pastera
NES Member
This is a Massachusetts not federal issue so the 1st is the only place you can file.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885
- Thread starter GOAL
- Start date
Not entirely true. They’re now no different than any pre-7/20 AR. Not a new lower bought today.
131m subsection C: Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under …
There is zero dispute about the pre-94 rifles being lawfully possessed even if you bought them after 7/20. Copies or duplicate language means nothing for pre-94 rifles bought post-7/20 because they were already exempt and clearly “lawful”.
We all know that post 7/20 ARs are lawfully possessed as well, but it’s clear this bill is trying to differentiate them and codify Healey’s declaration based on the date in the copy and duplicate language.
All that said, I don’t think anybody with a post-7/20 AR should be concerned with this bill.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 4,068
- Likes
- 5,773
I don’t own any icky rifles, but I have no idea if anything I do own is now illegal, or will later be deemed to be illegal.
Rockrivr1
NES Member
Hummmm. I’m thinking I’d disagree as MA is overstepping the constitution and that seems like a federal issue. I’m most likely wrong but seems this isn’t just a State issue.
pastera
NES Member
Sounds like a problem you should fix
Every home should have enough carbines to outfit the occupants.
pastera
NES Member
The controversy is not over a federally derived issue which would allow a case to be presented to any federal jurisdiction since it would exist in every jurisdiction.
This is exclusively a 1st circuit issue and as such only the 1st circuit has jurisdiction.
Why didn't they complain to the Chiefs back when the Chiefs supported this bill?
pastera
NES Member
The bill does codify Healey's interpretation into law.
However it also seems to exempt everything currently possessed and has some special super duper exemption for pre Healey guns.
There is no doubt that pre Healey guns with an entry in the database have some special place in the law, but that place looks to be a participation trophy in the FUD games with no obvious benefits as our understanding exists right now.
I have feeling that the state is going to try to interpret that as the general exemption does not cover copies and duplicates after 7/20/16 even though a plain reading shows it clearly does.
The issue with that is any poor bastards caught in the fight while this POS makes it way to SCOTUS.
edin508
NES Member
They may have, idk. I didn't know these guys personally, they were in line buying stuff.
pastera
NES Member
It was written by several people who didn't have a full understanding of how mass law is commonly written then massaged by legislative aids to fit into Mass law
If you go back and read the initial language you will see commonality with other anti 2a bills in other states with updates to refer to the correct chapters and sections.
Exactly right... sadly.
I believe it was the state Supreme Court in the PRM a few years ago that couldn't understand that a restricted LTC really wasn't a license to carry.
EJFudd
NES Member
It's the DimocRAT party line definition designed to make the 2nd Amendment an absurd, meaningless nothing.
It's also how DimocRAT pols and judges believe they can still claim to "support and defend the Constitution."
EJFudd
NES Member
The fact that they managed to hit every tiny little detail and desire of the Giffords and BloomingTurd anti-2A groups manifestos tells me that they had plenty of help from lawyers in those groups. The only things that got left out from the even worse House bill or the Senate bill were things that were so egregious or insanely impractical that even the worst and most deranged anti-2A leftists were told they had to back away from them.
pastera
NES Member
It's all in who you believe is included in "The People"It's the DimocRAT party line definition designed to make the 2nd Amendment an absurd, meaningless nothing.
It's also how DimocRAT pols and judges believe they can still claim to "support and defend the Constitution."
Democrats historically excluded large portions of the population and still do so today.
On other words, where's my money tax slave...
It doesn't matter if fed courts eventually overturn this because the state will just keep passing laws that take too long for the courts to handle. SCOTUS is responsible for thus because they refuse to simply blanket strike all gun laws.
pastera
NES Member
They didn't have "help", it was written by those groups and handed over.The fact that they managed to hit every tiny little detail and desire of the Giffords and BloomingTurd anti-2A groups manifestos tells me that they had plenty of help from lawyers in those groups. The only things that got left out from the even worse House bill or the Senate bill were things that were so egregious or insanely impractical that even the worst and most deranged anti-2A leftists were told they had to back away from them.
pastera
NES Member
This was the states "Hail Mary" law.
The writing is on the wall - Restrictive licensing, weapons bans, magazine bans are on the chopping block
Red flag and protection order bans are early in judicial review and while they are likely to survive, they will be severely curtailed.
The lefts only real hope is to make gun ownership a socially unacceptable practice among women such that ownership declines generation to generation. What screwed and delayed their plans is the boom of 1st person shooter games. But they won't give up using women's generalized fear of harm for their children as a weapon against our rights.
The real key is keeping the Supreme Court for another 10 years in order to get down into the minutiae at the edges of the 2nd ammendments protection.
If the left takes the court under the next president, the 2nd is over.
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
This is the key for sure and frankly I never underestimate the ability of the Republicans to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
What I’m reading though, there is no carve out in the new language saying pre-94 rifles are exempt. According to the copy/duplicates language, if it wasn’t registered before 7/20 it’s a copy or duplicate. If that pre-94 rifle wasn’t in MA prior, then it would fall into the same bucket as all the other post 7/20 ARs, right? It was clearly lawfully possessed, but it was not registered before 7/20 which is the requirement to not be a copy or duplicate.
What I’m trying to show is, if there is emphasis on ARs between 7/20/16 and 8/1/24, it appears to be a lot more than just new lowers bought since 7/20.
pastera
NES Member
The new blanket date is 8/1/24
There is some f***ery going on with the copies and duplicates stuff but if you have a pre94 then it is good to go if you possess it on 8/1 since it was unquestionably lawful under the previous laws.
Lowbird
NES Member
Much like most of the non NES gun owners in MA. They're likely distracted by family life and bread and circus to really care or want to understand what the minutia of the body politic is doing day in and day out.
E.Stoner
NES Member
You are over thinking this. Pre 94 is still the best bet in town.
… and I believe here lies the crux of the predicament…
A very small number of gun owners in MA is on NES and has discussed the new law. The vast majority of gun owners have gotten their LTC at some point, gone to an established FFL and purchased AW, etc. those same folks will know nothing of the new law aside from what the press says about ghost guns and 3d printers… and they will do nothing before and after 8/1…
So I fully imagine in the (near?) future the state to send out “invitations” to all gun owners it knows about to log in into the newly created portal and update their gun ownership records (initially populated with info from efa10 database).
Now I have always strived to be 100% compliant with the gun regulations because I do have a life outside of shooting, but what am I to do if I didn’t read all the drama here?
According to the new law it would be a copy/duplicate if you bought it after 7/20. However the superseding section 131m says that salty guns can be possessed if they were lawfully possessed prior to 8/2.
A pre-94 was absolutely lawful post 7/20 with zero argument from anybody.
Lokdog
NES Member
Hopefully McConnell will hear it. Oh, that anti 2A POS will validate this steaming pile, no doubt but he doesn't drag it out which is the best you can hope for. That way it moves forward w/o it being stuck in limbo and will eventually make it to where it can be overturned by real judges who know the Constitution
So are 80s (like Glock pistols) really affected by this or no? What if you owned a few Glock frames but haven’t finished the build yet
This is the parallel I’m trying to create here. Pre-94 ARs are completely legal in MA. Zero question. No argument.
There is an argument here that post-7/20 ARs are not lawfully possessed. Why? Dealers were not shut down selling lowers during inspections. ATF approved Form 1s after state confirmation. CLEO notifications sent for each form.
The new law only mentions 1994 twice. Once for Appendix A exempt rifles and once for mags. People are making the assumption the intent of the new law is to criminalize post-7/20 ARs but in the text of the law it makes zero distinction based on manufacture date if it was first in the state on 7/20 or later. It’s a copy or duplicate.
I agree (not a lawyer so means nothing) with Dean, Attorney Tassel, and others that ARs up until 8/1 are (most likely) okay. But if you’re in the camp that they’re aren’t, I see any lower or rifle that’s a copy/dupe first in state 7/20 or later in the same boat. In practicality I can see the risk of being charged lower.
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 38,825
- Likes
- 62,078
A prior lack of enforcement doesn’t mean they can’t enforce it now.
Correct. Although if the state said to the ATF, no that 10/1/16 lower isn’t legal, but we’re choosing not to enforce it… would the ATF said okay cool approved? I feel like no?
pastera
NES Member
My interpretation of the odd language in the copies and duplicates section is that pre 7/20 is to be treated the same as pre 94 - so no issues with evil features.
Post 7/20 until 8/1 will be exempt in a compliant form but can't be restored to a non-compliant form.
But this is speculation since it will take a court to legally clear up the ambiguous language (the state cannot do this post Loper)
