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

[MaroonedinMA]

I'd be a disaster. I have no organizational skills. If there was a natural disaster or something, I'd probably screw the whole state over because I'd forget to apply to the feds or miss a deadline or something like that. I also have no desire to work in downtown Boston, lol. Screw that. I don't need the traffic.

Sigh...ok, fine, I'll run in your stead, but I'm not putting on pants just for this nonsense.

Also, there are still so many folks here who think this can be managed. It cannot. There are no guarantees. There is not confirmation. No one, not even the lawyers KNOW what will happen. We all bought the ticket, now let's ride the ride together.

 

[CrackPot]

Ok. Registration. Why do people keep talking about registering before 8/1? Are you all willfully stupid?

WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE REGISTRATION

The existing MIRCS system records transactions. They call one of the options registration but that is not what the law says. Even the registration option lets you name the seller.

We record transactions. The current database is useless.


The new law has chap 140 sec 121B for registration. This does not take effect for up to one year after the new law takes effect, until the new IT system is implemented. Brand new. Not MIRCS. No data in the new system. You THEN have a year to ACTUALLY register everything you own in the new system. THAT is what the new law says.

So doing fa10s now makes you a good boy but means nothing relative to the new law. It is evidence you lawfully possessed on 8/1 but PROVES nothing. Remember, the state has to prove the gun was not lawfully possessed on 8/1. The fact that an atf trace request will prove your dealer had the lower in the state prior to 8/1 ends the states case.

If you think “purchases or obtains” applies to you assembling a gun, keep doing FA10s to abide by the current law. But “registering” now to abide by a future law is a total non sequitur.

 

[Willluvstafish]

Idk. Reading mentioned twice in this thread for fudds, WSA zero.

I mentioned it. So once, not zero.

 

[Picton]

You get aides and a driver. Just sayin'

I don't think I'd do well having servants.

 

[MAJoe]

It should still help on an estoppel basis, no? And a 22lr-registered AR lower has to be close to last on the list of ARs that the state would ever go after given what the MA AG said publicly.

That’s what I’m wondering. A pre-7/20 lower built to be 22LR today is lawful per the FAQ and the current law.

 

[pupchow]

Has anyone else looked into this?

 

[silversquirrel]

Hope not a dupe.. she has a good summary of the new law..

View: https://youtu.be/ovR-PfzHtGs?si=17RlH4yNwC4eWdO8

 

[maltc]

View attachment 900936

I read the same that is why I am not understanding his interpretation. Only language there is that it must be locked while transport. But given that this is an omnibus bill I was wondering if there is more information hidden elsewhere.

 

[BostonVI]

A plain reading of that part of the bill pretty much reaffirms what cgw is saying there. Range use only. Must be locked up and unloaded otherwise.

Extremely retarded.

My read of the language in question, based on the highlighted subsection, would mean that the requirement to "store unloaded/locked container" would apply to travel to and from, not storage at the exempted locations.

 

[pastera]

It should still help on an estoppel basis, no? And a 22lr-registered AR lower has to be close to last on the list of ARs that the state would ever go after given what the MA AG said publicly.

Correct
But estoppel is an affirmative defense
It doesn't stop prosecution and you admit to sufficient facts in order to raise it.
So in effect if the estoppel defense fails (you run out of money) then you've pretty much plead guilty.

It's bullshit and a decent court would throw out charges and sanction the state actors, but we don't have decent courts.

 

[pastera]

I'm going to put this out there. When this passes, if I go into a gun shop that has a LEO only case or section... I'm leaving. Not one dime to shops that continue to sell things to PD that us plebs cannot own.
I hope you all do the same. No more police loopholes. If it's not safe for us to have, it isn't safe for them.

If you do this, it has zero effect if you don't tell them why they suck and why you are leaving

 

[SpaceCritter]

You need to grok (to use a @SpaceCritter term) that the state's definition of "legally" is at odds with the US Constitution.

I am NOT Robert Heinlein.

 

[MAJoe]

My read of the language in question, based on the highlighted subsection, would mean that the requirement to "store unloaded/locked container" would apply to travel to and from, not storage at the exempted locations.

View attachment 900942

I read it the same way.

 

[inerlogic]

1 - if they don't then they should beg/borrow one

2 - inserting pins leaves scratches in the holes showing the lower was assembled.

Overnight shipping on a lower kit and a BCA upper would run a person around $400-$450

If there is someone who wants to comply but can't drop the cash right now contact me by pm and I'll pull a couple of lower build kits together and help them do the build, register, disassemble routine
Not that I'm promoting compliance just that I understand that not everyone is in a position to take a stance.

they don't do overnight, fed-ex 2day $33, UPS ground $31
$323 for an upper and two magazines with tax and shipping

 

[inerlogic]

Has anyone else looked into this?

no, because i'm not unloading those MFers except AT the range... or into a home invader

 

[inerlogic]

He still married the girl.

THAT is what he should be involuntarily sectioned for, lol

 

[drgrant]

My read of the language in question, based on the highlighted subsection, would mean that the requirement to "store unloaded/locked container" would apply to travel to and from, not storage at the exempted locations.

Good point. I thought it was all inclusive but I obviously didnt read the whole section. I think its because I'm trying to avoid blood pressure spikes.

 

[RumRunner]

You get aides and a driver. Just sayin'

I'll take the driver, but can do without having aids.. oops aides might be ok then

 

[inerlogic]

Queue the people who dont know what this is from and try to correct you

let him go, he's on a roll

 

[El_Guapo77]

Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

You know your aging yourself with that quote

 

[Broc Tuah]

Ok. Registration. Why do people keep talking about registering before 8/1? Are you all willfully stupid?

WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE REGISTRATION

The existing MIRCS system records transactions. They call one of the options registration but that is not what the law says. Even the registration option lets you name the seller.

We record transactions. The current database is useless.


The new law has chap 140 sec 121B for registration. This does not take effect for up to one year after the new law takes effect, until the new IT system is implemented. Brand new. Not MIRCS. No data in the new system. You THEN have a year to ACTUALLY register everything you own in the new system. THAT is what the new law says.

So doing fa10s now makes you a good boy but means nothing relative to the new law. It is evidence you lawfully possessed on 8/1 but PROVES nothing. Remember, the state has to prove the gun was not lawfully possessed on 8/1. The fact that an atf trace request will prove your dealer had the lower in the state prior to 8/1 ends the states case.

If you think “purchases or obtains” applies to you assembling a gun, keep doing FA10s to abide by the current law. But “registering” now to abide by a future law is a total non sequitur.

Quoting this for those that will skip to the last reply and won't see it.

 

[Hardwired]

Isnt the south and north end of Springfield essentially a shooting range?

Is Springfield that bad? Gangs? Curious what is going on.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Not to get off track here, but if I have a complete registered rifle, take the upper off that and put it on another lower and register that, I can't go back and un-register the first rifle. I find a Gucci lower so I take the upper from that and put it on the Gucci lower and register that.

I now have 3 registered rifles with only 1 being functional.

Did I lie at any time?

How about if I build a 5.56 rifle and register that. I then want to try a .300blk so I take the upper off and swap it out. I now have a rifle that is registered as a 5.56 but is actually a .300blk

Did I lie at any time?

Is it that hard to understand?

Lets try the IQ = 20 explanation one more time:

- If a rifle is built, you register it. If later you change a part, you didn't lie.

- If a rifle IS NOT built and you make up some BS to sleep better at night, you LIED.

Whatever you want to do is up to you.

Can anyone prove you lied? - probably not.

I don't know how much simpler this explanation can get.

Of course there are plenty of guns that don't look the same after a while; people cut barrels, re-chamber, paint guns, move uppers to different lowers ...

 

[pupchow]

Is Springfield that bad? Gangs? Curious what is going on.

You won't see many victims' coworkers or family members being interviewed by the press.

 

[JMI13]

Is it that hard to understand?

Lets try the IQ = 20 explanation one more time:

- If a rifle is built, you register it. If later you change a part, you didn't lie.

- If a rifle IS NOT built and you make up some BS to sleep better at night, you LIED.

Whatever you want to do is up to you.

Can anyone prove you lied? - probably not.

I don't know how much simpler this explanation can get.

Of course there are plenty of guns that don't look the same after a while; people cut barrels, re-chamber, paint guns ...

if it was simple, then there wouldn’t be 2 different threads with like 5k posts trying to interpret the same bill... I do understand that you are comfortable with the level of risk you have chose to live with.

 

[June4th]

I opened up my 'Unintended Consequences' eBook and turned to page 300, Henry Bowman's essay on NFA and GCA. The new MA law, if successfully implemented, will create similar conditions in the Commonwealth described by the screenshot below.

Machine gun owners faced the same dilemma when the registry opened in a form of amnesty: registering your guns will ensure that they will stay legal and transferable (and possibly increase in value), but also subject them to easy confiscation later on. It's a personal decision based on your beliefs and risk tolerance, and maybe greed.

 

[pastera]

Ok. Registration. Why do people keep talking about registering before 8/1? Are you all willfully stupid?

WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE REGISTRATION

The existing MIRCS system records transactions. They call one of the options registration but that is not what the law says. Even the registration option lets you name the seller.

We record transactions. The current database is useless.

While all of this may be practically true, it is not if one follows the rules of interpretation.
The bill refers to guns "registered" as of 7/20/16 therefore the intent of the legislature is to treat the transaction portal data as a registry.

The new law has chap 140 sec 121B for registration. This does not take effect for up to one year after the new law takes effect, until the new IT system is implemented. Brand new.

There is exactly ZERO language in the bill to support the requirement to institute a new system.
While the timeframe allowed for implementation is correct, the idea it must be a new system is completely unsupported.

Not MIRCS. No data in the new system. You THEN have a year to ACTUALLY register everything you own in the new system. THAT is what the new law says.

There is no logical argument where the state will drop the current data.
Using the current data to populate a table of what the state suspects each person to have is stupid easy for an entry level database admin.

So doing fa10s now makes you a good boy but means nothing relative to the new law. It is evidence you lawfully possessed on 8/1 but PROVES nothing. Remember, the state has to prove the gun was not lawfully possessed on 8/1. The fact that an atf trace request will prove your dealer had the lower in the state prior to 8/1 ends the states case.

Unless a person can show that their possesion falls into the narrow area where an entry into the transaction portal is not required, then it must be in the portal to be lawfully possessed.
This however doesn't apply to lowers since they currently are legal to possess being nothing more than an unregulated (by mass) part.

If you think “purchases or obtains” applies to you assembling a gun, keep doing FA10s to abide by the current law. But “registering” now to abide by a future law is a total non sequitur.

Concur
If the language of the bill means anything then lowers added to the transaction portal after 7/20/16 are still considered banned copies.
If it doesn't then having the lower means you legally possessed it on 8/1 therfore it is exempt.

The state cannot cure the issues on this bill - the issue is the time between passage and when the courts inevitably strike this down.

 

[Hardwired]

Are pump shotguns still going to be sold post 8/1? This bill is super unclear.

It’s pretty Fing sad when your in your LGS scrambling to buy something and he’s bringing in his personal collection to sell to MA residents (at reasonable prices no less) and he’s telling customers he won’t be able to continue his business and is moving to NH.

No legal standing though

 

[JMI13]

There is no logical argument where the state will drop the current data.
Using the current data to populate a table of what the state suspects each person to have is stupid easy for an entry level database

Wouldn’t the logical argument to drop the existing data be that the portal is extremely inaccurate due to the fact that firearms are never removed from an individuals profile… a gun that is sold or transferred is now recorded under two individuals ownership, correct? You used the word “suspected” so I assume you are accounting for this. Again, I understand nothing is logical in this state.

 

[Picton]

The state cannot cure the issues on this bill - the issue is the time between passage and when the courts inevitably strike this down.

Should be stickied.