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

Sorry if this has been covered but is an AR10 considered a copy or duplicate even though there aren't really interchangeable parts with an AR platform? There is also the fact that the AR10 predates the AR15. Great conversation in here and plenty of laughs, i've been out of the NES loop for a bit and its taken me 4 days to get through the 300+ pages posted here on this proposed new law. One other thought I had was that on the mass.gov website there is a EFA10 deletion form and that kind of says something. Thanks guys
 
sig shooter said:
COP have always used Section 12 applications and involuntary commitments in determining “suitability”. The only difference now is that when the DMH check is done, any sec 12 applications in the applicants file are now sent directly to the licensing authority. Generally speaking, anytime someone is Sec 12, a copy is faxed over to the PD so the person can be dragged in for a forced psych eval. DMH only maintains records of those that are under their care or have been in a DMH facility like a psych facility. Regular medical and therapist records are not kept by DMH.

In short, if you haven’t been sectioned, committed, or spent time in a psych facility. You’re good to go. If you have, I would consult an attorney before renewing or applying
Click to expand...
Long story short, I know someone personally who was a involuntary victim of a section 12 and was hospitalized but let out within 3 days after the evaluation was complete and was never put on any medication or anything. According to the AFTs, "committed to a mental institution definition." Is this person still fine? Cause it seems that way to me, or is this going to be an issue for her going forward? She has had her LTC for many years now without any issues. I'm sure some of you will have better insight.

"Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

EXCEPTION NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007: A person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution in a state proceeding is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if the person has been granted relief by the adjudicating/committing state pursuant to a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of the Federal Government is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person's adjudication or commitment was set-aside or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency; (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication/commitment; or (d) the adjudication or commitment, respectively is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; or (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health relief from disabilities program. Persons who fall within one of the above exceptions should mark "no" in the applicable box. This exception to an adjudication or commitment by a federal department or agency does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, based on a lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice".
 
Last edited:
808 said:
Long story short, I know someone personally who was a victim of a section 12 and was hospitalized but let out within 3 days after the evaluation was complete and was never put on any medication or anything. According to the AFTs, "committed to a mental institution definition." Is this person still fine? Cause it seems that way to me, or is this going to be an issue for her going forward? She has had her LTC for many years now without any issues. I'm sure some of you will have better insight.

"Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

EXCEPTION NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007: A person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution in a state proceeding is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if the person has been granted relief by the adjudicating/committing state pursuant to a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of the Federal Government is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person's adjudication or commitment was set-aside or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency; (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication/commitment; or (d) the adjudication or commitment, respectively is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; or (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health relief from disabilities program. Persons who fall within one of the above exceptions should mark "no" in the applicable box. This exception to an adjudication or commitment by a federal department or agency does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, based on a lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice".
Click to expand...
voluntary or involuntary looms large in this issue.
 
808 said:
Long story short, I know someone personally who was a victim of a section 12 and was hospitalized but let out within 3 days after the evaluation was complete and was never put on any medication or anything. According to the AFTs, "committed to a mental institution definition." Is this person still fine? Cause it seems that way to me, or is this going to be an issue for her going forward? She has had her LTC for many years now without any issues. I'm sure some of you will have better insight.

"Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

EXCEPTION NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007: A person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution in a state proceeding is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if the person has been granted relief by the adjudicating/committing state pursuant to a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of the Federal Government is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person's adjudication or commitment was set-aside or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency; (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication/commitment; or (d) the adjudication or commitment, respectively is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; or (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health relief from disabilities program. Persons who fall within one of the above exceptions should mark "no" in the applicable box. This exception to an adjudication or commitment by a federal department or agency does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, based on a lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice".
Click to expand...
Per letter of the law, it’s not considered a commitment but the state will share the details of the sec 12 with the PD after this becomes law. Bill also states that this info will be used for “suitability” but it does not prohibit someone from being issued a LTC. I would tell your friend to lawyer up to get ahead of this possible issue.
 
Garys said:
Because most of them pay no attention to any of this. Just like in every other area of government.
Click to expand...
So true. Perfect example is when HD 4420 first came out. I was at one of my clubs' members meeting and no one was bringing it up. I raised my hand and basically said that everyone in the room would be felons once the bill was passed. Still silence, but then I said it would include people with shotguns as well. Several folks started asking questions and wanted to know that bill number again. Sad.
 
M125X said:
Sadly I think this is all Maura’s revenge for that.
Click to expand...
Not to mention (while I wholeheartedly support them) the Mill FFLs banging the Beacon Hill Hornet nest with a stick by all the promotion of compliance work, frame transfers, complete lower builds, etc. over these past 8 years like it was not going to eventually push them to find away to punish.
 
HARRYM said:
Perhaps but its likely they know they can get away with it.
Click to expand...
And they will in this state, sadly. I know most people “here” ignore the 7/20/2016 “Healey Ban” but truth is, most (or a lot) of the bigger gun shops (aka not the Mill) wouldn’t touch AR’s after her edict. People said “don’t worry the courts will shut this down”

That was 2,962 days ago… still waiting 8 years later…
 
jek said:
So true. Perfect example is when HD 4420 first came out. I was at one of my clubs' members meeting and no one was bringing it up. I raised my hand and basically said that everyone in the room would be felons once the bill was passed. Still silence, but then I said it would include people with shotguns as well. Several folks started asking questions and wanted to know that bill number again. Sad.
Click to expand...
Been there......

The darn AARP has no issue reaching a membership of 40 million and it's been one of the great frustrations of my life watching the vast majority of gun owners failing to step up.
 
M125X said:
And they will in this state, sadly. I know most people “here” ignore the 7/20/2016 “Healey Ban” but truth is, most (or a lot) of the bigger gun shops (aka not the Mill) wouldn’t touch AR’s after her edict. People said “don’t worry the courts will shut this down”

That was 2,962 days ago… still waiting 8 years later…
Click to expand...
Indeed, they know how long it takes to get a case before the SCOTUS.
 
808 said:
Long story short, I know someone personally who was a involuntary victim of a section 12 and was hospitalized but let out within 3 days after the evaluation was complete and was never put on any medication or anything. According to the AFTs, "committed to a mental institution definition." Is this person still fine? Cause it seems that way to me, or is this going to be an issue for her going forward? She has had her LTC for many years now without any issues. I'm sure some of you will have better insight.

"Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

EXCEPTION NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007: A person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution in a state proceeding is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if the person has been granted relief by the adjudicating/committing state pursuant to a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of the Federal Government is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person's adjudication or commitment was set-aside or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency; (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication/commitment; or (d) the adjudication or commitment, respectively is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; or (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health relief from disabilities program. Persons who fall within one of the above exceptions should mark "no" in the applicable box. This exception to an adjudication or commitment by a federal department or agency does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, based on a lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice".
Click to expand...
“Fix nics” I believe did this.
 
Woodsloafer said:
I have a few friends who are cops as well, they don't give a shit about who owns what guns either. Don't do something stupid that attracts law enforcement and you'll have no issues. There are plenty of verboten guns out there now owned by people who haven't been arrested, etc., and I expect it will continue to be status quo. However, smack your wife or someone else around, make crazy threats, DWI with a bunch of guns on your backseat, etc. and all bets are off.
Click to expand...
Oh look another one who thinks you actually have to commit a crime to get attention from the law. Ask Karen Read how that works. Oh let me guess… She was drunk so she deserved it.
 
At the federal level a commitment requires a judge to issue an order. A Section 12 is a commitment for mental evaluation signed by a physician, psychiatric nurse, or police officer. It doesn't get entered into NICS, and it is not an adjudication. The results of a Section 12 evaluation are a medical record.

ETA: A lot of Section 12 evaluations are performed in Emergency Departments with the patient being released in a few hours. Others get admitted for a more in depth evaluation.

The problem with Sections 12s is that they are often used to make the police officers job easier, not for the benefit of the subject of it.

What MA will do is any body's guess.

808 said:
Long story short, I know someone personally who was a involuntary victim of a section 12 and was hospitalized but let out within 3 days after the evaluation was complete and was never put on any medication or anything. According to the AFTs, "committed to a mental institution definition." Is this person still fine? Cause it seems that way to me, or is this going to be an issue for her going forward? She has had her LTC for many years now without any issues. I'm sure some of you will have better insight.

"Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

EXCEPTION NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007: A person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution in a state proceeding is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if the person has been granted relief by the adjudicating/committing state pursuant to a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of the Federal Government is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person's adjudication or commitment was set-aside or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency; (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication/commitment; or (d) the adjudication or commitment, respectively is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code; or (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health relief from disabilities program. Persons who fall within one of the above exceptions should mark "no" in the applicable box. This exception to an adjudication or commitment by a federal department or agency does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, based on a lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LeadHead85 said:
Sorry if this has been covered but is an AR10 considered a copy or duplicate even though there aren't really interchangeable parts with an AR platform? There is also the fact that the AR10 predates the AR15. Great conversation in here and plenty of laughs, i've been out of the NES loop for a bit and its taken me 4 days to get through the 300+ pages posted here on this proposed new law. One other thought I had was that on the mass.gov website there is a EFA10 deletion form and that kind of says something. Thanks guys
Click to expand...

If anything, the AR-15 would be a scaled down copy/duplicate of the AR-10. I would argue that the AR-10 is not a copy or duplicate of an AR-15, and hence good to go as long as it has been "massified". A court of law may or may not agree.
 
Last edited:
Reptile said:
I think the Glock frames will have to be registered. Put an upper on in and eFA10.
They will still be legal to own. FFL's wont be able to transfer them anymore after 8/1.

What I want to know is if a LTC holder can do a private FTF sale of a new Glock after 8/1.

If so, anybody can buy a new Glock in the future - if you can afford what the seller is asking.

Can a LTC holder sell a AR15 privately FTF after 8/1?
Click to expand...

Put an upper on it and register it?

What if the person doesn't have an upper for it? ... are you saying people should lie?
 
Last edited:
HARRYM said:
Can someone, anyone, please explain to me how any gun owner in MA doesn't know that GOAL is the official state NRA organization.
Click to expand...
Yeah dude at Cabelas, proud he was an NRA member but never heard of GOAL or Comm2A. Did not really care after I explained and walked out happy with his ammo buy.

I dumped NRA for GOA awhile back after all the Wayne shenanigans.
Wallace says NRA is working in the background so we’ll see who works the lawsuits.
 
Nick Fury said:
Oh look another one who thinks you actually have to commit a crime to get attention from the law. Ask Karen Read how that works. Oh let me guess… She was drunk so she deserved it.
Click to expand...
That's one thing here I don't get thats become a common theme. "Ignore the law." Well, when the state wants to jam you up they will and can. Seems like a huge gamble to me to buy illegal stuff in MA and go to a public range with it.
 

Similar threads

Check out TSUSA @ the Great American Outdoor Show
Replies
0
Views
35
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Fox News has gone woke?
Replies
9
Views
103
rosco61
R
Overheard at the airport
4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
3K
dcmdon
dcmdon
Any dealers still at the Mill
Replies
10
Views
452
walter62
walter62
The GLOCK AIMPOINT COA *** HOLSTER *** THREAD
Replies
4
Views
76
Bankjob
B
Back
Top Bottom