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

So what you’re saying that the language in the bill is the same, and thus is still null and void regarding online ammo orders?
Sort of. Null and void for out of state ammo sellers, based on commercial law. I am not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV. If I were, I would have a MASSIVE Contempt record because I don't abide stupidity.
 
According to the summary GOAL posted. 8/1 date is irrelevant for grandfathering. This was my reading of the bill as well.

“Grandfathering if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016. Technically there was no registration requirement prior to the passage of this bill.”
 
View attachment 898046 Still the best option for free men. ;)

And sadly, continue to live under the sword of Massachusetts tyranny.

View attachment 898084


I would move but as I have mentioned before our 29 year old son is buried here, as we get old and decrepit a long drive from NH is too tough. I will stay behind enemy lines and try to be part of the resistance.

If you have a ham radio you will be able to contact me, I am often in the woods working POTA, which has been compared to the French Resistance in WWII. My call is WX1USN Jeff
 
And a perfect opportunity to deem some one unsuitable and pull their LTC.....see, one less gun owner.
On the long odds If someone /actually/ got charged with that crap... the last thing they're going to care about is suitability. If one got convicted it's probably a felony and probably disabling anyways no suitability denial required.
 
Yep. Randy already said he’s done if it passes😡

That's the shittiest part of this whole thing because basically we're just going to end up with a few large, relatively crappy dealers selling the most boring shit and it'll probably be overpriced too because they'll have a captive audience. Much like the way California BS is now.
 
View attachment 898046 Still the best option for free men. ;)

NES might add a House Comming Up for Sale in NH thread in Off Topic for NH members to post on to give MA members a heads up. Developer up the hill from me in New Boston has been working for the past year on a development of homes. Realtor told me that the starting price is $600K for some of the homes. I told her that most open houses will have MA plates.
 
According to the summary GOAL posted. 8/1 date is irrelevant for grandfathering. This was my reading of the bill as well.

“Grandfathering if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016. Technically there was no registration requirement prior to the passage of this bill.”

I must respectfully disagree. I am not a Lawyer but the English Language meaning of Sections 121 and 131 are crystal clear. I also respect Atty. Jason Guida but disagree with his assessment posted earlier.

Section 121 of Chapter 140 Contains DEFINITIONS. It defines among other what an "assault weapon" is. The verbiage in definition "f" of assault weapon has had the date July 20, 2016 added to now mean that any firearm that contains the features outlined in "a" through "e" is not considered and assault weapon if it was legally owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016 (i.e. the Healy Enforcement Notice). So it is "grandfathered" in regards to the definition and is not even an assault weapon. This of course means that firearms purchased after July 20, 2016 are in fact considered assault weapons by definition.

Section 131 of Chapter 140 deals with the Conditions and Restrictions associated with the issuance and possession of an LTC. Section 131(M) used to talk about expired licenses and has totally been replace in the new law with the restriction against possessing, owning, selling, and transferring assault weapons. Section 131(M) clearly states in subsection (a) that you cannot possess, own, or sell and assault weapon. Subsection (b) clearly states that subsection (a) does not apply to any assault-style firearm lawfully possessed on August 1, 2024 by either an LTC holder or an FFL.

I have not taken the time to verify that "holder of a license to sell under section 122" means FFL but I am assuming it does. If it does not I apologize.

To summarize - If you owned a assualt style firearm prior to July 20, 2016 it is grandfathered as to actually being defined as an assualt weapon and is therefore not subject to any laws regarding owner ship of assualt weapons. If you actually lawfully owned and registered a firearm that meets the definition of assualt weapon prior to August 1, 2024 it is grandfathered as to legality of owning, possessing, selling, or transferring. Discussions regarding "what is lawfully owned" or "but there is no registration" are moot and change nothing above.

Again I am not a lawyer but I'm also not an airsoft player masquerading as a gun owner.
 
I must respectfully disagree. I am not a Lawyer but the English Language meaning of Sections 121 and 131 are crystal clear. I also respect Atty. Jason Guida but disagree with his assessment posted earlier.

Section 121 of Chapter 140 Contains DEFINITIONS. It defines among other what an "assault weapon" is. The verbiage in definition "f" of assault weapon has had the date July 20, 2016 added to now mean that any firearm that contains the features outlined in "a" through "e" is not considered and assault weapon if it was legally owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016 (i.e. the Healy Enforcement Notice). So it is "grandfathered" in regards to the definition and is not even an assault weapon. This of course means that firearms purchased after July 20, 2016 are in fact considered assault weapons by definition.

Section 131 of Chapter 140 deals with the Conditions and Restrictions associated with the issuance and possession of an LTC. Section 131(M) used to talk about expired licenses and has totally been replace in the new law with the restriction against possessing, owning, selling, and transferring assault weapons. Section 131(M) clearly states in subsection (a) that you cannot possess, own, or sell and assault weapon. Subsection (b) clearly states that subsection (a) does not apply to any assault-style firearm lawfully possessed on August 1, 2024 by either an LTC holder or an FFL.

I have not taken the time to verify that "holder of a license to sell under section 122" means FFL but I am assuming it does. If it does not I apologize.

To summarize - If you owned a assualt style firearm prior to July 20, 2016 it is grandfathered as to actually being defined as an assualt weapon and is therefore not subject to any laws regarding owner ship of assualt weapons. If you actually lawfully owned and registered a firearm that meets the definition of assualt weapon prior to August 1, 2024 it is grandfathered as to legality of owning, possessing, selling, or transferring. Discussions regarding "what is lawfully owned" or "but there is no registration" are moot and change nothing above.

Again I am not a lawyer but I'm also not an airsoft player masquerading as a gun owner.
Just one correction, copies and duplicates only applies to “d” and “e”, not “a” to “e”. It only applies to their new to come roster and the short list of guns in the law that was lifted from the prior and 1994 federal law.
 
Just one correction, copies and duplicates only applies to “d” and “e”, not “a” to “e”. It only applies to their new to come roster and the short list of guns in the law that was lifted from the prior and 1994 federal law.
A-e define what an assault weapon is. Copies and duplicates are just part of the definition. The point is that the section contains definitions.
 
A-e define what an assault weapon is. Copies and duplicates are just part of the definition. The point is that the section contains definitions.
Correct. It’s an important nuance though. For instance, the only date that applies to the new feature test (barrel shroud and things) is 8/1/24.
 
People getting hung up on "lawfully possessed" and thinking that means whether a rifle is considered an AW or not. I don't think it does. IMO it just means that whoever has possession is licensed to do so.

The current code for 94 pre-bans uses the same "lawfully possessed" verbiage and as far as I know there were no AWs prior to 94.
 
People getting hung up on "lawfully possessed" and thinking that means whether a rifle is considered an AW or not. I don't think it does. IMO it just means that whoever has possession is licensed to do so.

The current code for 94 pre-bans uses the same "lawfully possessed" verbiage and as far as I know there were no AWs prior to 94.

This is a really good point. And if that's the case, it would seem there is indeed full grandfathering up until 8/1/2024.
 
People getting hung up on "lawfully possessed" and thinking that means whether a rifle is considered an AW or not. I don't think it does. IMO it just means that whoever has possession is licensed to do so.

The current code for 94 pre-bans uses the same "lawfully possessed" verbiage and as far as I know there were no AWs prior to 94.
Agreed just as people get hung up on "registered". Too many people claim that there is no registration mechanism in the law and ignore the fact that for well over 10 years the MA Gun Portal has had a "registration" function defined and implemented.

I've been browsing this bill for almost a day off and on and there are a shitload off things in it including the fact that this law introduces registration and requires that everybody register EVERY firearm they have within a certain period of time after the registration database is constructed. (I think it's 6 months?) Claiming that gun registration is going to be used to provide information to law enforcement to help prevent crime is total bullshit. The mantra of "we don't want your guns" becomes more laughable every day.
 
Agreed just as people get hung up on "registered". Too many people claim that there is no registration mechanism in the law and ignore the fact that for well over 10 years the MA Gun Portal has had a "registration" function defined and implemented.
It depends on what you mean by "registered". MA has a reporting system, but falls short of what is generally considered registration:
  • There are ways in which a legally acquired gun may not have been registered - for example, moving into MA with a gun prior to the new law.
  • There is no transfer of registration when a gun changes owner - just a new "report" registraton
  • Owners do not maintain any proof of registration
  • A gun not being in the quasi-registration system is not an offense in and of itself - the state must prove failure to register
  • If you failed to register beyond the statute of limitations, and live in MA so the time "counts", you cannot be prosecuted for failure to register - and unregistered possession is not a crime. Yet.
Compare this to registration like in NY -
  • The state maintains a registry of all legally possessed handguns. This is by definition - if it is not in the registry, possession is illegal (with dealer and LE exceptions)
  • Owners must carry proof of registration
  • Possession of an unregistered handgun, or one registered to someone else, is a crime.
So any discussion of "registration" in MA is really a vocabulary discussion, though the new law introduces the term "registration" into the law.
 
Last edited:
It depends on what you mean by "registered". MA has a reporting system, but falls short of what is generally considered registration:
  • There are ways in which a legally acquired gun may not have been registered - for example, movin into MA with a gun prior to the new law.
  • There is no transfer of registration when a gun changes owner - just a new "report" registraton
  • Owners do not maintain any proof of registration
  • A gun not being in the quasi-registration system is not an offense in an of itself - the state must prove failure to register
  • If you failed to register beyond the statute of limitations, and live in MA so the time "counts", you cannot be prosecuted for failure to register - and unregistered possession is not a crime. Yet.
Compare this to registration like in NY -
  • The state maintains a registry of all legally possessed handguns. This is by definition - if it is not in the registry, possession is illegal (with dealer and LE exceptions)
  • Owners must carry proof of registration
  • Possession of an unregistered handgun, or one registered to someone else, is a crime.
So any discussion of "registration" in MA is really a vocabulary discussion, though the new law introduces the term "registration" into the law.
Registered isn't defined past the collected data so they get to say that the current system meets the gun owner requirements.
 
Agreed just as people get hung up on "registered". Too many people claim that there is no registration mechanism in the law and ignore the fact that for well over 10 years the MA Gun Portal has had a "registration" function defined and implemented.

I've been browsing this bill for almost a day off and on and there are a shitload off things in it including the fact that this law introduces registration and requires that everybody register EVERY firearm they have within a certain period of time after the registration database is constructed. (I think it's 6 months?) Claiming that gun registration is going to be used to provide information to law enforcement to help prevent crime is total bullshit. The mantra of "we don't want your guns" becomes more laughable every day.

I do not wish...

1721407140577.png

 
Last edited:
According to the summary GOAL posted. 8/1 date is irrelevant for grandfathering. This was my reading of the bill as well.

“Grandfathering if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016. Technically there was no registration requirement prior to the passage of this bill.”
There is no definition of "registered" in the bill.
And the new data inputs for registration are the same as those required for reporting a transfer currently.
So they are simply moving the requirement to record a transfer from the seller to a requirement to register by the owner.
 
There is no definition of "registered" in the bill.
And the new data inputs for registration are the same as those required for reporting a transfer currently.
So they are simply moving the requirement to record a transfer from the seller to a requirement to register by the owner.
It’s vocabulary.

I doubt the nature of the database will change one whit. This gives TPTB the ability to claim they “instituted gun registration in Massachusetts,” thus polishing their anti-gun resume and discouraging gUn pEoPLe from moving here.
 
Still waiting for the dust to settle on this POS but there must be thousands of AR's and AK's that have been purchased and FA-10'd in this state after July 20 2016. I was at the Mill last fall and there were a ton of lowers and uppers being purchased. What happens to them? Is New Hampshire going to be swamped with used Mass AR's? My buddy registered a complete lower he was working on the day Healy had that press conference. So he registered on July 20 2016, not prior. He's a felon now?
 
Still waiting for the dust to settle on this POS but there must be thousands of AR's and AK's that have been purchased and FA-10'd in this state after July 20 2016. I was at the Mill last fall and there were a ton of lowers and uppers being purchased. What happens to them? Is New Hampshire going to be swamped with used Mass AR's? My buddy registered a complete lower he was working on the day Healy had that press conference. So he registered on July 20 2016, not prior. He's a felon now?
Noone in NH wants a "MA compliant AR".
 
Still waiting for the dust to settle on this POS but there must be thousands of AR's and AK's that have been purchased and FA-10'd in this state after July 20 2016. I was at the Mill last fall and there were a ton of lowers and uppers being purchased. What happens to them? Is New Hampshire going to be swamped with used Mass AR's? My buddy registered a complete lower he was working on the day Healy had that press conference. So he registered on July 20 2016, not prior. He's a felon now?

Stop worrying so much.

If you are sh*thing your pants, go ahead and sell your stuff today.

If you are not sh*thing your pants, keep living life the way you were before the first bill was announced.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top Bottom