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

CrackPot said:
From the summary on Goal

"July 20, 2016 – Applies to the list of enumerated weapons (copies and duplicates ofthem) This now officially makes any purchases/transfers of Ars, Aks, or other enumerated Aws on or after the day of her press conference (July 20, 2016) illegal."

That is not what the language says. It says that anything purchased, owned and registered before 7/20/16 is NOT A COPY OR DUPLICATE. That is not the same as anything on or after 7/20/16 being illegal. You are taking two steps when you should take one. Report that it is not a copy or duplicate if it is "pre-Healey". That is what the law will say.

On whether it is a copy or duplicate on or after has not be judicated by a competent court. It is purely the opinion of the AG

We have 22 years of precedent from both federal and MA courts that say no, this is NOT the definition of copy or duplicate. And the MA AWB currently says "shall have the same meaning as" federal so the federal interpretation is what matters.

Why is GOAL going for super scare tactics on this topic?
Click to expand...
But if the law is rewritten to define the meaning of copy or duplicate then the case law you are citing is invalidated.
The status of post 7/20/16 covered guns is still in contention - None of us know how the (lower) courts will interpret how the 2016 notice and this bills language in view of both Loper and Cargill. However we can assume that lower level courts will do their very best to work against us because guns.

My personal opinion is that Healy's declaration did not have regulatory power because the legislative intent of Mass was to reimplement the federal ban in Mass law without the sunset provision. Therefore, going by SCOTUS rules of interpretation, that would apply the federal regulatory clarifications on "copies or duplicates" to the Mass law also. That means that there was no ambiguity in the meanings that Healy could interpret as that language was clarified at higher levels of authority. But the federal ban has sunset and therefore the higher authority no longer applied and would a Mass or 1st circuit court interpret that as a loss of authority? I believe those courts would.
 
Horatio Alger Jr said:
What I do not understand in this whole thing is if Dimple's notice was the correct interpretation of the Fed AWB, why was it not enforced for 22 years? Why was it not enforced for the 8 years after the notice.
Click to expand...
It was not
Horatio Alger Jr said:
If Dimple's notice was the correct interpretation of the 94 ban, why is it being rewritten? Copies and duplicates have been illegal for 30 years, why now do we have to name every make and model if they are already illegal?

Edit - If every semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine was a copy or duplicate, why did the Fed AWB have a feature test?

Edit #2 - I am a window licker and can not spell.
Click to expand...
Copy or duplicate was, by legislative discussion and debate, in the law to stop manufacturers from simply changing the model number on a banned product to avoid the law.
This was the clear intention so Healy's notice was BS from day one.

However, once the federal ban expired, the Mass law is all that is left and she did have the authority to expound on ambiguity in Mass law. But then we are back to legislative intent and the clear intent of the Mass legislature was to recreate the federal ban without the sunset clause in Mass law, so at the time it was enacted (2004) as permanent.

The problem is that we don't have an answer from the courts because they have been very careful not to create standing in a winnable case.
And the answer to this question is moot since the real question is if Mass, or any state, has the authority to ban any class of firearms commonly held by "the People".
 
chris_1001 said:
I think we collectively need to start a NES Bonded Warehouse. Maybe as a co-op to protect the hive vs letting them go to an opportunistic business like we have seen?
Click to expand...
I'd be in on this - question is startup costs and can we get enough towns to call us versus the existing ones that have been rumored to be handing out kickbacks.
 
JDL said:
Everyone has been talking about AR's and lists and what guns will have to be EFA10'ed when and no one has mentioned the change in training needed to apply for an LTC. The list of things needed to be trained in and mandatory range time looks as though it would put training out of reach for a lot of people either cost, time, or just making it so difficult that some will be discouraged and not bother.
Click to expand...
I agree that this is an issue - Unfortunately this is the hardest nut to crack since SCOTUS has allowed licensing and training requirements to become "presumptively constitutional" within their dicta AND we have a not insignificant number of retarded FUDs, even here on NES, that would love to increase the level of required training to insane levels.
One can comply with the requirement to train - What you cannot comply with is a ban on pretty much all available guns. So the priority is to go after the cases that are easiest, cheapest and fastest to win first.
 
not new guy said:
It sounds like virtually nothing semiauto will be available at first, and then it will be effectively nothing available once they get the rosters and lists and testing stuff in place.
Click to expand...

Actually not just semiauto won’t be available at first, but no long guns will be available because their isn’t a roster for them
 
pastera said:
I'd be in on this - question is startup costs and can we get enough towns to call us versus the existing ones that have been rumored to be handing out kickbacks.
Click to expand...
Like any insurance you'd need enough participants not collecting to cover those that do. Put together your costs;
physical location
build out
security
Fed licensing
State licensing
Insurance
Legal fee (you will need a lawyer)
Are you compensating those running it/picking up the guns, or are they volunteers
Add another 20-30% for stuff you forgot
Establish a per gun "insurance" fee
Now, how many guns need to be insured?
And you might want to assume a 3 year subscription, otherwise you'll spend a lot of time keeping the membership up.

You might be able to talk to @EddieCoyle about what kind of personalities and difficulties of a shared resource for gun people you might encounter. I'd be interested what he thinks about the viability of the idea.
 
JDL said:
When I taught the LTC course at S&W the course ran at least 8 hours and it did include range time 10 rounds of 22 through a revolver and 10 rounds through a 22 semi auto pistol the classes were 35 to 45 students and the S&W course covered extensive meteral well over what is in the NRA Basic Pistol program and these classes would run over 1 to 2 hours depending how many students and how well they would perform on the range. I really can't see the new Massachussetts course coririculem being done in one day. As it is the NRA Basic Pistol program is hard enough to get done in a one day session. Most of the time I split it with one day class and the next day range to make it easer for the students and to secure range time.
Click to expand...

At WSA we split the course into 2 sessions. We also have live fire. It is 25 rounds of .22 out of a semi-automatic and 25 rounds 38spl. out of a revolver.
 
pastera said:
It was not

Copy or duplicate was, by legislative discussion and debate, in the law to stop manufacturers from simply changing the model number on a banned product to avoid the law.
This was the clear intention so Healy's notice was BS from day one.

However, once the federal ban expired, the Mass law is all that is left and she did have the authority to expound on ambiguity in Mass law. But then we are back to legislative intent and the clear intent of the Mass legislature was to recreate the federal ban without the sunset clause in Mass law, so at the time it was enacted (2004) as permanent.

The problem is that we don't have an answer from the courts because they have been very careful not to create standing in a winnable case.
And the answer to this question is moot since the real question is if Mass, or any state, has the authority to ban any class of firearms commonly held by "the People".
Click to expand...
I agree, I think the logic/claim behind the legal authority of the notice is that MA owned the language post sunset.

The issue is the way the legal pointer in the MA AWB is written, it is not simply copying the text but making a direct connection to a place/time in federal law, but also at the same time encapsulating it from MA law, incorporating not just the definition of AW but all the subordinate language for the purposes of applying the AW within other sections of MA law - for ex. for the purposes of AWB compliance evaluation the Fed definition of rifle/shotgun/pustol/etc. is used.

Like you say, I think this was the legislative intent (having a hard link to a point in time to prevent the ‘94 ban sunset) and GOALs strategy at the time to prevent MA from owning the language.
The 2016 notice is the equivalent of a state AG in, for example, 1996 coming out and saying the feds are doing the ban wrong.

And, yes, the courts have gone to great pains to avoid ruling on this on the merits, so here we are.
 
Last edited:
Anyone see this?

Section 128A.
  1. (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.
Not even sure what they're trying to exempt? Is there any section that says you can't own a firearm not previously owned in the commonwealth?
 
I'm hoping for some clarification because everything is confusing and everyone has different answers. Lets say you built out a lower for a ar you bought legally. You made sure there was no bayonet lug, put a fixed stock on it, and put a muzzle brake on it. You did a fa10 a 2-3 years ago. Will it still be legal to own under this law?
 
Last edited:
hawkinhunter95 said:
I'm hoping for some clarification because everything is confusing and everyone has different answers. Lets say you built out a lower for a ar you bought legally. You made sure there was no bayonet lug, put a fixed stock on it, and put a muzzle brake on it. You did a fa10 a 2-3 years ago. Will it still be legal to own under this law or does it have to be turned in
Click to expand...

The answer will depend on who you speak with and how they interpret the current bill.

Regardless, I don't believe it has to be turned in, unless you want to. Should you posses an AR meeting these qualifications you can always sell/transfer it out of state. So if I was in this situation I have friends in NH and ME who could take the rifle and store/keep it. If someone comes looking for it I simply tell them due to the new law the rifle was sold/given to someone out of state.
 
hawkinhunter95 said:
I'm hoping for some clarification because everything is confusing and everyone has different answers. Lets say you built out a lower for a ar you bought legally. You made sure there was no bayonet lug, put a fixed stock on it, and put a muzzle brake on it. You did a fa10 a 2-3 years ago. Will it still be legal to own under this law or does it have to be turned in
Click to expand...
Turned in. I can meet you at the local PD parking lot.
 
hawkinhunter95 said:
I'm hoping for some clarification because everything is confusing and everyone has different answers. Lets say you built out a lower for a ar you bought legally. You made sure there was no bayonet lug, put a fixed stock on it, and put a muzzle brake on it. You did a fa10 a 2-3 years ago. Will it still be legal to own under this law or does it have to be turned in
Click to expand...
Your not going to get clarification, not for a while anyway, not until this is signed and all hashed out, there are no answers for you. your just going to have to accept that for a while...Yea it sucks.
 
hawkinhunter95 said:
I'm hoping for some clarification because everything is confusing and everyone has different answers. Lets say you built out a lower for a ar you bought legally. You made sure there was no bayonet lug, put a fixed stock on it, and put a muzzle brake on it. You did a fa10 a 2-3 years ago. Will it still be legal to own under this law or does it have to be turned in
Click to expand...
If you are afraid of vagueness sell your shit. The vagueness ain't going away.

Otherwise put on big kid pants for once alongside many thousands of others in the same position.
 
drgrant said:
If you are afraid of vagueness sell your shit. The vagueness ain't going away.

Otherwise put on big kid pants for once alongside many thousands of others in the same position.
Click to expand...
I can totally understand being confused and making a good faith effort to comply. But if you consider “turning in” your stuff an option you’re not on my side (and/or you work for Maura).
 
Last edited:
Are people really so afraid that they’re literally turning stuff in? WOW. They passed background checks federally and submitted to the crown and fa10 items anfter sales tax and still think they haven’t done enough in the states eyes?!
 
hawkinhunter95 said:
I'm hoping for some clarification because everything is confusing and everyone has different answers. Lets say you built out a lower for a ar you bought legally. You made sure there was no bayonet lug, put a fixed stock on it, and put a muzzle brake on it. You did a fa10 a 2-3 years ago. Will it still be legal to own under this law or does it have to be turned in
Click to expand...
You making it MA compliant was told it doesn’t make it legal in 7/20/16.
 
Last edited:
drgrant said:
If you are afraid of vagueness sell your shit. The vagueness ain't going away.

Otherwise put on big kid pants for once alongside many thousands of others in the same position.
Click to expand...
Well the reason I ask is I'm heading into the army 8/6. My firearms will be stored with relatives who have ltcs. I don't want them to get pinched because of me.
 
hawkinhunter95 said:
I'm hoping for some clarification because everything is confusing and everyone has different answers. Lets say you built out a lower for a ar you bought legally. You made sure there was no bayonet lug, put a fixed stock on it, and put a muzzle brake on it. You did a fa10 a 2-3 years ago. Will it still be legal to own under this law or does it have to be turned in
Click to expand...

Well, if you only have an FID, then the new law says you can't have it anymore
 
FMH2016 said:
Are people really so afraid that they’re literally turning stuff in? WOW. They passed background checks federally and submitted to the crown and fa10 items anfter sales tax and still think they haven’t done enough in the states eyes?!
Click to expand...
Dude....this thread is proof that people in MA just work themselves up into full blown nuts nazi shit......and start thinking of turning their guns in. Before the law is even signed.

JFC they aren't coming for your shit on 8/2 if they do...good luck to them.

Lucky if they even have their little registration database sorted out in 6 months time.
 
@pastera I’m not caught up on the current thread but it seems talking to shop owners a Ruger 10/22 can no longer be purchased after 8/1. Is this accurate?
Used 10/22 registered/FA10 prior to 8/1 are still ok for sale

The 2016 FAQ laklong with the referenced Appendix A lists these as good to go.

So is it the non-existent roster list the reason the 10/22 can no longer be sold new?

What about non-copy semi duplicates that are not Appendix A and not the enumerated ar/ak/etc copy/duplicates with non-scary wood stocks, no pistol grips, and no bayo lugs like an M1A but in 9mm PCC these will be OK if logged prior to 8/1/24?

Is this still the correct Appendix A?
https://www.mass.gov/doc/appendix-a-to-18-usc-s-922-guns/download

If it’s not Appendix A, not enumerated, not a AW copy, but a SA PCC sort of equivalent to a sub2000 or SW FPC and registered by 8/1 it’s ok?

From 2016 FAQ

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons?​

Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not copies or duplicates of enumerated Assault Weapons. For example, the following are not copies or duplicates under G.L. c. 140, § 121:
  • Any handgun on the August 2016 version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here.
  • Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulations;
  • Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle;
  • Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;
  • Beretta Cx4 Storm
  • FN PS90 or substantially similar model weapon;
  • IWI Tavor or substantially similar model weapon;
  • Kel-Tec Sub-2000
  • Kel-Tec RFB
  • Any Springfield Armory M1A or substantially similar model weapon;
  • Any of the hundreds of rifles and shotguns on this list —Appendix A to 18 U.S.C. § 922, as appearing on September 13, 1994;
  • Any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
  • Any weapon that is an antique, relic, or theatrical prop;
  • Any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition;
  • Any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
This list is not exhaustive; it is meant for illustrative purposes only. Many other weapons are not Assault Weapons or copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons.
Click to expand...
 
Hardwired said:
@pastera I’m not caught up on the current thread but it seems talking to shop owners a Ruger 10/22 can no longer be purchased after 8/1. Is this accurate?
Used 10/22 registered/FA10 prior to 8/1 are still ok for sale

The 2016 FAQ laklong with the referenced Appendix A lists these as good to go.

So is it the non-existent roster list the reason the 10/22 can no longer be sold new?

What about non-copy semi duplicates that are not Appendix A and not the enumerated ar/ak/etc copy/duplicates with non-scary wood stocks, no pistol grips, and no bayo lugs like an M1A but in 9mm PCC these will be OK if logged prior to 8/1/24?

Is this still the correct Appendix A?
https://www.mass.gov/doc/appendix-a-to-18-usc-s-922-guns/download

If it’s not Appendix A, not enumerated, not a AW copy, but a SA PCC sort of equivalent to a sub2000 or SW FPC and registered by 8/1 it’s ok?

From 2016 FAQ
Click to expand...
The roster is the issue for the non-assault weapon semis.
 

Similar threads

Check out TSUSA @ the Great American Outdoor Show
Replies
0
Views
35
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Overheard at the airport
4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
3K
dcmdon
dcmdon
Any dealers still at the Mill
Replies
5
Views
265
Agnotology
Agnotology
The GLOCK AIMPOINT COA *** HOLSTER *** THREAD
Replies
4
Views
53
Bankjob
B
Post in the correct forums
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Back
Top Bottom