2023 MA Gun Ban: House has engrossed H.4139, waiting on Senate

Yes, it is. But I guess opinions will vary on that depending on who on NES you talk with. Part of it is a legal words game (can't call it outright "Registration"!), part of it is wishful thinking that we do not actually live in a one-party Socialist Dictatorship. It certainly satisfied our police and political overlords in terms of a gun registration system for a very long time... decades, literally... right up until BloomingTurd's lawyers and/or Gifford's clowns wrote the 140 Page Bill From Hell for Mister Speaker and that idiot Day. 😖

But guess what? They know what you own. They don't have to know every last item. They know enough. It isn't really about identifying your guns. It's actually about identifying you... Mister or Mrs. Gun Owner. :(
This. Say it louder for the folks in the back! 📣
 
Just saw Rep Tony Cabral at Staples buying ink for his Canon printer.... must be so he can print copies of this bullshit and give himself papercuts while masturbating.

I almost asked him if that was his intent, but decided saying nothing was probably the better part of valor. No need to make a scene in Staples.
 
Has anyone read this bill? I spent most of my day today working on a blog post about what's in this bill.

There is one thing that I noticed in the bill regarding licenses, fines and punishment is the exclusions:

"(c) This section shall not apply to: (i) an officer, agent or employee of the1404 commonwealth, any state or the United States; (ii) a member of the military or other service of1405 any state or of the United States; (iii) a duly authorized law enforcement officer, agent or1406 employee of a municipality of the commonwealth; provided, however, that a person described in1407 clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, shall be authorized by a competent authority to carry or possess the1408 weapon so carried or possessed and shall be acting within the scope of the person's official1409 duties."

They essentially exempted themselves from their own laws. Meaning rules for thee but none for me.


I might be wrong but I don't see any cop carveouts in this bill. So cops are in far greater danger of posessing banned 'assault weapons' than some peon plebe like me.
 
Just saw Rep Tony Cabral at Staples buying ink for his Canon printer.... must be so he can print copies of this bullshit and give himself papercuts while masturbating.

I almost asked him if that was his intent, but decided saying nothing was probably the better part of valor. No need to make a scene in Staples.
F317CDEB-90FE-4997-B81C-7826AB60869F.jpeg
 
Reading the bill it sounds like there will be an actual registration system, electronic at least so we may not have to carry all our stuff to the PD to register

Hope the Senate gets its panties in a wad over the bill and wants its own bill and they fight forever

Yea I get that vibe from the language, I'd bet good money that will all get ripped out quick. The cost to develop that system, software, training, secure it, maintain and roll it out to the stakeholders -- it is simply not feasible.
 
Yeah I forgot dealers don’t do it when I posted that. I asked one of my FFLs and he said it’s not required by law. Although I don’t know if that’s specifically stated anywhere.

that's not how laws work, the law says you have to do it for x, y, and z. you're talking about w, which the law isn't concerned with, which is why it isn't listed next to x, y, and z
The MA gun transaction portal starts with these words:

"Massachusetts General Law c. 140, §§128A and 128B, requires all individuals who sell, transfer, inherit, or lose a firearm to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss of the firearms to the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau (FRB). This on-line system will allow you to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss/theft data electronically to the FRB."

And then...

"Personal Sale or Transfer Use this option if you are a Massachusetts resident and you sold or transferred a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun to another person or to a dealer, and you conducted the sale or transfer personally or through an agent."

Similar wording is found in the state's gun FAQ's.

But if you read Massachusetts General Law c. 140, §§128A and 128B, there is no requirement to report sales or transfers to a licensed dealer. You have to do some serious bending in the meaning of words to come up with the notion that a "sale or transfer to a licensed dealer" is, in fact, a "personal sale or transfer." :oops: And yet it seems to have evolved that way over time... not actual MGL law or CMR law, but "FAQ-type law" that pops up magically and becomes the way we are expected to do business.

I'm not arguing with the reason behind this change/practice. In fact, I like the idea that I am in charge of reporting my own sales or transfers to MA dealers. But @inerlogic is right. If it is in the MGL's or CMRs, I sure can't find it. 🤔

++++++++++


EDIT: See @CrackPot comments below. -"EJ"
 
Last edited:
Just saw Rep Tony Cabral at Staples buying ink for his Canon printer.... must be so he can print copies of this bullshit and give himself papercuts while masturbating.

I almost asked him if that was his intent, but decided saying nothing was probably the better part of valor. No need to make a scene in Staples.
I'm very rapidly reaching the position where keeping quiet is just enabling their bull$hit. If they want me to act with civility they can lead by example.

Are we mice or are we Ma$$holes?!

Screenshot_20231019_173010_Google.jpg
 
The MA gun transaction portal starts with these words:

"Massachusetts General Law c. 140, §§128A and 128B, requires all individuals who sell, transfer, inherit, or lose a firearm to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss of the firearms to the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau (FRB). This on-line system will allow you to report the sale, transfer, inheritance, or loss/theft data electronically to the FRB."

And then...

"Personal Sale or Transfer Use this option if you are a Massachusetts resident and you sold or transferred a firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun to another person or to a dealer, and you conducted the sale or transfer personally or through an agent."

Similar wording is found in the state's gun FAQ's.

But if you read Massachusetts General Law c. 140, §§128A and 128B, there is no requirement to report sales or transfers to a licensed dealer. You have to do some serious bending in the meaning of words to come up with the notion that a "sale or transfer to a licensed dealer" is, in fact, a "personal sale or transfer." :oops: And yet it seems to have evolved that way over time... not actual MGL law or CMR law, but "FAQ-type law" that pops up magically and becomes the way we are expected to do business.

I'm not arguing with the reason behind this change/practice. In fact, I like the idea that I am in charge of reporting my own sales or transfers to MA dealers. But @inerlogic is right. If it is in the MGL's or CMRs, I sure can't find it. 🤔
"the provisions of section 128 shall not apply to any person who without being licensed under section 122 [dealer license], sells ... to a person licensed under said section 122..."

"Any sale or transfer conducted pursuant to this section shall ..., prior to or at the point of sale, be conducted over a real time web..."

Since the section calls out sales to dealers and any sale pursuant to this section (which clearly includes sales to dealers) requires use of the real time web portal, the case can clearly be made that you MUST report the sale to the dealer before performing the sale.

In practice this essentially never happens and I would fall over in shock if anyone has ever been jammed up for not doing this. But it does not take convoluted logic to get to the conclusion it is necessary.
 
Yea I get that vibe from the language, I'd bet good money that will all get ripped out quick. The cost to develop that system, software, training, secure it, maintain and roll it out to the stakeholders -- it is simply not feasible.
you could let mbta management do it
 
No.

Something you keep failing to understand.

They will keep coming back, so, every time they do, you fight it, engage in the political process, look to dull it down as best you can. During the gaps, broaden the community, be a welcoming big tent, make the population of those who want a freedom larger not ever more insular. If every gun owner who isn't in the 'no regulation at all' camp is either a Fudd or an Anti, there will be no more gun owners to vote.

Every year there will be new bills, most will die, once in a while something like this comes along that demands a full court press. The tree of liberty does not bend toward more freedom the more rabid division there is on all sides. Not acting like lunatics makes it more possible to confront an opposition who does.
1697753671973.png
 
I regularly check my gun orgs

 
Was the removal of grace periods while waiting on your license renewal an amendment? I checked the bill and according to the bill as long as your application was in before your permit expires, you are covered.
 
"the provisions of section 128 shall not apply to any person who without being licensed under section 122 [dealer license], sells ... to a person licensed under said section 122..."

"Any sale or transfer conducted pursuant to this section shall ..., prior to or at the point of sale, be conducted over a real time web..."

Since the section calls out sales to dealers and any sale pursuant to this section (which clearly includes sales to dealers) requires use of the real time web portal, the case can clearly be made that you MUST report the sale to the dealer before performing the sale.

In practice this essentially never happens and I would fall over in shock if anyone has ever been jammed up for not doing this. But it does not take convoluted logic to get to the conclusion it is necessary.

Thank you for the clarification. I only need to wait 2 more years for the statue of limitations to kick in.
 
Has anyone read this bill? I spent most of my day today working on a blog post about what's in this bill.

There is one thing that I noticed in the bill regarding licenses, fines and punishment is the exclusions:

"(c) This section shall not apply to: (i) an officer, agent or employee of the1404 commonwealth, any state or the United States; (ii) a member of the military or other service of1405 any state or of the United States; (iii) a duly authorized law enforcement officer, agent or1406 employee of a municipality of the commonwealth; provided, however, that a person described in1407 clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, shall be authorized by a competent authority to carry or possess the1408 weapon so carried or possessed and shall be acting within the scope of the person's official1409 duties."

They essentially exempted themselves from their own laws. Meaning rules for thee but none for me.


I might be wrong but I don't see any cop carveouts in this bill. So cops are in far greater danger of posessing banned 'assault weapons' than some peon plebe like me.
They only exempted those persons who are required to carry as part of their duties and only while on duty.
This is just so they don't have to pay for their licenses.
They also screwed police by not exempting anything except their agency issued equipment for off duty carry (on a personal license)
 
Was the removal of grace periods while waiting on your license renewal an amendment? I checked the bill and according to the bill as long as your application was in before your permit expires, you are covered.

The grace period was gone from the beginning as is the reinstatement of a license requirement for pepper spray.
 
Yea I get that vibe from the language, I'd bet good money that will all get ripped out quick. The cost to develop that system, software, training, secure it, maintain and roll it out to the stakeholders -- it is simply not feasible.
Secure it - that's a joke right?
They want that data released
Why else would they include personal liability for crimes committed with your stolen guns
 
"the provisions of section 128 shall not apply to any person who without being licensed under section 122 [dealer license], sells ... to a person licensed under said section 122..."

"Any sale or transfer conducted pursuant to this section shall ..., prior to or at the point of sale, be conducted over a real time web..."

Since the section calls out sales to dealers and any sale pursuant to this section (which clearly includes sales to dealers) requires use of the real time web portal, the case can clearly be made that you MUST report the sale to the dealer before performing the sale.

In practice this essentially never happens and I would fall over in shock if anyone has ever been jammed up for not doing this. But it does not take convoluted logic to get to the conclusion it is necessary.
I see it now... [thumbsup] Thank you. It took a while. [laugh] It also begs the question of what folks selling/transferring to a MA dealer were expected to do before the portal options were expanded to include sales/transfers to MA dealers? 🤔
 
When comes election time for state reps and senate we need to make very well known who stood with this bill and shut down the reps and senators from further re elections
 
Cross-posted from another forum. I think some calls and letters to your Senator's office politely explaining where Mr. Haggerty has this completely wrong could be a useful way to suggest the bill was not described honestly when it got the vote. (I am looking for a 'yay' joke about that vote but...)

Response from Rep Richard Haggerty​

“Thank you for reaching out to my office regarding the gun safety legislation.
Please find below a listing of the changes being proposed as part of the updated legislation. While this is a passionate issue, it should be noted that there have been several changes to the original bill filed back in July.
I strongly support the common-sense measures in this bill to expand our red flag laws to help us continue to keep weapons out of the hands of folks who may be battling mental health issues, the serialization of ghost guns, and live fire training for all future applicants for a License to Carry – to name a few.
A few clarifying points as well.
If you already have your LTC you will not have to go through additional training and are grandfathered in going forward. New applicants will have to pass a basic written test after going through training and, joining 18 other states, they will have to complete live fire training.
Does the bill ban carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm anywhere in the Commonwealth unless expressly allowed by a private landowner? No.
The bill provides that firearms may still be carried in public everywhere, including any state-owned public land available to the public for hunting, except schools, government buildings, polling locations during elections, and private residences, unless the property owner has provided their express consent.
Does the bill ban anyone under 21 from acquiring or carrying any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun. Does it even ban anyone under 15 from participating in firearm training. No.
The bill would raise the age from 18 to 21 for eligibility to purchase and possess a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun. Leaves untouched the ability of all ages to use semi-automatic and other firearms under the supervision of a properly licensed adult for hunting, instruction, recreation, and participation in shooting sports. The bill makes no other changes to what minors are able to do, including supervised hunting activities and educational programs for those under 18.
Does the bill institute a new, broad, complete “Assault Weapons Ban,” including firearms already owned by law-abiding citizens? No.
The bill permits the continued ownership, possession, transfer, and sale of assault-style weapons legally owned and registered in the Commonwealth as of the effective day of the Act (after the Governor signs it). The bill does update the definition of assault-style weapon to including certain modern firearms and characteristics not contemplated by the 2004 assault weapons ban which relied on expired federal law; (ii) codifies into law the AG’s 2016 advisory on look-alike weapons; (iii) includes a list of banned assault style firearms.
Does this bill help fight crime? Yes The bill helps fight crime by requiring the serialization and registration of homemade firearms, known as ghost guns, which previously lacked serial numbers and were untraceable. The bill requires that ghost guns be serialized on the frames or receivers. Law enforcement will now have the capability to confiscate ghost gun parts and charge these individuals with a crime. By creating a paper trail, the serialization of ghost guns provides law enforcement a tool to potentially identify the maker of a ghost gun recovered at a crime scene. This traceability could aid investigations and enable prosecution where previously impossible. Law enforcement organizations support measures to regulate ghost guns, believing these steps will help get illegal weapons off the streets.
How does this legislation affect off-duty law enforcement officers?
Off-duty active law enforcement officers would be allowed to carry their department-issued firearms in the following places ... first, a place owned, leased or under the control of state, county or municipal government and used for the purpose of government administration, a location in use at the time of possession as a polling place and for the storage or tabulation of ballots, and third in elementary schools, secondary schools, college or university, including transport used for the students.
Is this bill tied to the state supplemental budget in a procedural move to force a yes vote? No. The bill is stand-alone piece of legislation that was added to a Bill Number that was previously the Supplemental Budget. The legislation must go through the normal legislative process including passing the House, passing the Senate (they are drafting their own bill), a Conference Committee will then work out the differences between the two, then the House and Senate will each have to vote again to pass the Conference Committee agreed to legislation, then the Governor would have to sign it.
This bill has been on the mind of many people since July, and I was pleased that an eight-hour Public Hearing on the proposed legislation took place last week along with an eleven-town listening tour last spring. I have communicated to the Judiciary Committee the concerns I have heard from constituents over the last several months and I have taken the time to clarify the misinformation that constituents have heard from under informed people.
While we may not agree on this piece of legislation, I have taken the time to speak with those who have had strong opinions on both sides of the issue, and I communicated with everyone the facts of what the bill does and does not do.
Thank you again for taking the time to reach out to my office and if you have ‘specific’ questions on the legislation please do not hesitate to reach out to my office.”
Rich Haggerty
 
Back
Top Bottom