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

[Atlantis]

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.

 

[42!]

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.

The ATF has nothing to do with this, it's state law. A manufacturer would have to submit a number of guns for testing to a state approved lab at their expense. Most manufacturers will not submit their models for inclusion on the MA roster simply because the cost isn't justified by the possible sales. Do you really expect the manufacturer to go through all this so others can copy their design.

And one issue with the current handgun registry that will likely continue is a specific model/manufacturer is "approved", not a type. So if Jim's Guns submits his model BFG-2024 and it gets approved. Then next year all he does is refine the manufacture and put better grips on it, but sells it as model BFG-2025. This is a new model so it has to be tested/approved. The way around this is more basic Models i.e. the BFG-2XXX, get that approved, and next year produce the gun as a model BFG-2XXX, "version" 2. Same SKU with an "option" code. It's a BS game but it's the way they "approve" different models.

 

[JFR2]

would assume John had a long mustache.

Great reference!!!

-JR

 

[JFR2]

So... the only legal way a citizen can exercise a constitutional right is "suspended indefinitely."

Yeah............ IANAL, but I think the legal term for that is "that's f***ed up."

Another part of this law ripe for an injuction! We've seen other states pull the training BS and get smacked... I think it was NY or NJ right after Bruen.

-JR

 

[pastera]

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?

How about you show me where you reviewed and dissected each iteration of the bill to try to inform people what was going on...
And no, you won't find a historical post speaking to that exact sections of 4885 since 4885 was just dropped.
Unlike your godlike powers of perception and intuition, it took several readings of the bill and some evolved thoughts to come up with a theory on how the state might treat the odd and confusing contradiction between sections.

But please - post your determination of how the two dates work together to create a cohesive law so that people here can understand what will happen to them in the coming months - and please cite relevant court decisions and documents supporting your claims.
Or not, because that would be too much effort

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.

Not sure what you were arguing here since I'm on my phone so looking back to research while writing a post is not easy
However, you assertion that there is no language to support rewriting of regulations to support section 121c is simply wrong
This is how you support with a cite

2436 (b) Not later than 6 months after the effective date of this act, the executive office of
2437 public safety and security, in consultation with the department of criminal justice information
2438 services, shall promulgate regulations required by section 121C of said chapter 140, as inserted
2439 by section 32.

Would you like to restate your assertion that the regulations are not to be updated?

 

[MGnoob]

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

Until you face that stood your ground, people don’t know what it’s like…. even your own lawyers are telling you you’re f***ed but if you’re already gonna serve multiple lifetimes as opposed to 100 lifetimes, you might as well roll the dice, especially if you were right.

But all you have to do is bend the knee get time served and be set free. It has nothing to do with Being right or wrong or legal or illegal.

Hell, if you lose, you could always take the easy way out after multiple appeals

 

[pastera]

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.

Just do what you want
You aren't selling it so there is no nexus with consumer safety - the state has no standing to regulate it.
Would they try to get you? Likely but they would also likely receive a Cataeno level smack for doing so

 

[Gasgunner]

The ATF has nothing to do with this, it's state law. A manufacturer would have to submit a number of guns for testing to a state approved lab at their expense. Most manufacturers will not submit their models for inclusion on the MA roster simply because the cost isn't justified by the possible sales. Do you really expect the manufacturer to go through all this so others can copy their design.

I wasn’t implying that the ATF had anything to do with this. I was using it as an example of the burden that a home builder needs to meet. A manufacturer cannot stop a home builder from copying a design, because the copy is not for sale.

And one issue with the current handgun registry that will likely continue is a specific model/manufacturer is "approved", not a type. So if Jim's Guns submits his model BFG-2024 and it gets approved. Then next year all he does is refine the manufacture and put better grips on it, but sells it as model BFG-2025. This is a new model so it has to be tested/approved. The way around this is more basic Models i.e. the BFG-2XXX, get that approved, and next year produce the gun as a model BFG-2XXX, "version" 2. Same SKU with an "option" code. It's a BS game but it's the way they "approve" different models.

The question I was answering asked how a home builder could meet EOPS/roster safety requirements. A home builder that is not FFL07, can not manufacture with the intent of selling. If a home builder is using components from any firearm on the EOPS roster, they should be free of any testing requirement.

The same as building a semi auto from a FA machine gun parts kit. A home builder is not required to submit their copy to the ATF as long as they’re copying a previously approved design.

 

[Atlantis]

How about you show me where you reviewed and dissected each iteration of the bill to try to inform people what was going on...
And no, you won't find a historical post speaking to that exact sections of 4885 since 4885 was just dropped.
Unlike your godlike powers of perception and intuition, it took several readings of the bill and some evolved thoughts to come up with a theory on how the state might treat the odd and confusing contradiction between sections.

But please - post your determination of how the two dates work together to create a cohesive law so that people here can understand what will happen to them in the coming months - and please cite relevant court decisions and documents supporting your claims.
Or not, because that would be too much effort

My goal here is not to get into a pissing match, but to be sure that we are not posting doom and gloom interpretations and creating a more chilling effect than the law itself already has.

I ask again, where in H4885 do you find any language that talks about what happens after 8/1 or distinguishes the level of protections afforded to something like a pre 94 versus a pre 7/20 versus a post 7/20?

My determination is pretty straightforward. The law says that anything failing the new ASW language, but which was lawfully possessed on 8/1, by a license holder or an FFL, is grandfathered. I disagree with the idea that post 7/20 rifles are unlawful, but I do understand why people may argue against that point.
What I do not see is anything that enumerates the need for any grandfathered ASW to remain in compliance with the feature tests from pre 8/1.

Therefore, I see nothing to support the notion that you can reconfigure a grandfathered ASW into being a non grandfathered ASW.

Not sure what you were arguing here since I'm on my phone so looking back to research while writing a post is not easy
However, you assertion that there is no language to support rewriting of regulations to support section 121c is simply wrong
This is how you support with a cite


Would you like to restate your assertion that the regulations are not to be updated?

I'm not too proud to admit my errors. The language I've used in the past few posts conveys a sense of permeance, specifically saying "unfathomable" was clearly wrong. This is indeed worrisome if they attempt to use this further restrict private party manufacture/assembly. That language has not yet been promulgated, so as I have asserted, until we see new and additional language, nothing specific changes on 8/1 with regards to manufacture and assembly. What I wrote stands true, nothing has yet changed with respect to what is relevant. However, I do now see @Darksideblues42 concern that there are likely to be forthcoming regulations, which may be problematic, or more likely WILL be problematic. I suppose I must concede that was has specifically changed is that private citizens are going to be subject to the new rules and regulations. But as of 8/2, applying the EXISTING rules and regulations to private citizens is a distinction without a difference.

 

[Gasgunner]

And one issue with the current handgun registry that will likely continue is a specific model/manufacturer is "approved", not a type. So if Jim's Guns submits his model BFG-2024 and it gets approved. Then next year all he does is refine the manufacture and put better grips on it, but sells it as model BFG-2025. This is a new model so it has to be tested/approved. The way around this is more basic Models i.e. the BFG-2XXX, get that approved, and next year produce the gun as a model BFG-2XXX, "version" 2. Same SKU with an "option" code. It's a BS game but it's the way they "approve" different models.

I think that roster “trend” was an oversight. If scrutinized, I don’t think they’ll allow it. For example, when the P320 was introduced, I wasn’t interested in purchasing the manual safety version. I figured the non- thumb safety version would never make it to the roster. However, since the roster didn’t differentiate models, MA dealers freely stocked the non safety version. Had the EOPS been paying attention, I think they would have required model specifics.

 

[Coyote33]

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.
...
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.

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

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.

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, ...

So, the question becomes, how do we change this? How do we band together to beat this tyranny? What would the patriots and minutemen do in this circumstance? Band together? Then they would not be doing "individual and small scale taking"? Taking them to court isn't working. Defying the orders from the "Redcoats"? Not sure how this works, but it is not working now.

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

Most likely the same as for "knowingly". Where are the penalties spelled out? Look there.

 

[Picton]

So, the question becomes, how do we change this? How do we band together to beat this tyranny? What would the patriots and minutemen do in this circumstance? Band together? Then they would not be doing "individual and small scale taking"? Taking them to court isn't working. Defying the orders from the "Redcoats"? Not sure how this works, but it is not working now.

A lot of us forget that what happened with the Minute Companies at Lexington and Concord was not sudden. It was the culmination of a decade of boycotts, riots, lobbying, non-importation, port closures, military occupation, employment discrimination, and other assorted tensions.

We've done none of that. The Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Safety had a level of organization and commitment that we're not even close to. These were outlaw organizations that men joined because they cared more about their liberty than their security.

They lived in an era with much less security, though, so they had less to lose. I don't think it's a good comparison. My answer is to put my faith in the courts; the legislature and the executive have let us down, but ultimately that's our fault. They're just doing what we've taught them to do. The courts, though, are supposed to be above all that.

So far that's worked. The drawback is the time it takes. We could shorten that, if enough of our fellow Ma**h***s agreed with us.

 

[PappyM3]

...
What I do not see is anything that enumerates the need for any grandfathered ASW to remain in compliance with the feature tests from pre 8/1.

Therefore, I see nothing to support the notion that you can't reconfigure a grandfathered ASW into being a non grandfathered ASW.
...

Agreed. I don't see anything that would suggest a need to keep a gun in its pre 8/1 configuration.

 

[JFR2]

This is a glimmer of hope for us...

"But, if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.
-Justice Thomas in his dissent in Harrel v. Raoul.

-JR

 

[PappyM3]

A lot of us forget that what happened with the Minute Companies at Lexington and Concord was not sudden. It was the culmination of a decade of boycotts, riots, lobbying, non-importation, port closures, military occupation, employment discrimination, and other assorted tensions.

We've done none of that. The Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Safety had a level of organization and commitment that we're not even close to. These were outlaw organizations that men joined because they cared more about their liberty than their security.

They lived in an era with much less security, though, so they had less to lose. I don't think it's a good comparison. My answer is to put my faith in the courts; the legislature and the executive have let us down, but ultimately that's our fault. They're just doing what we've taught them to do. The courts, though, are supposed to be above all that.

So far that's worked. The drawback is the time it takes. We could shorten that, if enough of our fellow Ma**h***s agreed with us.

Not just a decade of boycotts, riots, lobbying etc, but also generations of militias. Communities/towns had established militia with their rapid response sub-unit "minutemen" for approximately 100 years prior to the revolutionary war.

This is a glimmer of hope for us...

"But, if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, we can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.
-Justice Thomas in his descent in Harrel v. Raoul.

-JR

Yup, I'm optimistic that at least the AWB and magazine restriction parts of this bill will be shut down within the next couple of years.

 

[Uzi2]

A lot of us forget that what happened with the Minute Companies at Lexington and Concord was not sudden. It was the culmination of a decade of boycotts, riots, lobbying, non-importation, port closures, military occupation, employment discrimination, and other assorted tensions.

We've done none of that. The Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Safety had a level of organization and commitment that we're not even close to. These were outlaw organizations that men joined because they cared more about their liberty than their security.

They lived in an era with much less security, though, so they had less to lose. I don't think it's a good comparison. My answer is to put my faith in the courts; the legislature and the executive have let us down, but ultimately that's our fault. They're just doing what we've taught them to do. The courts, though, are supposed to be above all that.

So far that's worked. The drawback is the time it takes. We could shorten that, if enough of our fellow Ma**h***s agreed with us.

Society and the courts should severely punish those who are ambitious in the curtailing and diminishing of people's rights. Not just removing them from office, but imposing long, mandatory prison sentences on them for their abuses of the office they hold.

There is no acceptable reason in the world that an immediate remedy of something this egregious should take any length of time longer than it takes for a judge to read it. All the dog and pony show nonsense just adds insult to injury.

 

[Individualist]

No doubt the State is hoping most gun owners will not be aware of these coming changes and will unknowingly break them. That will allow the TPTB to start stripping the masses of their licenses, confiscating their guns to bonded rapehouses, and making them PP everywhere. The elite in this State hate you and have the power and funds (our taxes) to make life here a living hell if they chose to.

 

[Hardwired]

I feel the worst for people who paid big bucks for pre-94 rifles that weren’t in the state before 7/20. Under the new law they’re no different than someone with a brand new lower bought today.

How the hell is that? Pre-94-ban is pre-94, the gold standard. Actual “assault weapons” not post “copies, duplicates”.

If you bought one before 8/1 under previous/current law all good to go.

 

[EJFudd]

No doubt the State is hoping most gun owners will not be aware of these coming changes and will unknowingly break them.

On the contrary, I think the state is hoping for a fairly high degree of compliance knowing full well that there isn't much they can do if it turns out there is a low level of compliance.

 

[Coyote33]

determination of how the two dates work together

Why do they have 2 dates, anyhow? Couldn't they just come up with one new date or something? I guess creating confusion is part (or all/most) of their game.

 

[Picton]

On the contrary, I think the state is hoping for a fairly high degree of compliance knowing full well that there isn't much they can do if it turns out there is a low level of compliance.

I doubt it matters.

If they are faced with massive noncompliance, at least in registration, they'll just take the EFA-10, claim it's a "registration," and boom. They've got full compliance.

 

[PappyM3]

Why do they have 2 dates, anyhow? Couldn't they just come up with one new date or something? I guess creating confusion is part (or all/most) of their game.

They’re trying to validate Healey’s declaration, but realizing that there are a whole lot of other guns they’re banning that aren’t “copies or duplicates” of previously enumerated salty guns. And they can’t just backdate the grandfathering clause for everything back to 7/20 because it would be an illegal taking. Irrespective of 2A constitutionality.

 

[slugworth]

View: https://youtu.be/aERsP08iARY?si=NMpgWoJ5gWIx-AE2

 

[Drill Baby Drill]

George Washington: “" The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die. "

 

[Roadglide]

People are comfortable and have too much to lose.

Let’s talk on November 6. This one is going to be interesting

 

[Waher]

I'm thinking common carriers are no longer going to ship guns to and from MA because of the storage requirements. Effectively regardless of the other bullshit in the bill making it impossible to supply LE unless they have their own in house department FFL I don't think they'll be able receive anything.

I'm thinking Savage Arms, Kahr, and S&W are going to have a real problem distributing their products. WTF are they going to do now; hire their own transport to warehouses out of state to handle distribution? The common carrier issues are going to create a logistical impossibility.

 

[Hardwired]

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)

I’m not familiar with Loper, at least not by that name, what did it do and how does it help?

Maybe the legislature needs to pass some new unconstitutional garbage to “fix” Loper.

 

[nm1]

They’re trying to validate Healey’s declaration, but realizing that there are a whole lot of other guns they’re banning that aren’t “copies or duplicates” of previously enumerated salty guns. And they can’t just backdate the grandfathering clause for everything back to 7/20 because it would be an illegal taking. Irrespective of 2A constitutionality.

The 8/1 language was in the House/Day’s bill which was the out of state language boilerplate AWB rewrite with a complete new grandfather date, the Senate version was a tweak of the current MA language with no grandfathering and during the vote on the Senate language Creem added the 7/16 grandfather clause as homage to Healey, defeating Tarr’s 8/1 date for the Senate version. When the bills were reconciled/merged they kept both dates.
And so here we are….

 

[JDL]

I'm thinking common carriers are no longer going to ship guns to and from MA because of the storage requirements. Effectively regardless of the other bullshit in the bill making it impossible to supply LE unless they have their own in house department FFL I don't think they'll be able receive anything.

I'm thinking Savage Arms, Kahr, and S&W are going to have a real problem distributing their products. WTF are they going to do now; hire their own transport to warehouses out of state to handle distribution? The common carrier issues are going to create a logistical impossibility.

S&W will just move the revolver production from Springfield to Tenn. , and just stop selling new guns in Massachusetts. They really don't need the Massachusetts market to survive that is why they don't even bother to test all there modles to get on the roster and sell in Massachusetts. The state has already forces all other gun production out of Springfield it won't be that big a deal to move revolver out. The only things that would be left in Springfield will be the forges, heat treating and plating.
Savage could move production out of Massachusetts and just keep the offices here, and I think Kahr already has production out of state. I do not think any of these companies need the Massachusetts gun market to survive. Further more if Savage has to test there rifles and shotguns to get on the roster in order to sell in the Massachusetts market the cost reward benefits may end up being upside down for them and not worth it.

 

[O’Cuana4theRepublic]

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

Not sure..but it should be far less than what Gov H’s penalty should be for knowingly violating federal immigration law by aiding and abetting the current illegal migration invasion!