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

[Amputee Marksman]

Right. So hypothetical.
Traffic stop. Cop runs your plate and sees you have a LTC and sees your FRB list. Asks if you have any guns in the vehicle. You say yes, im on the way home from the range. You have your lawfully posessed pre 8/1/24 AR in the trunk. He asks to check it because no ASWs on your list.
Now what? He is anti gun and follows the opinion that no FA10 means unregistered. You get charged. LTC gets pulled.
Judge may or may not concur, but meanwhile all your $stuff is stolen by the state.

General comments:

I would never tell them I am on my way home from the range. I never small talk or tell officers anything other to answer the questions with short concise answers. When they ask where I am coming from, where I am going and what i have been doing I do not answer. If they ask "do you know why I pulled you over" I would say something like No, I am sure you will tell me.

I drive a truck. I quit transporting everything in the back seat. Now I transport everything in locked cases in the bed of the truck with a cover and locked tailgate. No need for LEO or EMT to see any range bags, firearms cases in my vehicle.

Specific to above:
I am not going to lie to the officer. If I decide to answer I will say yes. If he asks to see the firearms I might ask what is his basis for that. Regardless I am going to refuse to show him the firearms and I am going to refuse a search. After that I am going to STFU and ask for an attorney. I will also refuse to provide keys, combinations to open anything. If they search me and take my keys and then open stuff up there is nothing I can do. I will also be recording to protect me.

In this situation it is pretty much a non-win deal. Screwed if you let them look, screwed if you don't. I will say in the last couple of years I have trained myself and gotten in the habit of totally obeying speed limits on local roads. I don't push yellow lights etc. On the highway I sit in the middle lane and roll with traffic. Last thing I need is to get jammed up for an easily preventable traffic offense.

 

[Amputee Marksman]

PSA

PSA hasn't shipped to MA in years. I think the question really was mean to be "who has stopped shipping to MA recently as a direct result of this law?"

 

[Warm_Garand]

I do not wish....

View attachment 903139

And you wish? And you must? AG Guidance page: A lower receiver acquired prior to 2016 may be built into a rifle and sold?

Is anyone tracking the subtle editorial changes (or "clarifications") to language that are creeping into public government webpages?

Someone is, right?

Changing the fundamental meaning and interpretation of words is a thing leftists have elevated to high art.

 

[CrackPot]

An interesting unintended effect of H.4885 is that on 10/23 (90 days from signing when H.4885 goes into effect) the old §128A is replaced in its entirety. Between 10/23 and when the state actually releases the registration system, there's no requirement to report transactions or register at all. so, no FA10 after 10/23, because there will be zero mention of the "real time on-line web portal". The requirement is gone.

There are definitely holes in their language aggrevated by the delay in the implementation of 121B. I think a number of them have the opposite effect you think they do. It is a condition of your licenses to record certain transactions. If you are unable to, then you cannot perform the transaction. This works against us in most cases I believe.

I have not gone through all that language in detail to map out all the responsibilities and the impact of 121B vs what can be done on existing MIRCS based on how the language is written, etc. A task for another day

 

[Broc Tuah]

PSA

They never shipped to MA. At least not in the past couple of years.

 

[Broc Tuah]

Right. So hypothetical.
Traffic stop. Cop runs your plate and sees you have a LTC and sees your FRB list. Asks if you have any guns in the vehicle. You say yes, im on the way home from the range. You have your lawfully posessed pre 8/1/24 AR in the trunk. He asks to check it because no ASWs on your list.
Now what? He is anti gun and follows the opinion that no FA10 means unregistered. You get charged. LTC gets pulled.
Judge may or may not concur, but meanwhile all your $stuff is stolen by the state.

 

[MAJoe]

No, you should ignore that along with the state's summary and several 2a lawyers/legal advocate groups advice.

Riding dirty and taking chances is fun...

How do you interpret the two registration clauses? The pre-7/20 duplicates says it need to be sold, owned, and registered. That seems clear, FA-10 by 7/19. So, lower bought and not built and registered by 7/19 doesn’t meet this criteria and is not an exempt copy/duplicate.

The 8/1 grandfather says lawfully owned, and shall registered under the new 121B, and serialized under the new 121C.

The wording is very different between these sections and I don’t think it’s unintentional? Why not under 8/1 say it the same way if that’s what they meant? Lawfully owned and registered by 8/1.

provided further, that the firearm shall not be considered a copy or duplicate of a firearm identified in clauses (d) and if sold, owned and registered prior to July 20, 2016

(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an assault-style firearm lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024, by an owner in possession of a license to carry issued under section 131 or by a holder of a license to sell under section 122; provided, that the assault-style firearm shall be registered in accordance with section 121B and serialized in accordance with section 121C.

 

[silversquirrel]

General comments:

I would never tell them I am on my home from the range. I never small talk or tell officers anything other to answer the questions with short concise answers. When they ask where I am coming from, where I am going and what i have been doing I do not answer. If they ask "do you know I pulled you over" I would say something like No, I am sure you will tell me.

I drive a truck. I quit transporting everything in the back seat. Now I transport everything in locked cases in the bed of the truck with a cover and locked tailgate. No need for LEO or EMT to see any range bags, firearms cases in my vehicle.

Specific to above:
I am not going to lie to the officer. If I decide to answer I will say yes. If he asks to see the firearms I might ask what is his basis for that. Regardless I am going to refuse to show him the firearms and I am going to refuse a search. After that I am going to STFU and ask for an attorney. I will also refuse to provide keys, combinations to open anything. If they search me and take my keys and then open stuff up there is nothing I can do. I will also be recording to protect me.

In this situation it is pretty much a non-win deal. Screwed if you let them look, screwed if you don't. I will say in the last couple of years I have trained myself and gotten in the habit of totally obeying speed limits on local roads. I don't push yellow lights etc. On the highway I sit in the middle lane and roll with traffic. Last thing I need is to get jammed up for an easily preventable traffic offense.

Missing my point. Will try to be more clear.
"Registration" as pertaining to grandfathering has not been clearly defined. other than the proposed creation of a new system we can only make assumptions.
Until the STATE tells us if the current FA10 data automatically rolls into the new REGISTER database or not.

 

[Individualist]

I’m wondering if there will be some kind of obligation to make sure every licensee is contacted to register all firearms on some TBD new Registration system when it is built? Will they have to use certified mail? My gut says they won’t want to get into all the mess surrounding a new system, and that they will continue to use the existing portal so as to minimize challenges.

That being said, was there any obligation or bonafide attempt to officially notify licensees regarding the 8/1 changes that could potentially turn legal gun owners into criminals? I guess it was just never a concern.

 

[silversquirrel]

I know. Bad example. But you already get the point!

 

[Coda]

I will say in the last couple of years I have trained myself and gotten in the habit of totally obeying speed limits on local roads. I don't push yellow lights etc. On the highway I sit in the middle lane and roll with traffic. Last thing I need is to get jammed up for an easily preventable traffic offense.

This.........

If you have this attitude the chances of getting pulled over drop to near zero.

There have been threads on here about how to avoid speeding tickets and what is the best radar detector. Just obey the fuc*in traffic laws, make sure all your lights are working, keep your inspection sticker up to date and go on with your life.

 

[milktree]

There are definitely holes in their language aggrevated by the delay in the implementation of 121B. I think a number of them have the opposite effect you think they do. It is a condition of your licenses to record certain transactions. If you are unable to, then you cannot perform the transaction. This works against us in most cases I believe.

I have not gone through all that language in detail to map out all the responsibilities and the impact of 121B vs what can be done on existing MIRCS based on how the language is written, etc. A task for another day

Good point. It's possible they deliberately meant to make it impossible for anyone to buy or sell a gun until the new registration system is functional, and they might even enforce it that way by turning off the FA10 system.

But it seems more likely they'll just forge ahead under the "you know what we meant" philosophy by leaving the FA10 system running until the new registration database works.

 

[milktree]

I’m wondering if there will be some kind of obligation to make sure every licensee is contacted to register all firearms on some TBD new Registration system when it is built? Will they have to use certified mail? My gut says they won’t want to get into all the mess surrounding a new system, and that they will continue to use the existing portal so as to minimize challenges.

That being said, was there any obligation or bonafide attempt to officially notify licensees regarding the 8/1 changes that could potentially turn legal gun owners into criminals? I guess it was just never a concern.

Section 154 of H.4885 says EOPSS must notify all FID and LTC holders about registration and serial numbers.

How they notify us isn't spelled out. Probably just first class mail.

How they explain the requirements and how that explanation matches the actual law will be interesting to see.

SECTION 154. Not later than 6 months after the effective date of this act, the executive
office of public safety and security shall notify all individuals with licenses to carry and firearm
identification cards valid on the effective date of this act of the requirements under section 121B
and 121C of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as inserted by section 32.

 

[drgrant]

BCM comes to mind.

Doesn't count.

There are a shitload of vendors (BCM, Aero, PSA, etc, yadda yadda) that are "afraid to send things to MA" regardless of them being legal for sale here.

Being "afraid" and "making a determination that its actually illegal for us to sell things to MA" are two entirely different things.

I think the refocus is more like "was a vendor shipping here and now is not, that has cited specific wording of the new law as a reason?"

 

[Individualist]

Section 154 of H.4885 says EOPSS must notify all FID and LTC holders about registration and serial numbers.

How they notify us isn't spelled out. Probably just first class mail.

How they explain the requirements and how that explanation matches with the actual law will be interesting to see.

So they notify AFTER the law goes into effect, thus effectively eliminating the means to rectify a legitimate gap and abide by the new requirement? Seems like they are intentionally putting people in legal jeopardy. How considerate.

 

[nstassel]

 

[JDL]

No, renewals are exempted from the new training.

No, all renewals are exempt business as usual

 

[Beretta92FS]

You obviously have far more experience with this than I do, but to a layman this certainly looks like a registration portal.View attachment 903133

Really? Cause I would have sworn it says TRANSACTION portal.

 

[JDL]

Not seeing that in the H4885.pdf. Where are you getting that nonresident licenses information from?

That is a direct cut and past from the bill

 

[pastera]

How do you interpret the two registration clauses? The pre-7/20 duplicates says it need to be sold, owned, and registered. That seems clear, FA-10 by 7/19. So, lower bought and not built and registered by 7/19 doesn’t meet this criteria and is not an exempt copy/duplicate.

The 8/1 grandfather says lawfully owned, and shall registered under the new 121B, and serialized under the new 121C.

The wording is very different between these sections and I don’t think it’s unintentional? Why not under 8/1 say it the same way if that’s what they meant? Lawfully owned and registered by 8/1.

The State's position seems to be a copy/duplicate could not be cured through deleting enumerated features. Therefore all C&D firearms always were assault weapons.
So the the 7/20 exemption from C&D definition of an ASW therefore C&D with compliance mods would be considered as lawfully possessed.

Post 7/20 the compliance work doesn't matter because it still fails the C&D part of the definition and therefore was not lawfully possessed regardless of the state not pursuing charges.

So then the 8/1 exemption covers all non-C&D or enumerated firearms that would fail the new ASW definition.

So a pre-7/20 C&D (including pre-94 anything) would be lawful after 8/1 since they were lawfully possessed.
However any C&D or enumerated firearm after 7/20 is banned for not being lawfully possessed.
Firearms considered an ASW only for features will be exempt as long as they are legally held on 8/1 (they are in compliance)

Once the smoke clears, all of the exempted guns can have as many features as you want but post 7/20 C&D must be dispossessed before the 90 day enactment delay window

I don't agree with the interpretation but it is what makes sense from what the state has said they intended to enact - therefore that's what the police are likely to enforce until a court finds different.

 

[Bluemoon1]

The next panic after 8/1 will be ammo don’t wait 90 days.Buy from the dealers that have been helping you during this rifle panic so they can try to keep thier doors open or we won’t have anywhere to buy anything.

 

[Mark from ?]

They never shipped to MA. At least not in the past couple of years.

I was in a PSA in Denver, NC and wouldnt sell ammo to me in person because I was a MA tard.

They want nothing to do with MA. And dont care.

 

[pastera]

Missing my point. Will try to be more clear.
"Registration" as pertaining to grandfathering has not been clearly defined. other than the proposed creation of a new system we can only make assumptions.
Until the STATE tells us if the current FA10 data automatically rolls into the new REGISTER database or not.

They already have through the language of the bill, the transaction portal itself and their caucus summary of the bill they released.
The transaction database is the registration they speak about in the 7/20/16 language.

 

[Uzi2]

LOL, says the guy who worked for municipal government in MA to retirement age before leaving.

Yes, and I got out of the state at the very first opportunity......20 minutes after the closing on the sale of my house.

Do you have a plan to leave?

 

[pastera]

Not seeing that in the H4885.pdf. Where are you getting that nonresident licenses information from?

Non-residents are issued a temporary LTC under 131f
That info is for people who don't possess a Mass Temporary permit (LTC)

 

[not new guy]

They already have through the language of the bill, the transaction portal itself and their caucus summary of the bill they released.
The transaction database is the registration they speak about in the 7/20/16 language.

Once upon a time someone from The State proclaimed that MA doesn't have gun registration, presumably to avoid having some aspect of our system not deemed unconstitutional or otherwise legally impermissible. Does anyone remember who said it, or what the context was?

 

[milktree]

That is a direct cut and past from the bill

If that’s the case, surely you can tell us the section or line number.

 

[MGnoob]

The State's position seems to be a copy/duplicate could not be cured through deleting enumerated features. Therefore all C&D firearms always were assault weapons.
So the the 7/20 exemption from C&D definition of an ASW therefore C&D with compliance mods would be considered as lawfully possessed.

Post 7/20 the compliance work doesn't matter because it still fails the C&D part of the definition and therefore was not lawfully possessed regardless of the state not pursuing charges.

So then the 8/1 exemption covers all non-C&D or enumerated firearms that would fail the new ASW definition.

So a pre-7/20 C&D (including pre-94 anything) would be lawful after 8/1 since they were lawfully possessed.
However any C&D or enumerated firearm after 7/20 is banned for not being lawfully possessed.
Firearms considered an ASW only for features will be exempt as long as they are legally held on 8/1 (they are in compliance)

Once the smoke clears, all of the exempted guns can have as many features as you want but post 7/20 C&D must be dispossessed before the 90 day enactment delay window

I don't agree with the interpretation but it is what makes sense from what the state has said they intended to enact - therefore that's what the police are likely to enforce until a court finds different.

My take away from this is if it was “lawfully possessed” is a definite trap because it was not lawfully possessed if it wasn’t compliant at time or currently meeting 1994 pre-ban still hold some weight.. but now that it’s an actual law instead of just a decree there’s a lot of felons and weight. I can’t imagine how many non-1994 A.R. 15s are out there with evil features. I mean you probably gotta go to the gun show and buy a noncompliant AK brand new for nothing and everybody did just like all the drums and shit they selling weren’t legit.

Go with the worst case scenario and that’s what they’re gonna do and I’m saying you guys are all a bunch of f***ers for breaking the law. I have to assume 90% of the people didn’t even know.

I am sitting safe with all my old stuff… doesn’t make the new law right and I find it morally repugnant

Especially how my pre-1994 mags now can’t be carried no bullshit

 

[pastera]

Once upon a time someone from The State proclaimed that MA doesn't have gun registration, presumably to avoid having some aspect of our system not deemed unconstitutional or otherwise legally impermissible. Does anyone remember who said it, or what the context was?

Devil's advocate:
They don't have a mandatory registry.
They only have mandatory transaction reporting.
If you choose to waive your rights, they offer the ability to volunteer to register your guns through the portal.

And were I representing the state that would be the position I would present - not illegal because you consented on a voluntary basis (read the description - it is very well worded to avoid review)

 

[Individualist]

The entire law is a f***ing Trap. That is clearly one of its primary purposes.

<insert Star Wars It’s a Trap gif>