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

[HorizontalHunter]

Hopefully the signing will get attention across the nation.

Then the repercussion can be felt on the President elect. Healey wants a position from Kamala. Maybe she just did Trump a favor.

There are no repercussions for Harris. She wants the same laws nationwide. That's why I said earlier that you can run, from Massachusetts, but you can’t hide.

If Harris is elected she will reform the Supreme Court by replacing conservative judges with extreme liberal judges and will push hard for a NATION WIDE AWB and the reconstituted Supreme Court will say it’s constitutional.

 

[pdm]

If we can't understand that, it's unlikely a government lawyer can do any better. A police officer might arrest us anyway (because they're stupid enough to try), but my guess is that a DA will quietly tell him to hold off next time. Yes, that's just my opinion, but I'm staking my own freedom on that. So I clearly believe it pretty firmly.

Why would they hold off when they can just pile on more charges and browbeat you into a plea deal?

 

[vicorjh]

Gun registries:


View: https://youtu.be/xXbzl_rMZhM?si=SsWl3J5unHyn95-t&t=139

 

[Gasgunner]

Hopefully the signing will get attention across the nation.

Then the repercussion can be felt on the President elect. Healey wants a position from Kamala. Maybe she just did Trump a favor.

What repercussion? Any national attention the signing receives will be the same as the coverage here. That this legislation aims to get ghost guns off the street. No media outlet will dig on their own or even care to.

 

[Picton]

Why would they hold off when they can just pile on more charges and browbeat you into a plea deal?

Yeah, but at that point, might as well call their bluff.

 

[maltc]

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.

From what I understand the legal technicalities of “lawfully posessed” translates to lawfully in existence prior to sept 13 of 1994. Not exclusively lawfully posessed in state. Simply in the U.S. It’s one of the reasons a pre 94 colt lower is irrefutably a lawfully posessed pre ban… the reason being, colt ONLY manufactured and sold their rifles as complete builds. A pre ban build of an olympic arms or SGW lower receiver, in lets say 2018, may have a harder time to prove was lawfully posessed before the federal AWB (which is essentially what M.G.L. had codified because as far as I know they also sold lowers.) but is also of no necessity for the gun owner. It would be on the state to prove it was not. This is a feat of impossibility for the courts though, as some of the databases based on serial numbers are no longer in existence.

 

[not new guy]

I’m guessing the legislature doesn’t even fully understand the law they wrote, or the implications of specific phrasing and references. NES has burned more brain cells trying to interpret it than went into drafting it.

 

[pdm]

Yeah, but at that point, might as well call their bluff.

That would be my plan, a plea that turns me into a felon anyway isn't really a deal.

 

[maltc]

I’m guessing the legislature doesn’t even fully understand the law they wrote, or the implications of specific phrasing and references. NES has burned more brain cells trying to interpret it than went into drafting it.

We are trying to make sense of the irrational and contradictory. It’s human nature to seek a finite answer to a complex question. It’s a feat of impossibility that gets even more convoluted with the additional element of an individuals interpretation, which is a complete intangible.

 

[1903Collector]

There are no repercussions for Harris. She wants the same laws nationwide. That's why I said earlier that you can run, from Massachusetts, but you can’t hide.

If Harris is elected she will reform the Supreme Court by replacing conservative judges with extreme liberal judges and will push hard for a NATION WIDE AWB and the reconstituted Supreme Court will say it’s constitutional.

Yup, Thomas and Alito are how old? I don't know but they're up there.

 

[HARRYM]

Yup, Thomas and Alito are how old? I don't know but they're up there.

If we lose the Senate and the WH it is over. They will stack the court.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Nope. There are zero federal or state laws requiring personally made firearms to be safety tested. We do not have the same requirements as an 07 FFL.

Section 121C. (d):
"No person shall manufacture or assemble a privately made firearm that does not comply with all relevant state and federal safety regulations"

How do you interpret this? How can you PROVE you complied with all relevant state and federal safety regulations?

To be qualified as "safe" in Massachusetts, there are a host of tests a manufacturer of firearms has to comply with. Can you PROVE that the polymer 80 you assembled in your basement with components you purchased from a variety of sources passed all relevant state and federal safety regulations?

 

[Atlantis]

Section 121C. (d):
"No person shall manufacture or assemble a privately made firearm that does not comply with all relevant state and federal safety regulations"

How do you interpret this? How can you PROVE you complied with all relevant state and federal safety regulations?

To be qualified as "safe" in Massachusetts, there are a host of tests a manufacturer of firearms has to comply with. Can you PROVE that the polymer 80 you assembled in your basement with components you purchased from a variety of sources passed all relevant state and federal safety regulations?

Yes, you can PROVE it, because the relevant state and federal safety regulations for a private citizen, not engaged in commerce, are precisely zero.

In this case you can prove a negative. You hold up Federal Law, you hold up MGL, and you note the absence of any regulations pertaining to a private citizen regarding safety.

Just because MANUFACTURERS have relevant regulations, does not suddenly redefine manufacturer as any private citizen assembling a privately made firearm. Nor does H4885 rewrite the existing regulations.

Literally unfathomable that you think "all relevant" suddenly confers additional relevance to existing laws.

 

[Picton]

If we lose the Senate and the WH it is over. They will stack the court.

Meh. I’ve been reading that here for three years now. It’s FAR from a done deal.

 

[pastera]

There are multiple categories of impact:
1) Simple possession
2) Buying/selling face to face citizen to citizen
3) Buying/Selling via a MA Dealer/FFL
4) Moving into the state with weapons you already possess
5) Building your own

As far as I can tell, pistols are only impacted on 3), they are no longer able to be frame transferred if they are on the appropriate rosters. That's dealer sales.
Private parties can continue to possess and transfer to each other directly. Dealers can not unless the gun happens to be on roster.
The new law does specify that you must register the frames whether you build them or not.
They are now considered firearms in the new law, and therefore subject to registration requirements. Assuming you're into that kind of thing...
There is nothing I can see that says you can't build it. You aren't a dealer so no roster requirements, and I don't believe the CMR language about consumer safety applies to you either.
Buy all the frames you want now.
Oh and 80% needs to be serialized now, assuming you're into that kind of thing...




Please cite the specific language that leads you to speculate what you can and can't do with regards to restoring and compliance.

ETA:



Please cite the specific language in Mass Law that changed on 7/20/16.

How about going back and reading the hundreds of posts where I have detailed and defended my positions
In posted documents where I integrated the bills text into the then current law so the average Joe could easily read it - with comments on case law and review standards explaining my positions
In answering questions with links to citations and Supreme Court documents supporting my position
And in my posts where I use over a decades experience of reviewing this shit and then watching what actually happens after updating my future assumptions on ambiguities in the laws

But, just come in after the signature and ask me to explain all over again


Yeah, and people wonder why we have no effective grass roots organization in Mass.

I stated that was my assumption of how the state would attempt to cure the 7/20/16 and 8/1/24 discrepancy in the law.
I didn't say they had standing to do so or would ultimately win that argument.

But none of the future wins do a damn thing to help the poor bastards that fall afoul to state's ire in the present.

 

[AJK129]

There are no repercussions for Harris. She wants the same laws nationwide. That's why I said earlier that you can run, from Massachusetts, but you can’t hide.

If Harris is elected she will reform the Supreme Court by replacing conservative judges with extreme liberal judges and will push hard for a NATION WIDE AWB and the reconstituted Supreme Court will say it’s constitutional.

 

[JRLB]

Section 121C. (d):
"No person shall manufacture or assemble a privately made firearm that does not comply with all relevant state and federal safety regulations"

How do you interpret this? How can you PROVE you complied with all relevant state and federal safety regulations?

To be qualified as "safe" in Massachusetts, there are a host of tests a manufacturer of firearms has to comply with. Can you PROVE that the polymer 80 you assembled in your basement with components you purchased from a variety of sources passed all relevant state and federal safety regulations?

You don’t have to prove anything. They have to prove it doesn’t.

 

[Gasgunner]

From what I understand the legal technicalities of “lawfully posessed” translates to lawfully in existence prior to sept 13 of 1994. Not exclusively lawfully posessed in state. Simply in the U.S. It’s one of the reasons a pre 94 colt lower is irrefutably a lawfully posessed pre ban… the reason being, colt ONLY manufactured and sold their rifles as complete builds. A pre ban build of an olympic arms or SGW lower receiver, in lets say 2018, may have a harder time to prove was lawfully posessed before the federal AWB (which is essentially what M.G.L. had codified because as far as I know they also sold lowers.) but is also of no necessity for the gun owner. It would be on the state to prove it was not. This is a feat of impossibility for the courts though, as some of the databases based on serial numbers are no longer in existence.

Any receiver made before the ‘94 cut off is a preban. When it may or may not have been assembled into a complete rifle is irrelevant. As someone said earlier, that has always been the bedrock of possessing a preban. If the receiver was produced prior to the ‘94 cut off, it was legally possessed by any owner after that date. The production date of the receiver determines how the rest of the rifle can be legally configured.

 

[drgrant]

Why would they hold off when they can just pile on more charges and browbeat you into a plea deal?

The thing that's worth remembering though.... is that this law effectively changes nothing in that regard, it's not like mass was lacking on a list of bogus gun laws for them to pick from.

 

[Gasgunner]

Section 121C. (d):
"No person shall manufacture or assemble a privately made firearm that does not comply with all relevant state and federal safety regulations"

How do you interpret this? How can you PROVE you complied with all relevant state and federal safety regulations?

To be qualified as "safe" in Massachusetts, there are a host of tests a manufacturer of firearms has to comply with. Can you PROVE that the polymer 80 you assembled in your basement with components you purchased from a variety of sources passed all relevant state and federal safety regulations?

How would I interpret this? If I am building a handgun that uses components from roster approved models, I have sufficiently met that burden. If a manufacturer wants to sell a semi auto version of a firearm that only exists as an auto, they need to submit the modified version to the ATF for approval. If I want to build that same semi auto variant, I can just copy the modifications that have ATF approval. I don’t need to send my copy to the ATF. However, even as a home builder, If I design a semi auto that has no prior approval, I would need the ATF to sign off on it. Even though I’m not an 07 and have no intention of manufacturing for sale.

 

[alan226]

Yeah, but at that point, might as well call their bluff.

In the words of Janis Joplin : Freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose

 

[Darksideblues42]

Yes, you can PROVE it, because the relevant state and federal safety regulations for a private citizen, not engaged in commerce, are precisely zero.

In this case you can prove a negative. You hold up Federal Law, you hold up MGL, and you note the absence of any regulations pertaining to a private citizen regarding safety.

Just because MANUFACTURERS have relevant regulations, does not suddenly redefine manufacturer as any private citizen assembling a privately made firearm. Nor does H4885 rewrite the existing regulations.

Literally unfathomable that you think "all relevant" suddenly confers additional relevance to existing laws.

It is fathomable.


The law as signed says that to assemble or manufacture a private firearm, you need to comply with all safety regulations. When you put a firearm together, are you assembling it? Do you have test results that prove the parts you assembled are safe under MGL?

This is very much a thing we need to be concerned with.

 

[Individualist]

Let’s face it a MA AWB or even a national one isn’t going to cause a civil war. It didn’t in ‘94 and won’t now. People are comfortable and have too much to lose.

IF there is wide-spread confiscation and incarceration as in Nazi Germany then certain geographies may stand their ground and start something. But even small, isolated militias will be no match for the Feds with US military backing. It would have to be wide-spread on both sides and the chances of that happening are about nill.

Tactical individual and small scale taking that is spread out won’t cause an uprising, and that is what the Dems will do.

 

[Picton]

But even small, isolated militias will be no match for the Feds with US military backing.

The Vietcong and the Taliban have entered the chat.

Tactical individual and small scale taking that is spread out won’t cause an uprising, and that is what the Dems will do.

This I agree with.

 

[PappyM3]

It is fathomable.


The law as signed says that to assemble or manufacture a private firearm, you need to comply with all safety regulations. When you put a firearm together, are you assembling it? Do you have test results that prove the parts you assembled are safe under MGL?

This is very much a thing we need to be concerned with.

What are the safety requirements to manufacture a firearm in MA?

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/massachusetts-firearms-statutes-and-codes/download

 

[not new guy]

We are trying to make sense of the irrational and contradictory. It’s human nature to seek a finite answer to a complex question. It’s a feat of impossibility that gets even more convoluted with the additional element of an individuals interpretation, which is a complete intangible.

It’s also human nature to try to avoid jail.

 

[drgrant]

It is fathomable.


The law as signed says that to assemble or manufacture a private firearm, you need to comply with all safety regulations. When you put a firearm together, are you assembling it? Do you have test results that prove the parts you assembled are safe under MGL?

This is very much a thing we need to be concerned with.

I don't think his assertion is correct, regardless, WGAF? Anyone building 80s has already been riding dirty. You live in Massachusetts. The plane has crashed into the mountain. I dunno how much more "concerned" you could be...

Being a gun owner in mass:

 

[EJFudd]

Let’s face it a MA AWB or even a national one isn’t going to cause a civil war. It didn’t in ‘94 and won’t now. People are comfortable and have too much to lose.

IF there is wide-spread confiscation and incarceration as in Nazi Germany then certain geographies may stand their ground and start something. But even small, isolated militias will be no match for the Feds with US military backing. It would have to be wide-spread on both sides and the chances of that happening are about nill.

Tactical individual and small scale taking that is spread out won’t cause an uprising, and that is what the Dems will do.

So depressing. This is why the left keeps getting away with taking away our rights. They know they will always get away with it one way or another.

 

[MAJoe]

Section 121C. (d):
"No person shall manufacture or assemble a privately made firearm that does not comply with all relevant state and federal safety regulations"

How do you interpret this? How can you PROVE you complied with all relevant state and federal safety regulations?

To be qualified as "safe" in Massachusetts, there are a host of tests a manufacturer of firearms has to comply with. Can you PROVE that the polymer 80 you assembled in your basement with components you purchased from a variety of sources passed all relevant state and federal safety regulations?

What’s the penalty for unknowingly not meeting the state requirements?

 

[Foudre]

Part of the reason the west is falling is because many people have already been made into docile, dependent sheep. This was done through a few generations. Massachusetts is especially bad. Most people here are pathetic, they want to be slaves. I for one, do not wish for America to become another Germany or United Kingdom where small, harmless acts could become criminal offenses.