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

[Coda]

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


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?

FWIW, nobody has done a better job of analyzing and breaking this crap down than you have.

It amazes me that anybody can find any fault in what you have presented to us. Not looking to white knight anybody here, just stating facts as I see them.

 

[42!]

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.



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.

You're confusing building (manufacturing) with assembling. If you buy a bunch of parts and put them together, you are assembling, you are not manufacturing. Pre this monstrosity, a gun didn't exist until it could be fired. So you were taking a bunch of non-gun parts and building a gun. Now you are taking a gun (finished or even 80% lower) and adding other parts. The gun already existed, you didn't build it. So when you bought that lower it either had to be pre 8/1 and now registered. Or it has to be on the roster.

The only reason a manufacturer would submit their AR rifle or lower (finished or unfinished) to be placed on the roster, would be so they can sell in MA, and there would be a model number associated with it. The roster allows the MODEL listed, not the type, not a similar one, the specific model listed. If another manufacturer of ARs wanted to sell in MA, they too would have to submit for roster approval.

I'll point out that this is the same copy/duplicate argument that is made for ASW, that a different model is not an AR-15 because that is a specific model made by Colt. You can't have it both ways, you can't argue similar is included in one case but not in the other... unless that is specifically in the law.

And stop bringing up the ATF what they allow does not have relevance to state law unless the federal law, not an agency rule, specifically preempts state law.

As for you MG kit to semi example. The kit won't come with a receiver. If you want to buy a receiver (finished or unfinished), it will already be a "gun" in MA so it's either already here and registered, or it's on the roster. Which is unlikely. If you do truly manufacture it, make it from raw stock, then yes this brings up the issue of the home manufacturer complying with the roster. I guess you'd have to make several and send them to a lab for testing at your expense and hope they get approved. In other words, they are intentionally killing home manufacture because there is no practical way to comply.

All this does highlight the issue of what is an unfinished receiver? Under the ATF it's 80%, BUT under MA law it doesn't say. It wasn't an issue before because a receiver wasn't a gun at all under MA law, now it is, and they group finished and unfinished together. So what is unfinished under MA law? You can argue that it's 80% because the ATF says so, but there is no such determination under MA law and no requirement for MA to accept what the ATF says. This will end up in court, and it will be expensive for whoever ends up fighting it.

 

[inkdesigner]

Yes, they will, and I hope they laugh quickly. The sooner they do is the sooner that it can be appealed to SCOTUS.

Given the fact that not a single case SCOTUS GVR'd when they decided Bruen has made it back to SCOTUS or been finalized in any of the other Circuits leads me to believe that the 1st, like the rest, will drag their feet in the hopes there is a massive change in the makeup of the current SCOTUS

 

[Gasgunner]

You're confusing building (manufacturing) with assembling. If you buy a bunch of parts and put them together, you are assembling, you are not manufacturing. Pre this monstrosity, a gun didn't exist until it could be fired. So you were taking a bunch of non-gun parts and building a gun. Now you are taking a gun (finished or even 80% lower) and adding other parts. The gun already existed, you didn't build it. So when you bought that lower it either had to be pre 8/1 and now registered. Or it has to be on the roster.

The only reason a manufacturer would submit their AR rifle or lower (finished or unfinished) to be placed on the roster, would be so they can sell in MA, and there would be a model number associated with it. The roster allows the MODEL listed, not the type, not a similar one, the specific model listed. If another manufacturer of ARs wanted to sell in MA, they too would have to submit for roster approval.

I'll point out that this is the same copy/duplicate argument that is made for ASW, that a different model is not an AR-15 because that is a specific model made by Colt. You can't have it both ways, you can't argue similar is included in one case but not in the other... unless that is specifically in the law.

And stop bringing up the ATF what they allow does not have relevance to state law unless the federal law, not an agency rule, specifically preempts state law.

As for you MG kit to semi example. The kit won't come with a receiver. If you want to buy a receiver (finished or unfinished), it will already be a "gun" in MA so it's either already here and registered, or it's on the roster. Which is unlikely. If you do truly manufacture it, make it from raw stock, then yes this brings up the issue of the home manufacturer complying with the roster. I guess you'd have to make several and send them to a lab for testing at your expense and hope they get approved. In other words, they are intentionally killing home manufacture because there is no practical way to comply.

All this does highlight the issue of what is an unfinished receiver? Under the ATF it's 80%, BUT under MA law it doesn't say. It wasn't an issue before because a receiver wasn't a gun at all under MA law, now it is, and they group finished and unfinished together. So what is unfinished under MA law? You can argue that it's 80% because the ATF says so, but there is no such determination under MA law and no requirement for MA to accept what the ATF says. This will end up in court, and it will be expensive for whoever ends up fighting it.

Let’s back up and use a specific example. Because you are spinning in all kinds of directions that I wasn’t even talking about. I can still MANUFACTURE, not assemble, a P320 FCU which is a roster firearm. I need to request a serial number from the state and need to engrave my newly manufactured FCU. Once assembled and functioning, I need to submit an EFA=10. I have just built an exact copy of a roster approved firearm. SIG does not send every single gun for EOPS testing, and it is highly unlikely I’d need to send my copy either.

Maybe you’re right, this is their attempt at stopping home building. But the OP of the question asked for opinion. I never hinted that this was anything but.

 

[mothybee]

The Vietcong and the Taliban have entered the chat.



This I agree with.

Ya, but no rules of engagement with MAGA.

 

[Picton]

Ya, but no rules of engagement with MAGA.

Yeah... if you talk to people who were there, there weren't very many rules of engagement with those other guys, either.

 

[Spartan65]

Ya, but no rules of engagement with MAGA.

lol

Okay bud.

 

[Bmcl322]

View: https://youtu.be/usTt5bz_LhY?si=UmvwHsfB_amFtjEQ

At 25 seconds, "They're a bunch of Oath Breaking Soulless Creatures."

Perfect! Yes. Yes, they are.

 

[42!]

Let’s back up and use a specific example. Because you are spinning in all kinds of directions that I wasn’t even talking about. I can still MANUFACTURE, not assemble, a P320 FCU which is a roster firearm. I need to request a serial number from the state and need to engrave my newly manufactured FCU. Once assembled and functioning, I need to submit an EFA=10. I have just built an exact copy of a roster approved firearm. SIG does not send every single gun for EOPS testing, and it is highly unlikely I’d need to send my copy either.

Maybe you’re right, this is their attempt at stopping home building. But the OP of the question asked for opinion. I never hinted that this was anything but.

So what part are you manufacturing?

On the 320, the FCU is the gun under the Fed, it will now be a gun under MA law. It will already have a serial number. So this was and is "the gun", so assembling not manufacturing.
Up until the new law, the FCU didn't need to be on the roster because under MA law it was NOT a gun.

What's on roster has always been a little vague, Some FFLs do go with the type interpretation that makes all 1911s on roster because many are. Others look at the list, which specifies model numbers, and if the model number you want isn't there, then it's not on the roster. The latter seems to be the states interpretation but I don't know if it's been tested in court.

So, if in Sig's model number system, the P320 model is P320-<option package>, that is the model number is "P320-" and that is how it would be provided to MA. This gets around the model number issue and would include any variations. Some manufacturers do this, I didn't check Sig, others submit the actual SKU which is distinct for every variation, leaving lots of guns off roster.
For comparison, S&W likes to use the full names, so the M&P 2.0 LE SKU: 13943 is probably never getting on to the MA roster, but the M&P 2.0 Full Size SKU: 14147 probably is or will be.

Understand one thing, anything you build is not a Sig P320 FCU. That is a patented and Sig manufactured item. You are not Sig so it can never be a Sig P320 FCU. The roster lists manufacturer, the Sig P320 may be on it, but there is no Gasgunner P320 on the roster.

Link to roster, you need to match the Mfg and Model, and cal, to be on roster. https://www.mass.gov/doc/approved-firearms-roster-june-2024/download

 

[Gasgunner]

So what part are you manufacturing?

On the 320, the FCU is the gun under the Fed, it will now be a gun under MA law. It will already have a serial number. So this was and is "the gun", so assembling not manufacturing.
Up until the new law, the FCU didn't need to be on the roster because under MA law it was NOT a gun.

What's on roster has always been a little vague, Some FFLs do go with the type interpretation that makes all 1911s on roster because many are. Others look at the list, which specifies model numbers, and if the model number you want isn't there, then it's not on the roster. The latter seems to be the states interpretation but I don't know if it's been tested in court.

So, if in Sig's model number system, the P320 model is P320-<option package>, that is the model number is "P320-" and that is how it would be provided to MA. This gets around the model number issue and would include any variations. Some manufacturers do this, I didn't check Sig, others submit the actual SKU which is distinct for every variation, leaving lots of guns off roster.
For comparison, S&W likes to use the full names, so the M&P 2.0 LE SKU: 13943 is probably never getting on to the MA roster, but the M&P 2.0 Full Size SKU: 14147 probably is or will be.

Understand one thing, anything you build is not a Sig P320 FCU. That is a patented and Sig manufactured item. You are not Sig so it can never be a Sig P320 FCU. The roster lists manufacturer, the Sig P320 may be on it, but there is no Gasgunner P320 on the roster.

Link to roster, you need to match the Mfg and Model, and cal, to be on roster. https://www.mass.gov/doc/approved-firearms-roster-june-2024/download

Do you actually read before you reply? How much clearer to I need to type “manufacture, not assemble, a P320 FCU” Yes, fabricate an FCU out of metal. And the FCU is the serialized frame of a P320. So yes, the FCU is on the roster. And there will never be a Gasgunner P320 because I am not a FFL07. That’s why home building doesn’t carry the same requirements as an 07 manufacturer.

Like I said, maybe you’re right and this kills home building. But I’m not sure why you keep commenting when its obvious you don’t understand how home building previously worked.

 

[JRLB]

So what part are you manufacturing?

On the 320, the FCU is the gun under the Fed, it will now be a gun under MA law. It will already have a serial number. So this was and is "the gun", so assembling not manufacturing.
Up until the new law, the FCU didn't need to be on the roster because under MA law it was NOT a gun.

What's on roster has always been a little vague, Some FFLs do go with the type interpretation that makes all 1911s on roster because many are. Others look at the list, which specifies model numbers, and if the model number you want isn't there, then it's not on the roster. The latter seems to be the states interpretation but I don't know if it's been tested in court.

So, if in Sig's model number system, the P320 model is P320-<option package>, that is the model number is "P320-" and that is how it would be provided to MA. This gets around the model number issue and would include any variations. Some manufacturers do this, I didn't check Sig, others submit the actual SKU which is distinct for every variation, leaving lots of guns off roster.
For comparison, S&W likes to use the full names, so the M&P 2.0 LE SKU: 13943 is probably never getting on to the MA roster, but the M&P 2.0 Full Size SKU: 14147 probably is or will be.

Understand one thing, anything you build is not a Sig P320 FCU. That is a patented and Sig manufactured item. You are not Sig so it can never be a Sig P320 FCU. The roster lists manufacturer, the Sig P320 may be on it, but there is no Gasgunner P320 on the roster.

Link to roster, you need to match the Mfg and Model, and cal, to be on roster. https://www.mass.gov/doc/approved-firearms-roster-june-2024/download

There are a lot of us out there that actually make the parts, not just buy and assemble. Hop on over to the weaponsguild and you will see for yourself.

 

[42!]

Do you actually read before you reply? How much clearer to I need to type “manufacture, not assemble, a P320 FCU” Yes, fabricate an FCU out of metal. And the FCU is the serialized frame of a P320. So yes, the FCU is on the roster. And there will never be a Gasgunner P320 because I am not a FFL07. That’s why home building doesn’t carry the same requirements as an 07 manufacturer.

Like I said, maybe you’re right and this kills home building. But I’m not sure why you keep commenting when its obvious you don’t understand how home building previously worked.

Well I'll appologize. You have to admit, someone actually building an FCU from scratch is a rare thing, you've got skills.

But you should look at the roster, because the FCU is NOT on it. At least not yet. And why would it be, up until now it was not a gun. Will it be? Sig has little motivation to pay for testing and submit just the FCU, the number of FCUs outside of complete guns they would sell in MA is going to be very little.

And even if they did put the Sig P320 FCU on the roster, that does not make a Gasgunner P320 FCU an on roster gun unless you submit samples for testing and pay for it. A Tauris copy of a Chief's Special is not a S&W Chief's Special.

 

[42!]

There are a lot of us out there that actually make the parts, not just buy and assemble. Hop on over to the weaponsguild and you will see for yourself.

I'll do that.

This has gotten my interest. The distinction between building and assembling has always been key to me. I've assembled ARs, and done some polishing, but I haven't yet built a gun.

 

[Gasgunner]

Well I'll appologize. You have to admit, someone actually building an FCU from scratch is a rare thing, you've got skills.

But you should look at the roster, because the FCU is NOT on it. At least not yet. And why would it be, up until now it was not a gun. Will it be? Sig has little motivation to pay for testing and submit just the FCU, the number of FCUs outside of complete guns they would sell in MA is going to be very little.

And even if they did put the Sig P320 FCU on the roster, that does not make a Gasgunner P320 FCU an on roster gun unless you submit samples for testing and pay for it. A Tauris copy of a Chief's Special is not a S&W Chief's Special.

Sorry, Your reading comprehension is terrible. The P320 FCU is the serialized frame of the the firearm. The FCU IS THE FIREARM. So the P320 on the roster isn’t the grip frame, it isn’t the slide, it’s the FCU.

Tons of people scratch build FCUs. SIG sells tons of complete, serialized FCUs. It’s fine that you’re not versed in the details of the P320, but you’re crafting arguments about a platform that you have zero knowledge of.

 

[PappyM3]

Sorry, Your reading comprehension is terrible. The P320 FCU is the serialized frame of the the firearm. The FCU IS THE FIREARM. So the P320 on the roster isn’t the grip frame, it isn’t the slide, it’s the FCU.

Tons of people scratch build FCUs. SIG sells tons of complete, serialized FCUs. It’s fine that you’re not versed in the details of the P320, but you’re crafting arguments about a platform that you have zero knowledge of.

There are 11 P320s on the rosters (normal and target). But they are all legitimate complete pistols. No, the FCU by itself is not on the rosters.

Sig sells the FCU in MA off-roster because it’s not actually a firearm in MA’s eyes. It’s essentially been a frame transfer this whole time. We’ll see how/if Sig is able to get just the FCU on the roster once this bill goes into effect. I doubt they’ll be able to.

 

[Waher]

Actually the more I think about it, the common carrier requirements run afoul of the commerce clause by interfering in interstate commerce. Any shipments traveling through MA to other states or ports could be affected. If this lead to an immediate injunction against the entire law resulting in MA going completely Constitutional for an indefinite period of time, I’m going to laugh so hard at the irony of f***ery f***ing back.

 

[Gasgunner]

There are 11 P320s on the rosters (normal and target). But they are all legitimate complete pistols. No, the FCU by itself is not on the rosters.

Sig sells the FCU in MA off-roster because it’s not actually a firearm in MA’s eyes. It’s essentially been a frame transfer this whole time. We’ll see how/if Sig is able to get just the FCU on the roster once this bill goes into effect. I doubt they’ll be able to.

You’re correct, but the point I was trying to get across, is fabricating an FCU is building the firearm. He didn’t believe I could fabricate an FCU. He didn’t think anyone would be interested in buying just the FCU. I didn’t think me, milling a 1911 frame would be more believable to him.

 

[42!]

Sorry, Your reading comprehension is terrible. The P320 FCU is the serialized frame of the the firearm. The FCU IS THE FIREARM. So the P320 on the roster isn’t the grip frame, it isn’t the slide, it’s the FCU.

Tons of people scratch build FCUs. SIG sells tons of complete, serialized FCUs. It’s fine that you’re not versed in the details of the P320, but you’re crafting arguments about a platform that you have zero knowledge of.

Well I can read the dam roster, link provided. Go ahead and show me where the Sig p320 FCU is listed. Or admit you're full of shit.
Here I'll do the work for you since you're obviously not capable, none of these are just the FCU. And this is obvious since the FCU wasn't a gun, and still isn't, so why would it be on the roster?
Sig Sauer P320 PN 320C-40-BSS-MS-MA
Sig Sauer P320C PN 320C-45-BSS-MS-MA
Sig Sauer P320 PN 320C-357-BSS-MS-MA
Sig Sauer 320CA-9-M18-MS-10
Sig Sauer 320F-9-M17-MS-MA
Sig Sauer P320 PN 320C-9-BSS-MS-MA (Chamber witnesshole is milled out in a circle shape) 9mm
Sig Sauer P320 PN 320C-9-BSS-MS-MA (Chamber witnesshole is milled out in a square shape)

I don't see an FCU there, do you? These all have specific cals, the FCU doesn't. These all are guns under current MA law, the FCU isn't. Admit it, you are wrong, the FCU isn't on the roster.

And you seem to have dropped the point that no FCU manufactured by you or any home builder is ever going to be on the roster, unless you pay for the testing and pass it, after submitting multiple samples that you will never get back. Or are you really going to build 5 or more to give to the state and to have them tested (last I heard this was $15K-20K thing, but that was a long time ago).

 

[Yummy_SPAM]

Actually the more I think about it, the common carrier requirements run afoul of the commerce clause by interfering in interstate commerce. Any shipments traveling through MA to other states or ports could be affected. If this lead to an immediate injunction against the entire law resulting in MA going completely Constitutional for an indefinite period of time, I’m going to laugh so hard at the irony of f***ery f***ing back.

I feel like this argument came up a lot while the original bill came out and I haven't heard it much since then. I'm not sure why this specific argument hasn't come up much lately.

 

[Waher]

Well these requirements will also affect federal procurement shipments and USPS. I can see the Feds getting very angry and litigious against the Commonwealth even with a friendly DoJ because it’s their ox getting gored and not just the icky deplorables.

 

[42!]

You’re correct, but the point I was trying to get across, is fabricating an FCU is building the firearm. He didn’t believe I could fabricate an FCU. He didn’t think anyone would be interested in buying just the FCU. I didn’t think me, milling a 1911 frame would be more believable to him.

Well try reading, I apologized for my assumption, and despite what you may think, the number of people building from scratch and not 80% is going to be a tiny percentage of gun owners, same goes for milling a 1911 from scratch. As I said, this takes skill. Most that "build" start with 80%, many the say they build really mean assemble.

 

[Jenska22]

Actually the more I think about it, the common carrier requirements run afoul of the commerce clause by interfering in interstate commerce. Any shipments traveling through MA to other states or ports could be affected. If this lead to an immediate injunction against the entire law resulting in MA going completely Constitutional for an indefinite period of time, I’m going to laugh so hard at the irony of f***ery f***ing back.

Especially this. Its kinda hard to get to Maine and NH without going through Massachusetts (yeah via NY and VT but that way sux. The roads are NS not EW, (the reason there were so many NE rail lines in days of old) and no one's gonna fly them in. I brought this up with our 'representatives' when the first bill was drafted, but no one cared. Probably they WILL.

 

[Gasgunner]

Well I can read the dam roster, link provided. Go ahead and show me where the Sig p320 FCU is listed. Or admit you're full of shit.
Here I'll do the work for you since you're obviously not capable, none of these are just the FCU. And this is obvious since the FCU wasn't a gun, and still isn't, so why would it be on the roster?
Sig Sauer P320 PN 320C-40-BSS-MS-MA
Sig Sauer P320C PN 320C-45-BSS-MS-MA
Sig Sauer P320 PN 320C-357-BSS-MS-MA
Sig Sauer 320CA-9-M18-MS-10
Sig Sauer 320F-9-M17-MS-MA
Sig Sauer P320 PN 320C-9-BSS-MS-MA (Chamber witnesshole is milled out in a circle shape) 9mm
Sig Sauer P320 PN 320C-9-BSS-MS-MA (Chamber witnesshole is milled out in a square shape)

I don't see an FCU there, do you? These all have specific cals, the FCU doesn't. These all are guns under current MA law, the FCU isn't. Admit it, you are wrong, the FCU isn't on the roster.

And you seem to have dropped the point that no FCU manufactured by you or any home builder is ever going to be on the roster, unless you pay for the testing and pass it, after submitting multiple samples that you will never get back. Or are you really going to build 5 or more to give to the state and to have them tested (last I heard this was $15K-20K thing, but that was a long time ago).

I’ll say it again, you very well could be right. But my opinion would be that if you can’t build clones and copies of ASW’s then building clones or copies of roster approved firearms will be allowed. The only reason my homebuilt firearm would need to be on the roster is if i was trying to make them to sell. Which I cant do without a FFL07.

 

[Lokdog]

Actually the more I think about it, the common carrier requirements run afoul of the commerce clause by interfering in interstate commerce. Any shipments traveling through MA to other states or ports could be affected. If this lead to an immediate injunction against the entire law resulting in MA going completely Constitutional for an indefinite period of time, I’m going to laugh so hard at the irony of f***ery f***ing back.

This is a good point. I know apparently Mass somehow now allows unlicensed non residents to carry firearms in vehicles as long as they are not stopping but how does that translate to UPS or FedEx transporting firearms from say Maine to Connecticut?

 

[42!]

I’ll say it again, you very well could be right. But my opinion would be that if you can’t build clones and copies of ASW’s then building clones or copies of roster approved firearms will be allowed. The only reason my homebuilt firearm would need to be on the roster is if i was trying to make them to sell. Which I cant do without a FFL07.

That's never the way the roster worked. It was a roster of safety tested firearms, hence approving specific guns, and requiring samples and testing. It has never allowed "clones" and why would a safety roster allow untested firearms just because they look like or have a similar function? The testing tries to reveal manufacturing, design, and material safety issues. No one is going to say a clone automatically means all these things are equal.

And you can sell a home made firearm, or at least you could. You just can't manufacture it for sale. You would have to have change you mind about owning it at some point. People who get jammed up for this sell a bunch of them, showing intent to sell.

The issue with home built now is that they require that they be registered, before they didn't. And you can only register guns on the roster. That's the catch, you would have to register the home built gun. They are not banning home manufacture, you certainly can do it. And you certainly can get them on the registry if you want to. It's just that the process and expence to do so will keep people from doing it, affectively banning it without actually banning it.

 

[Picton]

This is a good point. I know apparently Mass somehow now allows unlicensed non residents to carry firearms in vehicles as long as they are not stopping but how does that translate to UPS or FedEx transporting firearms from say Maine to Connecticut?

I'll bet they can drive straight through.

That's why I don't think the Interstate Commerce thing will matter much, as far as injunctions or lawsuits. I think the carriers will just take the path of least resistance, announce they'll stop deliveries to MA addresses, and then just motor straight on through to northern New England.

 

[Waher]

I know apparently Mass somehow now allows unlicensed non residents to carry firearms in vehicles as long as they are not stopping

This is Federal Law under the FOPA Safe Passage provision that MA was blatantly ignoring.

 

[Waher]

I'll bet they can drive straight through.

That's why I don't think the Interstate Commerce thing will matter much, as far as injunctions or lawsuits. I think the carriers will just take the path of least resistance, announce they'll stop deliveries to MA addresses, and then just motor straight on through to northern New England.

The common carrier issue I’m talking about is the new requirement that all transported firearms be locked in secure containers.

Having to segregate cargo into locked containers adds significant expense and logistical hurdles unless the carriers group everything into special trucks or multimodal containers on a flat bed.

 

[Lokdog]

This is Federal Law under the FOPA Safe Passage provision that MA was blatantly ignoring.

No, Mass now allows an unlicensed non resident to carry their loaded firearm on their person now. FOPA protects people if they have their guns in a locked container and the ammo seperate

 

[Lokdog]

I'll bet they can drive straight through.

That's why I don't think the Interstate Commerce thing will matter much, as far as injunctions or lawsuits. I think the carriers will just take the path of least resistance, announce they'll stop deliveries to MA addresses, and then just motor straight on through to northern New England.

That's what I'm thinking too