming it is not an assault-style firearm) and bringing it into the state. However, there is a new language on firearm registration, which would probably apply to such situations: "Firearm registration shall be completed at the time of firearm import". Then I guess that the moment you import the firearm to the state is the moment you cross the state border with this newly imported firearm, so you would need to stop your car right after crossing the MA state border, and use your phone internet to do an eFA-10. Very safe and effective! /s

They redefined the term firearm:

Firearm”, a stun gun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, sawed-off shotgun, large capacity firearm, assault-style firearm and machine gun, loaded or unloaded, which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a shot or bullet; the frame or receiver of any such firearm or the unfinished frame or receiver of any such firearm; provided, however, that “firearm” shall not include any antique firearm or permanently inoperable firearm.

 

[Mark from ?]

This is loser mentality. Do you think the founding fathers just gave up when they were some shitty colony that was up against the most powerful navy in the world? They said F it… let’s kick some ass anyway.

Go kick some ass like the Jan 6th guys did. Except in a totally communist state with very few active gun owners. Half of which are Fudds and closet Dems. The other half are sheep

Are you seriously comparing the government, media and their absolute power and the free flowing tax money we give to them to what the British had?

When Obama said they have drones to our AR 15s hes not wrong.

All one needs to remember is how easily they went door to door busting up peoples houses looking for the Boston bomber, to recall what kind of power they have and what most of the people in this state will allow when push comes to shove.

I applaud the enthusiasm but like many people say, they like their six figure salary comforts here and would rather take whatever Healey will dish out than be on the ass end of a Jan 6th type witch burning.

Im not saying moving is the answer either for everyone. But suggesting what I think you are is ludicrous and silly.

 

[Darksideblues42]

"a roster of firearms approved for sale and use in the commonwealth using the parameters set forth in section 123"

The key word is sale. I don't see anything in the bill that would disallow you from buying a long gun out of state (assuming it is not an assault-style firearm) and bringing it into the state. However, there is a new language on firearm registration, which would probably apply to such situations: "Firearm registration shall be completed at the time of firearm import". Then I guess that the moment you import the firearm to the state is the moment you cross the state border with this newly imported firearm, so you would need to stop your car right after crossing the MA state border, and use your phone internet to do an eFA-10. Very safe and effective! /s

Except that pesky Federal law that says that long guns out of state MUST be lawful in your home state.

 

[Mark from ?]

I'm hoping the manufacturers and distributors [add in FFLs] band together and flat out say, no more LE sales or service to MA. It would be a real swift kick in the pants if the legislature became responsible for law enforcement being unable to arm themselves in MA.

LEO swore an oath to uphold and defend our constitution don't forget that!

"I, ___ , do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution thereof and the constitution of the United States, that I will obey the lawful orders of all my superior officers, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as ___ according to the best of my ability and understanding, agreeably to the rules and regulations of the constitution and the laws of the commonwealth and the United States. So help me, God".

Pension payouts and detail money is the only thing LEOs care about as long as they are exempt from these new regs.

 

[Laderbuilt]

All one needs to remember is how easily they went door to door busting up peoples houses looking for the Boston bomber, to recall what kind of power they have and what most of the people in this state will allow when push comes to shove.

I will never forget that! I was appalled at what they got away with and how people where so willing to comply, when I talked to others about it they where like I was the crazy one who wouldn’t let that happen.

This state is fudged thru and thru.

 

[theciviliansupply]

"a roster of firearms approved for sale and use in the commonwealth using the parameters set forth in section 123"

The key word is sale. I don't see anything in the bill that would disallow you from buying a long gun out of state (assuming it is not an assault-style firearm) and bringing it into the state. However, there is a new language on firearm registration, which would probably apply to such situations: "Firearm registration shall be completed at the time of firearm import". Then I guess that the moment you import the firearm to the state is the moment you cross the state border with this newly imported firearm, so you would need to stop your car right after crossing the MA state border, and use your phone internet to do an eFA-10. Very safe and effective! /s

If you read section 123, it's fairly clear it applies to the testing of handguns. It's not possible to test frames or receivers in this manner because they cannot fire a projectile. Further evidence that they are very good at their jobs.

 

[Lokdog]

I was watching a video on this monstrosity and the guy said that unlicensed non-residents can carry a firearm while traveling through the state in a vehicle as long as they aren't stopping and the firearm doesn't leave their direct control!?! WHAT!? That can't be right

 

[KH56010]

If you read section 123, it's fairly clear it applies to the testing of handguns. It's not possible to test frames or receivers in this manner because they cannot fire a projectile. Further evidence that they are very good at their jobs.

So submit frames for “testing”. Should pass everything?

 

[Ron Jablonski]

The nonsense from New and old accounts with minimal posts is crazy. Be mindful, we're not alone.