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

[Yummy_SPAM]

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

I wonder, would the secure containers have prevented this? Doubtful, and the 6 day sentence certainly won't prevent actions like this either.

 

[Jenska22]

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

wtf - non-residents can carry ?? Transport yes, but carry?/ What are the guidelines for whats legal for them : Glock with 50 round mag??

 

[Lokdog]

wtf - non-residents can carry ?? Transport yes, but carry?/ What are the guidelines for whats legal for them : Glock with 50 round mag??

Apparently from what I'm hearing Mass is like RI now with regards to non residents, as long as you're in a vehicle traveling through Mass and not stopping, then you are free to keep your loaded firearm on your hip

 

[PappyM3]

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

No, the new law allows non-residents to actually carry on their person, in their car, as long as it doesn’t leave the car. If they have to leave the car, then it needs to be secured in accordance with section 131C.

FOPA doesn’t allow carrying on ones person like that.

 

[PappyM3]

…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.

Since when can you only register guns on the roster?

From my reading, the differences now are that you need to request a serial number and engrave it, and you can’t use a 3D printer.

Real stupid, but building your own still seems quite doable.

 

[Waher]

does this mean all the armored car 'guards' are limited to 10 round mags (they're not LEO) and must stay in the vehicle unless they have MA ltc's?

GOAL thinks campus police aren’t covered by the LE on duty exemptions even through they are sworn officers.

I imagine all security and law enforcement that isn’t explicitly exempted are all crippled with lo caps and no patrol rifles.

 

[42!]

Since when can you only register guns on the roster?

From my reading, the differences now are that you need to request a serial number and engrave it, and you can’t use a 3D printer.

Real stupid, but building your own still seems quite doable.

To be clear I meant, And you can only register guns that are on the roster.
But I may be wrong on that, I tried to go back and find it, but can't locate it, so maybe I was confused.

I desperately need a strikethrough copy of the law now combined with the changes, this mess is tough to keep track of.

 

[Yummy_SPAM]

Has anyone given it thought that the current efa10 process IS the registration process? And seeing how that exists we'll be expected to register what we have (even if you bought a rifle through a FFL and they recorded the transfer) by 8/1?

 

[JDL]

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.

OK as gun owners in the state we cannot start this suit ourselves, maybe the dealers can, however if the carries comply the money would be wasted... The suit would have to be filed by the carrier/trucking co. This may be a problem because a lawsuit may end up being much more expensive than ether putting locked containers in the trucks or just not bothering to travel through or deliver to Massachusetts. They have removable lockable cadges available that may not be too cost prohibitive. I have seen them on trucks for shipping auto parts. These lockable container may not be as big a deal or as costly as we may think for the carriers. They may already have what is needed, they are just not using them for guns right now. It may be an easy fix for them and I am sure much more cost effective then suing the State of Massachusetts. I also beleave the state has the right to regulate how something is shipped through its borders if it isn't currently addressed by the Feds. They are not stopping shipping to or through the state they are only regulating how it has to be shipped. I could be totally wrong about this I am not a leagle scholer. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this could step in and clarify. Anyway I don't think this part of the law will be our silver bullet and save us.

 

[Mark from ?]

No, the new law allows non-residents to actually carry on their person, in their car, as long as it doesn’t leave the car. If they have to leave the car, then it needs to be secured in accordance with section 131C.

FOPA doesn’t allow carrying on ones person like that.

Good to know I can carry there still.

 

[Mark from ?]

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.

If people dont think this shipping thing in this bill is the worst. They will once all shops have zero inventory and can recieve nothing in.

I have no idea if you can buy a long gun across state lines, with this bill. We all know you cant with a handgun so all handgun sales will stop
at some point.

 

[pastera]

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.


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.

Instead of asking me how I determined something how about debating assertion with your own interpretation supported with citations from the bill and case law.

I was very clear in my post that it is my OPINION that the state will likely try to treat post 7/20/16 copies and duplicates duplicates differently than other exempt firearms.
Why?
First,.the Supreme Court's own rules of interpretation state that all text in a law has meaning.
Second - the ASW sets apart pre 7/20 as a special class implying that post 7/20 is treated differently.
Third - the blanket 8/1 exemption would nullify the pre 7/20 language if, as per its plain reading, it is a blanket exemption.
The issue is that the Supreme Court's rules say all of the text must have meaning so how do you treat those arms that have blanket exemption in 8/1 exemption but still give meaning to the 7/20 exemption.
And since Loper kills Chevron deference along with Cargill telling us that interpretation of firearms law is to be of a technical nature.
So if one is to take a very technical view, the "copies and duplicates" were lawfully possessed in a compliant form. The 7/20 exemption states that C&D prior to that date cannot be an ASW - therefore can have any set of enumerated features.
But post 7/20 C&D has a different status - what is it?
Plain interpretation of 131m says it is that they are allowed but are still ASW (the definition holds but the ban on possession is exempted)

The different treat here is my speculation of how a court would interpret.
Pre 7/20 cannot be an ASW so is plainly lawful
Post is lawfully because of it being in a lawful configuration on 8/1 therefore in order to maintain its lawful status it cannot be modified into a different class of weapon.

 

[Picton]

Has anyone given it thought that the current efa10 process IS the registration process? And seeing how that exists we'll be expected to register what we have (even if you bought a rifle through a FFL and they recorded the transfer) by 8/1?

Yes. It's been brought up in this thread about twenty times.

Welcome to NES.

 

[Dr. Claw]

If people dont think this shipping thing in this bill is the worst. They will once all shops have zero inventory and can recieve nothing in.

I have no idea if you can buy a long gun across state lines, with this bill. We all know you cant with a handgun so all handgun sales will stop
at some point.

Someone actually asked this on a Reddit MAGuns post and the person who responded said that in their interpretation long guns could still be purchased out of state while the roster is updated, but not sure how that works if what you buy after 8/1 isn't added to the roster and if out of state sellers will still be willing to sell given we are in this period of disarray.

 

[John2006]

Looked at the handgun roster for the first time in years and lots of Glocks on there as we well know. With the roster being the end all be all, does this mean they will be legal for FFL’s to sell come 8/1 or are they still subject to the secret roster no one’s seen?

 

[headednorth]

Someone actually asked this on a Reddit MAGuns post and the person who responded said that in their interpretation long guns could still be purchased out of state while the roster is updated, but not sure how that works if what you buy after 8/1 isn't added to the roster and if out of state sellers will still be willing to sell given we are in this period of disarray.

How does this affect C&R sales?

 

[PappyM3]

Looked at the handgun roster for the first time in years and lots of Glocks on there as we well know. With the roster being the end all be all, does this mean they will be legal for FFL’s to sell come 8/1 or are they still subject to the secret roster no one’s seen?

Glocks have been on the approved firearm roster for a long time. But firearms still have to comply with the CMR. It’s not technically a secret roster, but there is no enumerated list of firearms that meet the requirements laid out in the CMR.

* Glocks meet the CMR requirements, but the state is adamant they don’t actually have a loaded chamber indicator. This is out of spite because Glock wouldn’t provide gun owner information to the state without a warrant or subpoena a long time ago.

 

[teej1074]

And since Loper kills Chevron deference along with Cargill telling us that interpretation of firearms law is to be of a technical nature.

Chevron was about deference in statutes administered by federal agencies.

 

[Atlantis]

Instead of asking me how I determined something how about debating assertion with your own interpretation supported with citations from the bill and case law.

I was very clear in my post that it is my OPINION that the state will likely try to treat post 7/20/16 copies and duplicates duplicates differently than other exempt firearms.
Why?
First,.the Supreme Court's own rules of interpretation state that all text in a law has meaning.
Second - the ASW sets apart pre 7/20 as a special class implying that post 7/20 is treated differently.
Third - the blanket 8/1 exemption would nullify the pre 7/20 language if, as per its plain reading, it is a blanket exemption.
The issue is that the Supreme Court's rules say all of the text must have meaning so how do you treat those arms that have blanket exemption in 8/1 exemption but still give meaning to the 7/20 exemption.
And since Loper kills Chevron deference along with Cargill telling us that interpretation of firearms law is to be of a technical nature.
So if one is to take a very technical view, the "copies and duplicates" were lawfully possessed in a compliant form. The 7/20 exemption states that C&D prior to that date cannot be an ASW - therefore can have any set of enumerated features.
But post 7/20 C&D has a different status - what is it?
Plain interpretation of 131m says it is that they are allowed but are still ASW (the definition holds but the ban on possession is exempted)

The different treat here is my speculation of how a court would interpret.
Pre 7/20 cannot be an ASW so is plainly lawful
Post is lawfully because of it being in a lawful configuration on 8/1 therefore in order to maintain its lawful status it cannot be modified into a different class of weapon.

I see a few problems here:


1) You say:
“The 7/20 exemption states that C&D prior to that date cannot be an ASW ”

A pre 7/20 cannot be a copy or duplicate. It can be an ASW. Let’s start with todays law. Can/could you build a “pre Healy” lower into a non complaint form, legally? No, The features test has always been in force, the 7/20 interpretation merely added and expanded to the copy’s and duplicates test.

In Section 16 (a) of H 4885 we have the new features test. A pre 7/20, previously MA compliant build, will now fail the features test of clause A. That makes it an ASW.

It would ALSO fail the copies and duplicates test in clause e, but the language in clause f exempts you from being a copy or duplicate if sold owned and registered.

That doesn’t exempt you from the features testing, it exempts you from failing clause e as a copy and duplicate. This is consistent with current law, as to my knowledge no one is asserting you can build a pre 7/20 lower into anything other than a MA compliant form (today, this will change after 8/1)

2) Precedent exists in the form of the 1994 AWB. There is no need to remain in the same configuration. This is the correct interpretation of how the law treats any ASW grandfathered by Section 71. Absent any language to support the contrary, we should expect pre 8/1 grandfathered ASW’s to be afforded the same status as pre 94 enjoys now. This is why I asked for specific language, because absent specific language, this is the correct interpretation.

Just because all text has meaning doesn’t mean the blanket clause can’t nullify the impact of Section 16(f). The impact is clearly articulating that a pre 7/20 can’t be a copy or duplicate. That’s meaning.

 

[Coyote33]

firearms still have to comply with the CMR

First thing that comes to mind is "Even after Chevron?".

Chevron was about deference in statutes administered by federal agencies.

Oh.

 

[ddeck]

How does this affect C&R sales?

My post from July 20 (I will add that we had a conversation about the M1 carbine specifically in this thread as well, where I learned that the feature test changed as well to no longer include the bayonet lug. (Thanks to @PappyM3 for pointing that out):

For C&R holders, it appears the language has been left intact.

It does say that the old section allowing this 131E has been removed in its entirety.

This language is:

A firearms collector, licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(b), may purchase a rifle, shotgun or firearm that was not previously owned or registered in the commonwealth from a dealer licensed under section 122 if that rifle, shotgun or firearm is a curio or relic as defined in 27 CFR 478.11.

This is replaced with Section 128A(f), which has the same language:

1141 (f) A bona fide collector of firearms may purchase a firearm that was not previously
1142 owned or registered in the commonwealth from a dealer licensed under section 122 if it is a curio
1143 or relic firearm as defined in section 121.

And "bona fide collector" is defined as : “Bona fide collector of firearms”, a licensed collector pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 923(b) (This section is the section specifically allowing the FFL 03).

Of course, who knows how this will all play out, I was just looking at this specific section since the GOAL summary did not specifically address this piece (I understand that time was short, just stating this).

 

[MaroonedinMA]

Someone actually asked this on a Reddit MAGuns post and the person who responded said that in their interpretation long guns could still be purchased out of state while the roster is updated, but not sure how that works if what you buy after 8/1 isn't added to the roster and if out of state sellers will still be willing to sell given we are in this period of disarray.

The roster applies to what can be sold by dealers in MA, not what can be owned which is a wholly separate equation with its own separate rules (AWB, etc).

 

[PappyM3]

Instead of asking me how I determined something how about debating assertion with your own interpretation supported with citations from the bill and case law.

I was very clear in my post that it is my OPINION that the state will likely try to treat post 7/20/16 copies and duplicates duplicates differently than other exempt firearms.
Why?
First,.the Supreme Court's own rules of interpretation state that all text in a law has meaning.
Second - the ASW sets apart pre 7/20 as a special class implying that post 7/20 is treated differently.
Third - the blanket 8/1 exemption would nullify the pre 7/20 language if, as per its plain reading, it is a blanket exemption.
The issue is that the Supreme Court's rules say all of the text must have meaning so how do you treat those arms that have blanket exemption in 8/1 exemption but still give meaning to the 7/20 exemption.
And since Loper kills Chevron deference along with Cargill telling us that interpretation of firearms law is to be of a technical nature.
So if one is to take a very technical view, the "copies and duplicates" were lawfully possessed in a compliant form. The 7/20 exemption states that C&D prior to that date cannot be an ASW - therefore can have any set of enumerated features.
But post 7/20 C&D has a different status - what is it?
Plain interpretation of 131m says it is that they are allowed but are still ASW (the definition holds but the ban on possession is exempted)

The different treat here is my speculation of how a court would interpret.
Pre 7/20 cannot be an ASW so is plainly lawful
Post is lawfully because of it being in a lawful configuration on 8/1 therefore in order to maintain its lawful status it cannot be modified into a different class of weapon.

Pretty sure the law defines everything as assault weapons, but grants exemption to the ban on possession, selling, and transferring if they were lawfully possessed on 8/1 by an LTC holder.

Every detacheable-mag semi-auto AR I know of fails the new features test. So they are all AWs, regardless of copy/duplicate interpretation.

I agree that they’re attempting to make 7/20 mean something, but I’m not sure they actually did. They didn’t outright say in the law that any C&Ds possessed post 7/20 were unlawfully possessed. Because they can’t retroactively make something illegal in the past.

So yes, the law is saying all ARs after 7/20 are now (or once the bill goes into effect in 90 days) considered copies and duplicates. But that doesn’t change their lawful possession on 8/1 using current law. Therefore the Section 131M (b) AW exemption applies to them the same as all the other ARs that are also now defined as assault weapons.

I don’t think the state cares if all text in the bill has meaning or not. They clearly don’t care too much about SCOTUS rulings.

 

[PappyM3]

…This is consistent with current law, as to my knowledge no one is asserting you can build a pre 7/20 lower into anything other than a MA compliant form.
…

I assert that once this law goes into effect, people can indeed configure any AR lawfully possessed on 8/1 into whatever configuration they want.

As long as it was in a compliant configuration on 8/1 to make it “lawfully possessed”.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

My post from July 20 (I will add that we had a conversation about the M1 carbine specifically in this thread as well, where I learned that the feature test changed as well to no longer include the bayonet lug. (Thanks to @PappyM3 for pointing that out):

For C&R holders, it appears the language has been left intact.

It does say that the old section allowing this 131E has been removed in its entirety.

This language is:

A firearms collector, licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(b), may purchase a rifle, shotgun or firearm that was not previously owned or registered in the commonwealth from a dealer licensed under section 122 if that rifle, shotgun or firearm is a curio or relic as defined in 27 CFR 478.11.

This is replaced with Section 128A(f), which has the same language:

1141 (f) A bona fide collector of firearms may purchase a firearm that was not previously
1142 owned or registered in the commonwealth from a dealer licensed under section 122 if it is a curio
1143 or relic firearm as defined in section 121.

And "bona fide collector" is defined as : “Bona fide collector of firearms”, a licensed collector pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 923(b) (This section is the section specifically allowing the FFL 03).

Of course, who knows how this will all play out, I was just looking at this specific section since the GOAL summary did not specifically address this piece (I understand that time was short, just stating this).

And this is the definition in 121:


The “qualities not ordinarily associated with firearms” seems awfully restrictive to me. Does that exclude “normal” firearms over 50 years old?

 

[ddeck]

And this is the definition in 121:
View attachment 902460

The “qualities not ordinarily associated with firearms” seems awfully restrictive to me. Does that exclude “normal” firearms over 50 years old?

It just borrows from the Federal law, so I expect no different interpretation (naive maybe but I doubt it).

This from ATF site on FFL 03: Curios & Relics | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives


A regulation implementing federal firearms laws, 27 CFR § 478.11, defines curio or relic (C&R) firearms as those which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons.

To be recognized as C&R items, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:

1. Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas of such firearms;
2. Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, state, or federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; and
3. Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event.

 

[Atlantis]

I assert that once this law goes into effect, people can indeed configure any AR lawfully possessed on 8/1 into whatever configuration they want.

As long as it was in a compliant configuration on 8/1 to make it “lawfully possessed”.

Completely agree, I intended that to mean “right now”, under current law.

Going forward, it’s fair game. Build it how you want.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

It just borrows from the Federal law, so I expect no different interpretation (naive maybe but I doubt it).

This from ATF site on FFL 03: Curios & Relics | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives


A regulation implementing federal firearms laws, 27 CFR § 478.11, defines curio or relic (C&R) firearms as those which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons.

To be recognized as C&R items, firearms must fall within one of the following categories:

1. Firearms which were manufactured at least 50 years prior to the current date, but not including replicas of such firearms;
2. Firearms which are certified by the curator of a municipal, state, or federal museum which exhibits firearms to be curios or relics of museum interest; and
3. Any other firearms which derive a substantial part of their monetary value from the fact that they are novel, rare, bizarre, or because of their association with some historical figure, period, or event.

Thanks.

I was looking at the definition through Assachusetts goggles.

 

[pastera]

Pretty sure the law defines everything as assault weapons, but grants exemption to the ban on possession, selling, and transferring if they were lawfully possessed on 8/1 by an LTC holder.

Every detacheable-mag semi-auto AR I know of fails the new features test. So they are all AWs, regardless of copy/duplicate interpretation.

To fail the features test they would need to include 2 or more features under the previous law so, aside from the C&D interpretation, it was possible to cure the assault weapon designation by only including a single feature, the handgrip (aside from a detachable magazine)
Now it's a single

I agree that they’re attempting to make 7/20 mean something, but I’m not sure they actually did. They didn’t outright say in the law that any C&Ds possessed post 7/20 were unlawfully possessed. Because they can’t retroactively make something illegal in the past.

So yes, the law is saying all ARs after 7/20 are now (or once the bill goes into effect in 90 days) considered copies and duplicates. But that doesn’t change their lawful possession on 8/1 using current law. Therefore the Section 131M (b) AW exemption applies to them the same as all the other ARs that are also now defined as assault weapons.

I don’t think the state cares if all text in the bill has meaning or not. They clearly don’t care too much about SCOTUS rulings.

I agree the legislature doesn't care - their part is done. They've secured their funding and support from the anti-2a groups and gotten kudos from their supporters.
The ones that do care are the Just-Us system that now has to deal with this.
And, unfortunately, we live under a justice system that despises guns and gun owners.
Since the Supreme Court dictates that all words of a law have meaning that opens up the room for the courts to find a place to punish people for paper infractions - and who better to punish than gun owners who as a whole are much more affluent a b d therefore able to feed the angry beast of our criminal justice system with the money it always desires.
Ever wonder why the rich escape jail? It's because they can offer the system what it really wants, money, to avoid the systems retribution.

 

[pastera]

Chevron was about deference in statutes administered by federal agencies.

Supremacy clause - while that particular question has not been directly addressed, there is nothing in the opinion that I have looked at(I did not study it at length) heat seems to treat states differently.