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

[pastera]

I hope you are right. That would be a small but nice consolation prize in an otherwise anti-Constitutional shit sandwich.

I dearly wish you and Crackpot would get back on the same page.

Zero issues with him - he sees it from his point, I see it from mine.
He pointed out where I messed up in a reply and I fixed it (if you look at the times I post you'll see that I have issues with insomnia at times - brain starts short circuiting after a few days of a couples of hours total sleep)

I respect you both. We need you both. You both make excellent points and you are both helpful, but can't seem to get over the weird situation with the state's "transfers" database. Crackpot is right that it is not a true gun registration system. Pastera is right that the state has used it as such (despite the name and problems & exceptions) for over 50 years now. Can we ever get past this point?

He is right that the current system is not a true registry - and that's his position on the bill.
I am right that what the current system actually is doesn't matter from a legal interpretation at the 1st Circus level and below.
The bill references transaction reports as registration and the legislature is clear in its intent to treat the transaction database as a registry.
Therefore by the Supreme Court's own rules the bill should be interpreted as the portal is a registry.

We are both right - the difference is which side of the risk we are on
I am taking the approach to let people know where they could get jammed up and letting them decide.
He is looking at the likely level of risk to the nominal person.
The state will most likely not enforce the new assault-style BS as a primary charge so the vast majority of people will be able to go about as if nothing changed.
But there will be people that get jammed up by a crazy spouse or self induced stupid.

Wishful thinking. Maura's extreme leftist brain does not function that way at all.

She is not one of the emotionally driven true believers - I don't think she really GaS about most of this. To her being antigun is a path to power.

Yes... PLEASE! From your keyboard to God's in-box. GOAL is not helping us at all with some of these confusing, nonsensical interpretations... sort of pretending that silly bugs and likely mistakes in the new law were/are 100% intentional. We can see that there are problems with some provisions that don't make any sense even to a rabid anti-2A lefty. Please start all over again from scratch GOAL and give us an analysis that helps us, not hurts us with oddball interpretations.

Now, flame away GOAL fans. I am ready.

GOAL is doing exactly what they should be doing.
Regardless of how the state enforces this POS, the fact of what could be done with it needs to be front and center when it gets brought before the courts.
The public image of the bill needs to show how bad it could be since the state is going to say that they would never actually do anything to infringe on our rights (as they see them) even if a crazy gun nut could interpret their intentions to save the children as unconstitutional.

 

[CrackPot]

But some actons are, like carrying a >10 round pre ban mag in your defensive weapon.

Lots of actons will no longer be legal whether carrying your prebans, dealers carrying their normal cap mags, carrying in town hall, etc. But ownership for non dealer/non LEO seems almost uneffected.

The cases where I can see a possession problem with existing lawful objects:

• LCFDs by non 07 FFL MA dealers. All MA dealers were exempt. 07s can still possess solely to sell of state. all other FFLs now have illegal mags and the moment the law takes effect, they are felonies
• registered machine guns that are parts such as bolt, sear, etc. These appear to fall into "automatic parts" and are not lawful to possess. This is interesting because these parts are federally machine guns and worth thousands or tens of thousands of dollars.
• post dealer samples of same "automatic parts" that are NFA machine guns but not transferable but still lawfully possessed today
• repair parts for registered machine gun receivers. So I can buy all the internals for a M16 from brownells. these are unregulated federally. The third hole drilled in a AR makes the AR the machine gun. You have a registered M16 receiver and need to replace any parts because of wear, you cannot possess the "automatic parts" even though unregulated federally.

Mostly they have made efforts to avoid any takings in the new law. A taking that limits use (cant carry prebans) is a taking for sure, but a harder one to argue since you get to keep it. Not being able to sell/transfer something has already failed to get traction in federal court as a taking.

 

[not new guy]

GOAL is doing exactly what they should be doing.
Regardless of how the state enforces this POS, the fact of what could be done with it needs to be from and center when it gets brought before the courts.
The public image of the bill needs to show how bad it could be since the state is going to say that they would never actually do anything to infringeme on our rights (as they see them) even if a crazy gun nut could interpret their intentions to save the children as unconstitutional.

To the extent they're publicly offering interpretations that might be at odds with what our side might be expected to argue in court they're doing all of us a disservice. It's not hard to imagine the state saying "GOAL itself understood the law to mean everything post-2016 is illegal to possess. Do they not know what they're talking about? How can you stand here now and argue that post-2016 guns were legal to possess?" in court.

All they need to do is qualify these statements by saying "Some interpret the law to mean [X]..." They need lawyers reviewing what they're saying.

 

[VTski4x4]

To the extent they're publicly offering interpretations that might be at odds with what our side might be expected to argue in court they're doing all of us a disservice. It's not hard to imagine the state saying "GOAL itself understood the law to mean everything post-2016 is illegal to possess. Do they not know what they're talking about? How can you stand here now and argue that post-2016 guns were legal to possess?" in court.

All they need to do is qualify these statements by saying "Some interpret the law to mean [X]..." They need lawyers reviewing what they're saying.

I'm sure there's more than a bit of "cover your ass" going on with any public statements they make. They don't want the finger pointed at them if someone gets jammed up.

 

[Woodsloafer]

They can't. It's been passed by both houses: they can't do anything else to change it now without reintroducing it and voting again. Their wording is set in stone.

It's literally sitting, finished, on the governor's desk. She can either sign it, veto it, or let it sit.

A crazy thought went through my mind, maybe she is hoping to be the VP pick and doesn't want the most anti-gun legislation ever on her record.

 

[Spartan65]

Remember GOAL is the NRA.

Just keep that in mind when you choose who to get behind

 

[paul73]

But ownership for non dealer/non LEO seems almost uneffected.

only if final signed version will still have an 8/1 grandfathering date and clause from the section 71, right?
what if they cut it and will only keep section 16 with its date?

 

[Picton]

A crazy thought went through my mind, maybe she is hoping to be the VP pick and doesn't want the most anti-gun legislation ever on her record.

That's crazy, yes, on a few different levels.

 

[pastera]

To the extent they're publicly offering interpretations that might be at odds with what our side might be expected to argue in court they're doing all of us a disservice. It's not hard to imagine the state saying "GOAL itself understood the law to mean everything post-2016 is illegal to possess. Do they not know what they're talking about? How can you stand here now and argue that post-2016 guns were legal to possess?" in court.

All they need to do is qualify these statements by saying "Some interpret the law to mean [X]..." They need lawyers reviewing what they're saying.

I'm not sure that is what goal is saying.
The state is taking the position that the 2016 reinterpretation had the power of law under regulatory review - until Loper shot down Chevron, this was likely to pass muster in lower courts.
This bill is placing into law that position and forcing dispossession of "copies and duplicates" not recorded in the transaction portal as of 7/20/16. They are not "taking" the guns just saying you can't possess them in Mass (yeah, BS). And they are avoiding an estoppel problem by excluding the guns they said they wouldn't prosecute for.

Since goal's job is to advocate for gun owners they are trying to keep people from getting caught up while they, and other groups, can put together a very clean

 

[pastera]

If they try to prosecute anybody with this stuff after the fact. Could it become a class action law suit against the state for making us felons? If a stupid question let the beating begin.

No - it would be individual actions unless a higher court tosses the law

 

[Woodsloafer]

That's crazy, yes, on a few different levels.

Hey, if she decides not to sign it and says it goes too far I am going to say I was right.

 

[alan226]

So if FFLs refused to transfer is the way.

What FFL's? I can envision most of them going out of business, With rents and expenses the way they are, it's already tough to do business in MA. Selling "roster" guns and making short money will be impossible.

All by design....

 

[pastera]

But again we’re talking ex post facto. That is not a law yet. They cannot impose that definition on something you have prior to its signing.

No, it not really expose facto unless they prosecute you for actually possession in the past when it was legal where you don't currently have possession today when it's illegal.

Once passed you will have 90 days to dispossess after which you can be prosecuted.

It's legal shuffling and BS but they can make something that was fine to own illegal and force you to get rid of it.
What they can't do is prosecute you having possessed the now illegal item previously when it was legal.

 

[pastera]

Hey, if she decides not to sign it and says it goes too far I am going to say I was right.

Then she just leaves it on her desk it will become law after 10 days as long as the legislature doesn't adjourn.

 

[alan226]

Guns are a good litmus test for freedom, but they also aren't everything.

MA fails almost every freedom test these days though. At least they dont tax our clothes I guess

With the latest budget and the shortfall of billions, food and clothing will be next

 

[Grendizer138]

A crazy thought went through my mind, maybe she is hoping to be the VP pick and doesn't want the most anti-gun legislation ever on her record.

 

[El_Guapo77]

They can't. It's been passed by both houses: they can't do anything else to change it now without reintroducing it and voting again. Their wording is set in stone.

It's literally sitting, finished, on the governor's desk. She can either sign it, veto it, or let it sit.

I feel like Arnold in predator when he was like

 

[theciviliansupply]

Understanding that most interesting semi auto rifles are copies or duplicates of enumerated weapons and therefore compliance work is useless. There is nothing that can be done to an existing AR15 to make it legal.

Agreed. Depending on the enforcement level, if any, and the clarification, if any...there will be some awesome ranch rifles to own.

 

[808]

What FFL's? I can envision most of them going out of business, With rents and expenses the way they are, it's already tough to do business in MA. Selling "roster" guns and making short money will be impossible.

All by design....

Yes, I definitely see this happening.

I was wishful thinking.

Tons of shops are definitely going to close, and yes, I definitely agree. This is all by design.

 

[TrackDayRdr]

A crazy thought went through my mind, maybe she is hoping to be the VP pick and doesn't want the most anti-gun legislation ever on her record.

That's exactly what she wants and is exactly why she encouraged it.

 

[FalArAk]

Guns are a good litmus test for freedom, but they also aren't everything.

MA fails almost every freedom test these days though. At least they dont tax our clothes I guess

Guns are a good measurement, but they are just a tool to me, to others they are a lifestyle.

I took my sister and BIL to Concord yesterday..I made sure to point out that this is where liberty was born, and died

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Then she just leaves it on her desk it will become law after 10 days as long as the legislature doesn't adjourn.

I never understood the logic of that option other than the political blame game .

 

[Picton]

I never understood the logic of that option other than the political blame game .

Yeah. That's the logic of that option.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Yeah. That's the logic of that option.

Cowards

 

[pastera]

I never understood the logic of that option other than the political blame game .

Zero reason to table a bill when you have a solid uniparty in the legislature.
She could veto it or line item the money stuff she doesn't like knowing it would be overridden.

 

[barnabus]

Guys, when this becomes law, will I be able to legally touch my mags?

Only during Pride month.

 

[EJFudd]

GOAL is doing exactly what they should be doing.
Regardless of how the state enforces this POS, the fact of what could be done with it needs to be front and center when it gets brought before the courts.
The public image of the bill needs to show how bad it could be since the state is going to say that they would never actually do anything to infringe on our rights (as they see them) even if a crazy gun nut could interpret their intentions to save the children as unconstitutional.

To the extent they're publicly offering interpretations that might be at odds with what our side might be expected to argue in court they're doing all of us a disservice. It's not hard to imagine the state saying "GOAL itself understood the law to mean everything post-2016 is illegal to possess. Do they not know what they're talking about? How can you stand here now and argue that post-2016 guns were legal to possess?" in court.
All they need to do is qualify these statements by saying "Some interpret the law to mean [X]..." They need lawyers reviewing what they're saying.

All I am asking GOAL to do is to NOT confuse us with the silly bug/likely mistake issues in the new law any more than they absolutely have to. You can see from many of the posts in this thread that GOAL is confusing folks on some points more than it is helping. Don't put out nonsense that reads more like a funds raising effort than a practical and honest guide to the new law. @not new guy is 100% right: Hire a lawyer or two to help if necessary. Let's get it right. We look to GOAL to help us, not just scare us and take our money like the NRA used to do.

There has got to be a better way. Please GOAL... do better.

 

[HARRYM]

I don't know how old you are........Im 55, I've been fighting this battle for 40 years in this state since my FID was printed in 1985 dude......see where its gotten us is all Im saying.

More power to you...maybe your young and can take my place in the fight.....

You called me a coward for leaving....Id say that's judging me already. Your doing exactly what the guys telling people to leave are doing..... judging. But that's OK.......I guess my 55 years of sitting here taking it up the ass from these pols kinda makes me feel like one.

Im not one of the guys that would chide anyone for staying here...moving is for personal reasons, and Im not moving because of this stupid gun bill, it just happens to go along with it.

I am sticking up for my rights and giving them the middle finger....by not giving them a thin fxcking dime of tax money anymore to circumvent my rights. But maybe your the one from stupid town that doesn't understand that.

No worries, I'll always be a member of GOAL at the very least......no matter where I live. And I hope SCOTUS acts and it works for you.

Enough infighting......BTT.

Call me crazy but the ones who vote for Democrats, fake Libertarians, don't support ANY 2A rights organizations are the feckless cowards.

 

[HARRYM]

All I am asking GOAL to do is to NOT confuse us with the silly bug/likely mistake issues in the new law any more than they absolutely have to. You can see from many of the posts in this thread that GOAL is confusing folks on some points more than it is helping. Don't put out nonsense that reads more like a funds raising effort than a practical and honest guide to the new law. @not new guy is 100% right: Hire a lawyer or two to help if necessary. Let's get it right. We look to GOAL to help us, not just scare us and take our money like the NRA used to do.

There has got to be a better way. Please GOAL... do better.

GOAL can only do what their resources allow them to do.

 

[drgrant]

What FFL's? I can envision most of them going out of business, With rents and expenses the way they are, it's already tough to do business in MA. Selling "roster" guns and making short money will be impossible.

All by design....

If this shit sticks I can't imagine anything other than a few of the absolute smallest (low overhead) or large box mc boxerson stores sticking around.