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

pastera said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that any ARs/copies/duplicates that are post-7/20 must be sold/transferred of out state or turned in?

.
 
NorthofBean617 said:
I heard all non-mass compliant firearms will be banned from private transfer post 8/1, even handguns. Is that true ??

Will I be able to private transfer a non-mass compliant handgun that does not violate the assault weapons ban after 8/1 as part of my 4 private transfer sales per year ? example: if I own a Glock 17 gen 5 prior to 8/1, will I be able to private transfer to my brother in law who has his LTC ?
Click to expand...
No. FTF is not changed.
 
milktree said:
Well... I'm not going to speak with authority because I can't stupid my brain enough to understand what they were thinking or intend to do.

The text of the law:



Because there's two sections, one for "people who have an LTC before 8/2" and one for "people who have an LTC before live fire is defined", I read that to mean there could exist people who have an LTC before live fire is required and after 8/1.

It's possible that all those people are ones who have already applied by 8/1, or maybe people who already took a course by 8/1 and apply between 8/1 and when live fire becomes established.

The "you know what they meant" reading of this is "until all the requirements are promulgated, the old course is fine and we're going to carry on as before."

Insert "10/23" for "8/1" as appropriate, since the bill doesn't actually go into law until then, but that's not really the point we're discussing.

Edit to add:

It's not clear to me from the wording if "such requirement" means "live firearms training" only, or "all the new requirements".

Maybe the state will have all the material ready-to-go before 10/23 and incorporating it into the class will be easy.
Click to expand...
This licensing requirement will surely stop inner city gun violence and school shootings.
 
HorizontalHunter said:
Changing text??

Anyone else seeing the text of the law changing over the last few days??? Now it also says corrected in red at the top of the law.

I was going to respond to @Picton quote because i looked at it earlier and quoted law as it was very specific.



This is my quote from yesterday or the day before so I went back to get the line number


Now it says:

View attachment 903319

Maybe I’m losing my mind but I damn sure know what I looked at and quoted but now it’s gone. Anyone else experiencing this????
Click to expand...

No, it's not just you. We're all losing our minds.

There was a version that was leaked from committee and published by GOAL, and then a corrected version published on the MA website.. A bunch stuff changed. Like there were sections moved or added or removed or something. e.g. In the first leaked version I got from GOAL the training stuff was in SECTION 76. In the current "corrected" version it's SECTION 74.

I suspect you are thinking of the leaked version.

I THINK the version I'm looking at is the most recent and up-to-date version.

Now I'll have to check my copies to see.
 
EJFudd said:
Good news (I guess)... But clueless, piss poor article by one of the usual liberal DimocRAT suspects. 🤪
Click to expand...
I thought the tone of it was fairly moderate considering it was coming from a local liberal main stream media outlet (local NBC affiliate).

And again..... The fact that they even put it up there is a surprise. Not sure how familiar you are with WWLP out of Springfield but they are not exactly pro 2A.

I am not dancing in the streets waving my AR like this is some great victory. But it is an insight to the fact that they are some liberals who don't agree with this legislation. Listing the names of Democrats that voted against it exemplifies that.
 
milktree said:
No, it's not just you. We're all losing our minds.

There was a version that was leaked from committee and published by GOAL, and then a corrected version published on the MA website.. A bunch stuff changed. Like there were sections moved or added or removed or something. e.g. In the first leaked version I got from GOAL the training stuff was in SECTION 76. In the current "corrected" version it's SECTION 74.

I suspect you are thinking of the leaked version.

I THINK the version I'm looking at is the most recent and up-to-date version.

Now I'll have to check my copies to see.
Click to expand...

What I’m specifically referring to changed from when I posted yesterday @6:30pm to this afternoon. Whenever I am referring to the law or have a question I either direct quote or reference as the details matter.

I have been using the text on the MGL page right along as that’s where the GOAL link pointed me.
 
not new guy said:
Many of us have DLed a copy of the bill's text as passed. We should be running comparisons and throwing flags when they make material changes.
Click to expand...

I'd love for there to be some open source standard format for legislation, so it would actually be possible to do a "diff" between versions.

Without that, it's a TON of work to find differences and changes.
 
For those wondering about different bill versions. Check the document properties for the https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H4885.pdf file in your PDF reader program.
Currently, on my end, its showing the following dates:
Created: 7/17/2024, 7:04:00 PM
Modified: 7/17/2024, 8:17:00 PM

If you downloaded a version prior to 7/17 and or has document property created/modified dates earlier than 7/17 then it may be different than the current version.
 
milktree said:
I'd love for there to be some open source standard format for legislation, so it would actually be possible to do a "diff" between versions.

Without that, it's a TON of work to find differences and changes.
Click to expand...

Nah, there's comparison software that should be able to handle it. You can even tweak the comparison settings in Word to ignore lots of noise.
 
FalArAk said:
This licensing requirement will surely stop inner city gun violence and school shootings.
Click to expand...
Can we get our money back if it's a clear failure in this regard?

Please excuse the dumb question--this is getting too complicated for me. Does it appear that the definition of firearms is now including black powder replicas or antiques?
 
not new guy said:
Many of us have DLed a copy of the bill's text as passed. We should be running comparisons and throwing flags when they make material changes.
Click to expand...
There should be nothing different between what the Senate and House voted on and what the Governor signed. If the text has changed since it was voted on and passed by House and Senate, then there are big problems, as once that it was voted yes, it was frozen. The only way to make changes now is to write a new bill to amend this atrocity
 
tinhorn said:
Can we get our money back if it's a clear failure in this regard?

Please excuse the dumb question--this is getting too complicated for me. Does it appear that the definition of firearms is now including black powder replicas or antiques?
Click to expand...
Anything capable of launching any type of projectile over 200 feet per second.
 
Woodsloafer said:
Are you saying that any ARs/copies/duplicates that are post-7/20 must be sold/transferred of out state or turned in?

.
Click to expand...
Maybe - the courts will decide.

From my discussions with legislators while this thing developed a good number of them wanted every evil back gun banned. However they realized they couldn't do that and somehow came up with the bill's language in committee.
The intention was to rid Mass of whole classes of firearms that they felt were too unsafe for hunting and Olympic type target shooting.
Steel challenge type fun was met with incredulous looks as it was described.
A number of these people literally believe this will save tons of lives especially veterans who if they did nothing would succumb to suicide induced by simply owning the wrong kind of gun in a weak moment.
 
sbhaven said:
For those wondering about different bill versions. Check the document properties for the https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H4885.pdf file in your PDF reader program.
Currently, on my end, its showing the following dates:
Created: 7/17/2024, 7:04:00 PM
Modified: 7/17/2024, 8:17:00 PM

If you downloaded a version prior to 7/17 and or has document property created/modified dates earlier than 7/17 then it may be different than the current version.
Click to expand...
So what are the differences?
Just because a PDF has a different creation or modification time stamp doesn't mean the text is different (an administrative change to fix a format or typographical error is allowed)
 
pastera said:
So what are the differences?
Just because a PDF has a different creation or modification time stamp doesn't mean the text is different (an administrative change to fix a format or typographical error is allowed)
Click to expand...

Until they hit you with the oxford comma. In just the right spot. lol
 

Attachments

scott-o said:
Not sure where this is from, sir, but here it is rotated, running OCR on it now to see if i can extract it for you.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where it's from to be honest - Google found it. Maybe it's some secret file storage location. I tried modifying the PDF to just say "The only rule is there are no rules!" but I don't have credentials to save it and overwrite the file. [laugh]
 

Similar threads

Check out TSUSA @ the Great American Outdoor Show
Replies
0
Views
38
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Fox News has gone woke?
Replies
11
Views
374
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
The H&K P7 M13 is Coming Back? The P7 Pro at SHOT Show 2025!
2
Replies
59
Views
587
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
Cam Edward's wife has passed away
Replies
3
Views
287
Reptile
Reptile
Holiday Deals Day 9: The Deals are STILL HERE — Don't Miss Out!
Replies
0
Views
56
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Back
Top Bottom