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.
Before I spend my time digging through your post history, you are asserting that if I do, I will find posts where you have cited SPECIFIC LANGAUGE in H4885 that supports the need to keep 7/20/16 grandfather'd ASW's in (pre 8/1) mass compliant form? Or more broadly, ANY language in H4885 that speaks to ASW feature tests of grandfathered ASW's post 8/1?
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.
Okay here's an analogy. There exist safety regulations that apply only to CDL holders. There exist safety regulations that apply only to Class D drivers licenses. If a new bill gets passed that says "Anyone who operates on Mass roads must abide by all relevant safety regulations" it doesn't suddenly redefine the regulations pertinent to a CDL holder to be applicable to a Class D drivers license. For the regulations that apply to manufacturers and dealers to suddenly to become relevant to private citizens, a new law would have to be passed defining there relevancy.
If the legislature included language in this bill, or in a new bill, that redefines 501 CMR 7.00 or 940 CMR 16.00 to be relevant to private parties... then you're on the money. But no such language is present. The relevancy today is the same as it will be 8/2/24. It is IRRELEVANT until otherwise redefined. The language in H4885 Section 121C. (d): simply restates the need to comply with relevant regulations.