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

[KH56010]

Where does the current or new law actually say that a firearm must be on an "approved" roster? I actually can't even find it in the current law. I see 131 3/4 that references a list of "approved" firearms, but can't find the law that says a firearm has to be on an approved list.

Aside from that, in the new law it appears that 131 3/4 is only referenced in 123 under subsection (P) where it states that meeting the testing requirements shall not apply to firearms on the roster made in 131 3/4.

But... I can't find anything that says a couple things. I can't find anything that says that testing in 123 (O) has to be done by the state. I can't find anything that would actually prevent frame transfers. Since a frame or receiver is a "firearm" under the new law. Maybe someone creates their own "firearm testing business" and tests frames or receivers to the specifications. I'd love to see a stripped glock frame accidentally discharge a bullet.

 

[pastera]

@CrackPot where does the current or new law actually say that a firearm must be on an "approved" roster? I actually can't even find it in the current law. I see 131 3/4 that references a list of "approved" firearms, but can't find the law that says a firearm has to be on an approved list.

Aside from that, in the new law it appears that 131 3/4 is only referenced in 123 under subsection (P) where it states that meeting the testing requirements shall not apply to firearms on the roster made in 131 3/4.

But... I can't find anything that says a couple things. I can't find anything that says that testing in 123 (O) has to be done by the state. I can't find anything that would actually prevent frame transfers. Since a frame or receiver is a "firearm" under the new law. Maybe someone creates their own "firearm testing business" and tests frames or receivers to the specifications. I'd love to see a stripped glock frame accidentally discharge a bullet.

The roster language did not get updated with the change from a firearm being only a pistol or revolver to the plain meaning.
So the sales limitations placed on pistols and revolvers automatically extended out to all firearms, for which there are no rifles and shotguns on any roster at this time nor will there be in the near term (probably a year at the soonest)

Frames and receivers must be of a firearm currently on the roster in order to be sold or transferred since frames and receivers are now part of the definition of a firearm.
If one treats a frame or receiver as separate from it's built firearm, then it is impossible to ever sell since it cannot pass the 600 round functional testing.

 

[PappyM3]

@CrackPot where does the current or new law actually say that a firearm must be on an "approved" roster? I actually can't even find it in the current law. I see 131 3/4 that references a list of "approved" firearms, but can't find the law that says a firearm has to be on an approved list.

Aside from that, in the new law it appears that 131 3/4 is only referenced in 123 under subsection (P) where it states that meeting the testing requirements shall not apply to firearms on the roster made in 131 3/4.

But... I can't find anything that says a couple things. I can't find anything that says that testing in 123 (O) has to be done by the state. I can't find anything that would actually prevent frame transfers. Since a frame or receiver is a "firearm" under the new law. Maybe someone creates their own "firearm testing business" and tests frames or receivers to the specifications. I'd love to see a stripped glock frame accidentally discharge a bullet.

The requirement that “firearms” must be tested to sell is already in existing MGL Ch 140 Section 123 and 501 CMR 7.0. The thing that changes is that they changed the definition of firearm to include rifles, shotguns and receivers.

I haven’t done a difference check from the old section 123 to the new one, but it seems to be sufficiently similar for the purposes of this particular question.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/501-cmr-7-approved-weapon-rosters/download

Also, they maintain a list of approved testing labs.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/approved-testing-labs/download

 

[HARRYM]

I can't reveal my source but I have been given an advance list of approved firearms in MA. It's only one at the moment.

Pop Guns

www.mudpuddlestoys.com

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

They're rushing because if they don't rush, they're afraid they'll be tagged as putting something into EFA10 after 01 AUG. In other words, the rush to get the guns purchased this week is a rush to comply. If sales don't fall off a cliff starting on 02AUG, well, then those are people who aren't rushing to comply.

Everyone wants that sweet, sweet grandfathering. That indicates that they're obeying this law. The noncompliant ones? They're not buying right now. They're already figuring out ways to circumvent the law.

...hypothetically.

Just wondering you seem to look down on people who might obey the law. I have to assume that for you stop signs, traffic signals and other laws are arbitrary and you usually don't obey them, right? After all why be a sheep who actually stops at a stop sign, better to blow through it, and the right on red (the law I hate the most) why stop the signs are merely advisory right?
I will not say whether I totally obey gun laws or not, that is my business, but I never look down on people who obey the law. Rather than flame me why don't you stop by my table, the Boston Police gun collector, table at the Marlboro show and we can discuss it.

 

[KH56010]

The requirement that “firearms” must be tested to sell is already in existing MGL Ch 140 Section 123 and 501 CMR 7.0. The thing that changes is that they changed the definition of firearm to include rifles, shotguns and receivers.

I haven’t done a difference check from the old section 123 to the new one, but it seems to be sufficiently similar for the purposes of this particular question.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/501-cmr-7-approved-weapon-rosters/download

Also, they maintain a list of approved testing labs.

https://www.mass.gov/doc/approved-testing-labs/download

So I guess now my big question would be on CMRs, which have always been a mystery to me. Obviously this one will need to be updated. How do the CMRs get updated, how long does that take, etc? Without the CMR there's no enforcement of non approved firearms that aren't assault weapons.

 

[Grendizer138]

[…]
So, my Unfinished, none FA10'd and legally possessed stripped receiver for an AR15 can now be built up into a 6 inch pistol with a folding brace and a flash hider. I will then have to register it down the road when that system is created.

I don’t know if you’re correct or not, but I respect the hell out of your thought process.

 

[Kurtz]

Damn, everyone’s rushing to comply just as fast as they signed up for the covid vax.

F-That!

 

[Picton]

Just wondering you seem to look down on people who might obey the law. I have to assume that for you stop signs, traffic signals and other laws are arbitrary and you usually don't obey them, right? After all why be a sheep who actually stops at a stop sign, better to blow through it, and the right on red (the law I hate the most) why stop the signs are merely advisory right?
I will not say whether I totally obey gun laws or not, that is my business, but I never look down on people who obey the law. Rather than flame me why don't you stop by my table, the Boston Police gun collector, table at the Marlboro show and we can discuss it.

I can understand why it might sound that way, but you should look at ALL my posts. I've said I understand those who register in MA (vs IL, CT, etc) out of fear that the State already knows what they have, and I do. I get that. It's a hard decision for people, and I sympathize. Registration is going to be a hard deadline for a lot of people whenever the state rolls it out.

But.

We've had AMPLE time to prepare for this, and anyone who cares about their rights should have been thinking long and hard about what they would do when it happened. We all should have been maxing out our credit cards to TSUSA... BEFORE last week. We all should have been doing research on what was in this bill... BEFORE last week. We should have been making sure our firearms needs were taken care of... BEFORE last week.

Some did not. They are pants-shitting right now. You're right that I look down on people who chose not to prepare themselves. You're also right that I look down on people who are planning to obey an unjust law, yes. I am a student (and a teacher) of history, and I am well aware that history is on the side of those who fight against tyranny and oppression, not those who roll over and accede to its demands. I believe that lesson is VERY clear. I have very little respect for those who, when their rights are threatened (and not just THEIRS, but their childrens' too) by tyrants, just shrug and say, well, it's The Law. What else can I do but obey it?

Well, uh, you can disobey it. Because it's an unjust law.

To me, it's that simple. And your children will thank you when they realize what you've done for them. We are a Republic, as Franklin said, "if [we] can keep it." All my life, we've been moving away from that ideal because short-term thinkers and those who prefer tyranny to liberty have been FAILING to "keep it." I don't intend that my children see me fail to do my utmost. And, truly, if you don't have the stomach to "keep it?" To exercise your rights as a free man? You're who Franklin and Adams and all the rest were warning about.

So when I look down on those kinds of people, I'm quite confident I'm in excellent company.

And yes. I run red lights all the damn time, but ONLY if it's safe to other drivers. I'll obey a traffic law to keep my fellow motorists safe, but I'll be damned if I do merely because a red lightbulb commands me to. Nope.

 

[Foudre]

Just wondering you seem to look down on people who might obey the law. I have to assume that for you stop signs, traffic signals and other laws are arbitrary and you usually don't obey them, right? After all why be a sheep who actually stops at a stop sign, better to blow through it, and the right on red (the law I hate the most) why stop the signs are merely advisory right?
I will not say whether I totally obey gun laws or not, that is my business, but I never look down on people who obey the law. Rather than flame me why don't you stop by my table, the Boston Police gun collector, table at the Marlboro show and we can discuss it.

There is technically no right to drive, but there is a right to bear arms.

I would look down on people who obey malicious laws designed to resign more authority to the state on personal matters that are none of their business. People who do obey help legitimize the state's authority over such things, including ones that violate the rights we are supposed to hold sacred. The law abiding citizen is not a virtue for this reason.

 

[67ray]

But the transaction isn’t taking place in MA. So the seller doesn’t need a MA dealer license. There’s still no law preventing online ammo sales directly to MA residents.

The new law only applies to dealers in MA. But I don’t know of any MA dealers anyway who sold ammo online and shipped it.

Pretty simple, it's the interstate commerce clause. Even MA isn't dumb/arrogant enough to challenge that one in Court.

 

[67ray]

Frankly, this is the main thing I'm worried about. I shudder at the thought of having to overpay for two boxes of whatever ammo I can find on the shelf at the local store; I've gotten so used to just ordering by the case from TS and having it delivered within 48hrs or grabbing the same at the mill.

You "shudder at the thought of having to overpay"? That's your problem?

Our God given rights are being stripped away and all the skinflints are focused on is the potential for paying a few bucks more for a box of ammo? This is why one of the largest voting blocks in the country isn't more successful.

 

[PappyM3]

There is technically no right to drive, but there is a right to bear arms.

I would look down on people who obey malicious laws designed to resign more authority to the state on personal matters that are none of their business. People who do obey help legitimize the state's authority over such things, including ones that violate the rights we are supposed to hold sacred. The law abiding citizen is not a virtue for this reason.

There is no enumerated right to drive. Our rights are not limited to those that are enumerated. Can you imagine if 18th century US states tried to tell people they couldn’t ride a horse down to the town center? Of course, over time courts have declared we have no right to drive, but they have routinely sided with the state when a right is not explicitly preserved for people.

Edit: typo

 

[pastera]

There is technically no right to drive, but there is a right to bear arms.

There is an enumerated right to bear arms - the right to drive comes under the 9th and 10th
The idea that you have a right to travel but not the right to a particular means of travel is the same as saying you have the right to bear only the types and quantities of arms the government designates as proper and prudent.

Can the government place limitations on how, when and where you can drive? Yes, but only insofar as the limitations allow for the safe sharing of a public resource.
Loss of the right to choose one's means of travel can be limited the same way as an unrepentant violent criminal can be disarmed. However, that right should be insulated from restrictions not intimately linked to the general welfare of the public (no taking a driver's license for unpaid child support, taxes, etc)

I would look down on people who obey malicious laws designed to resign more authority to the state on personal matters that are none of their business. People who do obey help legitimize the state's authority over such things, including ones that violate the rights we are supposed to hold sacred. The law abiding citizen is not a virtue for this reason.

Concur - What is worse are those that use the unjust laws as a weapon against other citizens.

 

[Foudre]

the right to drive comes under the 9th and 10th
The idea that you have a right to travel but not the right to a particular means of travel is the same as saying you have the right to bear only the types and quantities of arms the government designates as proper and prudent.

Point taken.

 

[VTski4x4]

 

[pastera]

Point taken.

My reply wasn't directed at you but at the common misconception that the government controls all that is not enumerated.

The Bill of Rights was added after as a safeguard but it was seen by many as unnecessary and, prophetic, that it would be interpreted as a full and complete listing of rights of the people.

We fail to press one of the most important amendments, the 9th, to the forefront or it's just as important sister, the 10th.

Amendment 9
- Other Rights Kept by the People

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

---

Amendment 10
- Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I wish the 10th did not include the States since the people of a State are free to delegate administration of a right to the State but, as we experience today, are at serious risk of the State assuming the people's rights for itself when it decides without consent of the people that the right is its own.

 

[Lowbird]

Just wondering you seem to look down on people who might obey the law. I have to assume that for you stop signs, traffic signals and other laws are arbitrary and you usually don't obey them, right? After all why be a sheep who actually stops at a stop sign, better to blow through it, and the right on red (the law I hate the most) why stop the signs are merely advisory right?
I will not say whether I totally obey gun laws or not, that is my business, but I never look down on people who obey the law. Rather than flame me why don't you stop by my table, the Boston Police gun collector, table at the Marlboro show and we can discuss it.

The issue is not obeying. It's seeing those that write the law as emotionally driven power hungry sociopaths. Most of whom on their best days couldn't function unless they had influence over another someone or something. We know and accept this. The grandstanding and gleeful pronouncements reinforced it. Knowing your neighbors business and livelihood will end due to your feebleness to genuflect and see the actual problems other "laws" have created necessitating the absolute shit show that was signed yesterday. They can't admit they f***ed up in the past. So we'll over compensate and f*** up even harder next time. It's pathetic.

It's not like they're writing laws for the common good. The people they pander to can't even read the bills. Relying on media to translate to them in big flashy lights. All while the bill says it's a human cookbook.

Understanding and living in a high trust society. Where having respect for yours and others property. Typically leads one to not drive like an a**h***. Similarly with firearms ownership.

Although one is a right, the other is a modern convenience. Our law makers only seem to be interested in taking away rights at the moment.

I won't speak for @Picton, and I honestly don't mean to rant at you directly. The driving analogy, in all forms, has always irked me though.

We have all read these words before:
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void"
And:
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them"

If our betters on beacon hill had a shred of decency, and were humble to the massive power with which they've been entrusted. At least making an attempt to stay within the guidelines provided by the Constitution. I'd feel better about obeying the laws they craft. Because we'd know they'd be well researched and fact based, and not emotional ass covering pablum.

 

[KH56010]

Ok, so Chatgpt can't find it and I can't find it. What MGL actually gives authority over section 123 to 501 CMR 7.00? 123 mentions all the testing parameters, but I can't find where it states that this independent testing facility and basically everything in 501 will be created outside of the MGL. If you look up almost any other CMR and go to the MGL that it states it was created from. It will literally state something to the effect of (using CMR 1.00 as a reference and 12C of 71b) ""The secretary of health and human services shall promulgate rules and regulations for the modification, extension, termination, or appeal of the transitional plan by such person, his parent or guardian, or any agency responsible for the provision of services pursuant to such plan."

Basically, without something in the MGL actually stating that we are to refer to a later made CMR. Why did we ever follow a roster and what prevents a 400 page CMR being created tomorrow with all new rules?

 

[kalash]

You "shudder at the thought of having to overpay"? That's your problem?

Our God given rights are being stripped away and all the skinflints are focused on is the potential for paying a few bucks more for a box of ammo? This is why one of the largest voting blocks in the country isn't more successful.

Oh F off with the sermon. I don't remember you signing up to speak out against this when the House was having hearings. How many legislators have you contacted?

I'll stand by what I said earlier - if ammo becomes scarce, that's a problem. You can't "not comply" with a lack of supply.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I’m about to head to bed for the day. Can one of you wizards find out when, where, and what time she is having her “ceremonial signing?” We’re probably also gonna need bussing to it, as we all know, parking in the city blows and is a huge pain in the ass. Or is no one interest in speaking out against this?

I realize we won’t be in the building. We don’t need to be. But, a large, noisy, and actually peaceful, group outside the building showing dissent over this may bring some attention to what is really taking place. I hope.


Maybe I’m just delusional. But it worked for the hippies. Somewhat.

 

[Atlantis]

Just wondering you seem to look down on people who might obey the law. I have to assume that for you stop signs, traffic signals and other laws are arbitrary and you usually don't obey them, right? After all why be a sheep who actually stops at a stop sign, better to blow through it, and the right on red (the law I hate the most) why stop the signs are merely advisory right?
I will not say whether I totally obey gun laws or not, that is my business, but I never look down on people who obey the law. Rather than flame me why don't you stop by my table, the Boston Police gun collector, table at the Marlboro show and we can discuss it.

You literally sound like my late grandmother.
I look down on YOU. Not for obeying laws, but for failing to use your critical thinking as you navigate life. Do you not murder because it’s a law? Or because it’s wrong to do? Do you not rape because it’s illegal? Or because it’s wrong to do? If you follow laws simply because “it’s the law” you are outsourcing your critical thinking. Be a man, evaluate the world around you with your own mind, and exercise your right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

“Because it’s the law” is just the feeble man’s version of “Just following orders”.

 

[VTski4x4]

I’m about to head to bed for the day. Can one of you wizards find out when, where, and what time she is having her “ceremonial signing?” We’re probably also gonna need bussing to it, as we all know, parking in the city blows and is a huge pain in the ass. Or is no one interest in speaking out against this?

I realize we won’t be in the building. We don’t need to be. But, a large, noisy, and actually peaceful, group outside the building showing dissent over this may bring some attention to what is really taking place. I hope.


Maybe I’m just delusional. But it worked for the hippies. Somewhat.

We can be as loud and disruptive as we want, as long as we spray paint free Palestine on everything before we leave.

 

[xero2099]

Just wondering you seem to look down on people who might obey the law. I have to assume that for you stop signs, traffic signals and other laws are arbitrary and you usually don't obey them, right? After all why be a sheep who actually stops at a stop sign, better to blow through it, and the right on red (the law I hate the most) why stop the signs are merely advisory right?
I will not say whether I totally obey gun laws or not, that is my business, but I never look down on people who obey the law. Rather than flame me why don't you stop by my table, the Boston Police gun collector, table at the Marlboro show and we can discuss it.

its also not crazy to want to get something now because you dont know when and if you will be able to get it again

 

[pastera]

Ok, so Chatgpt can't find it and I can't find it. What MGL actually gives authority over section 123 to 501 CMR 7.00? 123 mentions all the testing parameters, but I can't find where it states that this independent testing facility and basically everything in 501 will be created outside of the MGL. If you look up almost any other CMR and go to the MGL that it states it was created from. It will literally state something to the effect of (using CMR 1.00 as a reference and 12C of 71b) ""The secretary of health and human services shall promulgate rules and regulations for the modification, extension, termination, or appeal of the transitional plan by such person, his parent or guardian, or any agency responsible for the provision of services pursuant to such plan."

Basically, without something in the MGL actually stating that we are to refer to a later made CMR. Why did we ever follow a roster and what prevents a 400 page CMR being created tomorrow with all new rules?

In the bill the word promulgate occurs eleven times in text similar to this:

The secretary of the executive office of public safety and security or theirs designee may promulgate regulations to carry out the purposes of this section.

The regulations themselves point back the the section of law that delegates authority to the regulating body
501 CMR 7.00

7.01: Purpose
The purpose of 501 CMR 7.00 is to provide rules and regulations governing the inclusion of firearms, rifles and shotguns on rosters of weapons referred to in M.G.L. c. 140, §§ 123 and131¾.

 

[EJFudd]

Its also not crazy to want to get something now because you don't know when and if you will be able to get it again

Wait! Wasn't I just told how that would constitute "complying" and so it's bad... really bad??? I am so confused.

Doesn't really matter. Shops are sold out of everything in long guns at this point and probably non-roster handguns too.

Deranged Leftist DimocRATS! The very best and most effective guns sales people in the entire world!

 

[Uzi2]

Just wondering you seem to look down on people who might obey the law. I have to assume that for you stop signs, traffic signals and other laws are arbitrary and you usually don't obey them, right? After all why be a sheep who actually stops at a stop sign, better to blow through it, and the right on red (the law I hate the most) why stop the signs are merely advisory right?
I will not say whether I totally obey gun laws or not, that is my business, but I never look down on people who obey the law. Rather than flame me why don't you stop by my table, the Boston Police gun collector, table at the Marlboro show and we can discuss it.

Let me get this straight...........You are trying to equate disobeying traffic signs and rules of the road to disobeying or working around unconstitutional gun laws? Is that what I'm reading?

That is such a poor comparison.

When you blow through a stop sign or red light, there is the high possibility of severe bodily harm to yourself or ending your life or that of someone else......immediately.
It's common sense and innate survival instinct to obey basic rules of the road. Not doing so usually provides instant karma with very poor outcomes.

Boston Police gun collector huh? How many "throw downs" have you ever provided to your fellow officers? How many guns have you illegally taken or received from people on the streets over the years?

Don't tell me it doesn't happen......I've physically seen the results (the booty) of such actions. A Boston cop who was the uncle of someone I dated in junior high school 55 years ago, had a five foot, chest of drawers FULL of illegally confiscated weapons, with two large drawers full to the top of pistols and the rest full of knives, nun chucks, slingshots, zip guns, spiked maces, throwing stars, throwing knives, saps, billy clubs, taped up short pieces of steel pipe, bull whips, straight razors, brass knuckles, blow guns, bolos, belt buckle knives, short logging chains with taped and braided handles.

Growing up, Boston Police were notoriously corrupt and I don't think they've become any less in the past five decades, I think they've just figured out better ways to hide their corruption from public scrutiny.

 

[SS1]

Wait! Wasn't I just told how that would constitute "complying" and so it's bad... really bad??? I am so confused.

Doesn't really matter. Shops are sold out of everything in long guns at this point and probably non-roster handguns too.

Deranged Leftist DimocRATS! The very best and most effective guns sales people in the entire world!

Not to mention Real-estate sales

 

[67ray]

Oh F off with the sermon. I don't remember you signing up to speak out against this when the House was having hearings. How many legislators have you contacted?

I'll stand by what I said earlier - if ammo becomes scarce, that's a problem. You can't "not comply" with a lack of supply.

Many as a matter of fact. And I have been at the Statehouse numerous times. But I don't have to explain myself to you.

Your ad hominem attacks are baseless and all you have done is expose yourself.

 

[Hardwired]

"Ghost Guns" is their pet catchphrase. Lefties use it all the time without knowing what it means, but it sounds scary so it's something they repeat again and again.

The technicalities of this law, which matter so much to those of us on NES, would be impossible for non-gun people to understand. Remember: most of them think five-year-olds can buy whole guns off the internet, even in MA. Every anti I've ever spoken with, once I've explained about LTCs and fees and suitability, has thought I was lying about all that.

They don't care about any of that, so the news won't cover it. They'll stick with the snappy catchphrase.

The more I look at this I can see the technicality web weaved throughout this thing is crafted to effect a semiautomatic ban with killing the dealer outlets, shut down the flow in of anything, and control with Commie defined rosters, barriers with licensing and training, It’s not some “non-gun” idiot ramblings, it’s smartly crafted in many areas.

The Left Coast and Bloomberger have had a long time and a lot of money to fix all their small mistakes of the past and cut anything they deemed as “loopholes”.

Someone knew, a Benedict Arnold, and told them exactly how to write this thing to let the axes fall everywhere.

I had a dream last night of thousands of the Kings men marching on the commonwealth.