I just don't understand how you're making this leap. The state wants everyone to register all of their firearms and this law now closes any "loophole" as to how people can have a gun in MA without the state knowing about it. This clause in itself doesn't grant immunity to everything that's been registered before 8/1 just because it's in the existing transfer portal.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885
- Thread starter GOAL
- Start date
Also, the summary isn’t law. Even if this is what they meant, it doesn’t meant it’s what they wrote.
It's not law, but I would think a summary written by the law makers would provide some evidence in a case where one has to interpret the law for legal purposes. How can they argue that the existing transaction portal is not sufficient when they provide a clear and concise interpretation of said law?
What leap? Did you even read the summary?
A good question for one of the lawyers here.
Beretta92FS
NES Member
I think what you write above is correct.
A REALLY important point is that the new law doesn't take effect until 90 days after the governor sign its. So if Maura signs it today, it will take effect October 19.
This matter greatly, because up until the new law goes into effect, the current law is in effect. Both cannot be in effect at the same time.
And under the current law, it is legal to own post-2016 ARs, as long as they are mass-compliant, and likewise with stripped lowers. We know this because the ATF has been approving SBRs built on post-2016 lowers, and further the dealers selling the lowers have been inspected by ATF and the police multiple times.
So because the new law goes into effect after August 1st, then it would trigger the grandfathering in Section 131M (b) that says that anything owned on August 1st is legal. And because the new law is not in effect until much later than August 1st, the new law's language on post-2016 ARs/lowers cannot trigger what is legal on, or prior to, August 1st.
It seems clear to me that any ARs/lowers that are registered and owned by LTC holders on August 1st will be grandfathered. The only case this would not be true is if the new law takes effect prior to, or on, August 1st.
Are my 33 round Glock mags going up in value, or should I just put them in the karma section?
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
That is interesting. A couple years ago I got a list from the FRB of every gun they had listed for me, I went through the 6 pages and compared to my books and my copies of the FA10's and found at least 8 or 9 that I have a signed FA10 for but they don't exist in the database, they were both handfilled out FA10's as well as a printout from a computer FA10 (not the EFA10) that the dealer either didn't send (Zero Hour Arms not in biz anymore) or they got lost.
I am not going to worry about it but find it interesting that some are there some are not
VTski4x4
NES Member
Null. Can keep them, but can't carry them.
I did and I explained why I don’t think your point makes sense and why it isn’t being discussed. Can you elaborate?
This legislation is such a hunk of dog shit that it's not difficult to derive multiple meanings from various parts of it. The people that wrote it, were either moredweeb level retards or intentionally malicious. They know it will be struck down eventually so their intent was to be disruptive and scare as many people as they could in the process.
p.tice
NES Member
The law includes that it has to be registered under the system outlined in section 121b of the new law. It seems as though even if its in a dealers inventory by 8/1, it can be sold after 8/1 as its grandfathered. I might be wrong, but that could be significant to any dealers.
IANAL
…As he puts it in the back of his cruiser.
I was just looking at section 76 which is about training/safety cert requirements to see how messed up it is.
Highlights:
- Hunter Ed. no longer counts for LTC
- State police will have vastly more input into the content of courses, including writing the test
- requirement of live fire
- State police will publish on a website a list of all the certified instructors (with contact info and address? Way to dox us!)
- courses must now include a bunch of stuff that right now is its own one or two day course, like laws about use of force and disengagement tactics. That's all stuff that was once covered in a self defense course, not a safety course. This will add several hours to every course out there, at least, if not a full day. Plus all the now required suicide prevention stuff and scare tactics with statistics about suicide and guns.
This one blew me away:
- instructors will no longer give the safety cert. to the student. We'll have to send it to CJIS, who will approve it, then CJIS will send a copy to the student. That's going to add... a week? Two weeks? A month? to the process, at least. And then, after all that, the student is STILL REQUIRED to present a copy of the cert to the licensing authority. WTF? That's pure obstructionist harassment.
I formatted the section for easier reading and put my notes above it, if you want the full gory details:
Highlights:
- Hunter Ed. no longer counts for LTC
- State police will have vastly more input into the content of courses, including writing the test
- requirement of live fire
- State police will publish on a website a list of all the certified instructors (with contact info and address? Way to dox us!)
- courses must now include a bunch of stuff that right now is its own one or two day course, like laws about use of force and disengagement tactics. That's all stuff that was once covered in a self defense course, not a safety course. This will add several hours to every course out there, at least, if not a full day. Plus all the now required suicide prevention stuff and scare tactics with statistics about suicide and guns.
This one blew me away:
- instructors will no longer give the safety cert. to the student. We'll have to send it to CJIS, who will approve it, then CJIS will send a copy to the student. That's going to add... a week? Two weeks? A month? to the process, at least. And then, after all that, the student is STILL REQUIRED to present a copy of the cert to the licensing authority. WTF? That's pure obstructionist harassment.
I formatted the section for easier reading and put my notes above it, if you want the full gory details:
Poll taxes and literacy tests for exercising a core Constitutional Right.
Jim Crow is alive and well in the Legislature.
Does this mean Noveske lowers are going up or down in price?
I am bringing Depends to the Mill this morning. $50/depend. Price is firm. I know what I have.
I am bringing Depends to the Mill this morning. $50/depend. Price is firm. I know what I have.
It says “live firearms training”. Is that “live fire”? It doesn’t say “live fire”. That could mean handling firearms in person.
Sure? I guess? But I'm pretty sure "you know what we meant" will carry the day here.
I'd think they'd say "in person" if they meant that.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,906
- Likes
- 36,362
A question you are unlikely to see:
May a LTC holder possess a gun on school property?
a. No
b. Yes
c. Only if it is not carried "on the person" of the LTC holder
But what about people who moved into the state with MA compliant firearms they had previously purchased and owned prior to the move? There was no legal requirement for them to fa10 hence not 'registered'.
Unfortunately your guess is as good as mine. If these firearms are not addressed in the new bill then I guess status quo, but not sure I'd bet on it.
The law references registered to the new section 121B. That is the new everything must be registered requirement and includes additional information than what’s captured now via FA10. So, no one can follow that until the new system is in place.
If you were to interpret as needing to follow the current registration requirements in section 128B, then residents moving in with non large capacity rifles would have met the requirement because there is no requirement to register. Also, the same would apply to a frame that was never built. Not registering a virgin frame is in accordance with 128B. The more grey area becomes rifles not exempt when moving in and frames that were built and not registered.
Technically you could build the rifle on August 1st, and not register it, because you still have 7 days to lawfully do so. That would be lawfully possessed and registered in accordance with 128B. I’m not a lawyer and would that fly on a Mass court? Who knows. The way this is worded is intentionally vague.
I'd like to pass some of my toys to my children when they are of age.
..but 4885 seems to close the Gun Trust option that I had been considering:
"grandfathering the items must have been owned by an LTC Holder or a licensed retailer"
because now we can only "transfer to heir or a person outside of the state"
So I guess we wait and hope this is overturned!? Or we can loan them out, for a max of 7 days..
..but 4885 seems to close the Gun Trust option that I had been considering:
"grandfathering the items must have been owned by an LTC Holder or a licensed retailer"
because now we can only "transfer to heir or a person outside of the state"
So I guess we wait and hope this is overturned!? Or we can loan them out, for a max of 7 days..
pastera
NES Member
I've been stating that all along
Do you have a link to that document?
pastera
NES Member
The extra info in the database is all on the dealer side of the house and the reports generated on the backside.
The portal is the registration system, period.
That the bill states that copies and duplicates must have been registered by 7/20/16 to be exempt proves that the state considers the portal a valid means of registration.
But keep deceiving yourself and others if that makes you feel better.
I don’t disagree with you, the 7/20 date and registration there means the portal.
How does the 8/1 date matter if it says anything lawfully possessed (copies and not) is not an assault weapon? It doesn’t specify except duplicates. Post 7/20 ARs appear lawful to possess today per ATF. Not trying to mislead anyone. Does the 7/20 date “override” the 8/1 date?
