MA Gun Grab 2024: Senate bill S.2572

AmeriKHAN said:
Let's just all get C&R licenses. Anything 50 years or older is considered an antique and ships to the post office where you go and pick it up. The bill clearly states that antiques are exempt.
Click to expand...

In gunspeak, "antique" means "pre-1998," not merely "C&R-eligible."
 
Zoom meeting just ended. 2 hours, very civil, most in attendance were pro 2A and brought up various great points which we've all been discussing here. Meeting was recorded, so anyone who wants to see it for themselves, the Senator said he would be posting the recording. I assume that means here: Latest – Will Brownsberger

Some of you may know Austin Smith, and thankfully he spoke near the beginning of the meeting, because he nailed many of our largest concerns and was able to do so very eloquently. Everything I had written in my notes to address, he hit it first and did it better than I would have.

A few key discussion points:
- Turning lawful firearm owners into criminals overnight
- Grandfathering
- Municipalities expanding areas where firearms may not be carried, setting their own laws bypassing preemption
- Many discussions around expanded ERPO
- Discontinuity with Bruen
- 3D printers and CNC mills requiring a firearms manufacturing license
- First amendment violation by restricting software distribution of firearm plans
- 3 day involuntary hold vs. voluntarily seeking mental health care
- Discussion around federal vs state firearms law and Healey's 2016 memo

Also in attendance was a reporter Matthew Medsger from the Boston Herald, so look there for a possible story soon.

I don't want to butcher it so I think anyone who wants more info than that should watch the video when it is posted. Here's a screenshot of the senator speaking. He seemed like he was listening and will go back to work on the concerns raised, but the bill is going to go through.

2024-01-28 14-38-16.png
 
p.. said:
Zoom meeting just ended. 2 hours, very civil, most in attendance were pro 2A and brought up various great points which we've all been discussing here. Meeting was recorded, so anyone who wants to see it for themselves, the Senator said he would be posting the recording. I assume that means here: Latest – Will Brownsberger

Some of you may know Austin Smith, and thankfully he spoke near the beginning of the meeting, because he nailed many of our largest concerns and was able to do so very eloquently. Everything I had written in my notes to address, he hit it first and did it better than I would have.

A few key discussion points:
- Turning lawful firearm owners into criminals overnight
- Grandfathering
- Municipalities expanding areas where firearms may not be carried, setting their own laws bypassing preemption
- Many discussions around expanded ERPO
- Discontinuity with Bruen
- 3D printers and CNC mills requiring a firearms manufacturing license
- First amendment violation by restricting software distribution of firearm plans
- 3 day involuntary hold vs. voluntarily seeking mental health care
- Discussion around federal vs state firearms law and Healey's 2016 memo

Also in attendance was a reporter Matthew Medsger from the Boston Herald, so look there for a possible story soon.

I don't want to butcher it so I think anyone who wants more info than that should watch the video when it is posted. Here's a screenshot of the senator speaking. He seemed like he was listening and will go back to work on the concerns raised, but the bill is going to go through.

View attachment 843932
Click to expand...

Thank you for posting.
 
PappyM3 said:
There were neutered post-94 AK variants a plenty in MA.
Click to expand...
Yes. There are also CZ Scorpion Pistols, Semi auto shotguns with fixed tubes over 5 rounds, VR80s, Tavor X95s with flash hiders, SBRs with no compliance work, etc. What dealers will sell/transfer does not necessarily reflect what is lawful to own. Unfortunately the law is quite clear.
 
pinefd said:
A little typo, there. I think you meant to say "pre-1899"


Frank
Click to expand...

Basically. I think it's December 1898? I looked it up once when I was in the market for an old Webley, so it's been awhile since I informed myself about this.
 
Last edited:
Broc said:
It also mentions copies and duplicates of Colt-AR 15. Therefore all AR15.
Click to expand...
Not under the federal AWB. The ATF and federal courts decided that it had to be a Colt MODEL AR-15. A Colt Sporter with compliance work was fine. That is the existing case law and federal regulation for 1994-2004. That is binding on MA as long as they referenced federal law. With the new bill they create their own AWB so all federal interpretation is right out.
 
Now, if you all had simply wishes me a happy birthday last year, I wouldn't have had to make my mandate become law. There will be no grandfathering, there will be no compromises, just me having a shell FFL in NH buying up all the guns I've made illegal for pennies on the dollar to resell.

I am quite tired of of them giving credit to our wonderful diversity hire AG Andrea Campbell. I, the Governor, issued that decree as AG, and now that I have full power over all three branches.... Just call me Queen of the Ma**h***s.
 
CrackPot said:
Yes. There are also CZ Scorpion Pistols, Semi auto shotguns with fixed tubes over 5 rounds, VR80s, Tavor X95s with flash hiders, SBRs with no compliance work, etc. What dealers will sell/transfer does not necessarily reflect what is lawful to own. Unfortunately the law is quite clear.
Click to expand...

I provided evidence of Four Seasons selling them over a 10 year span. If they were illegal, that wouldn’t have continued at a shop like FS.
 
PappyM3 said:
I provided evidence of Four Seasons selling them over a 10 year span. If they were illegal, that wouldn’t have continued at a shop like FS.
Click to expand...
You don't know FS very well if you believe this. They have a reputation for being conservative but I can list a lot of areas where they cross the legal line. Everyone assumes what they do is always 100% legal and no one ever examines or questions them. Good for them. But proof of nothing.

Don't confuse what the state knows about and/or is willing to enforce with what is actually legal. We sold SBRs to customers for years until, while re-reading the law to stop Shockwave sales, the AG office realized that SBRs were off roster "firearms" under MGL and all the sales that had been done by MA dealers of SBRs were 100% illegal (and actually a felony for each time). SBR sales stopped in 2018 as a result.

Proof of shops doing something is not proof one way or another of what is legal. It might be safe given everyone's assumption about what the law means, but it does not change the reality of what is lawful.
 
71montess said:
Sporting rifles , without the bayo lug and forward handgrip, and flash hider.
Click to expand...
Even with those features it’s not an “assault weapon”
p.. said:
Zoom meeting just ended. 2 hours, very civil, most in attendance were pro 2A and brought up various great points which we've all been discussing here. Meeting was recorded, so anyone who wants to see it for themselves, the Senator said he would be posting the recording. I assume that means here: Latest – Will Brownsberger

Some of you may know Austin Smith, and thankfully he spoke near the beginning of the meeting, because he nailed many of our largest concerns and was able to do so very eloquently. Everything I had written in my notes to address, he hit it first and did it better than I would have.

A few key discussion points:
- Turning lawful firearm owners into criminals overnight
- Grandfathering
- Municipalities expanding areas where firearms may not be carried, setting their own laws bypassing preemption
- Many discussions around expanded ERPO
- Discontinuity with Bruen
- 3D printers and CNC mills requiring a firearms manufacturing license
- First amendment violation by restricting software distribution of firearm plans
- 3 day involuntary hold vs. voluntarily seeking mental health care
- Discussion around federal vs state firearms law and Healey's 2016 memo

Also in attendance was a reporter Matthew Medsger from the Boston Herald, so look there for a possible story soon.

I don't want to butcher it so I think anyone who wants more info than that should watch the video when it is posted. Here's a screenshot of the senator speaking. He seemed like he was listening and will go back to work on the concerns raised, but the bill is going to go through.

View attachment 843932
Click to expand...
It’s absolutely unreal that elected officials or as people like to call them “lawmakers”
Would need to have the amount of laws they are violating with this bill pointed out to them

The one thing they are experts in, and they pretend to play dumb.

This meeting had to just be theater because clearly they don’t care about the law or the constitution.
 
CMEBoston said:
Even with those features it’s not an “assault weapon”

It’s absolutely unreal that elected officials or as people like to call them “lawmakers”
Would need to have the amount of laws they are violating with this bill pointed out to them

The one thing they are experts in, and they pretend to play dumb.

This meeting had to just be theater because clearly they don’t care about the law or the constitution.
Click to expand...
They don't f***ing care. My rep Armini had a Town Hall back in the summer when HD4420 was on the horizon and she was a horse's ass. An attorney sat down and had a calm discussion with her, pointed out the exact case laws that she was violating and her response was "I don't care. I don't like guns and I want to protect the children, so I am not concerned with what the law states". That's who we are f***ing dealing with. I refused to attend the town hall in person because I would have left in handcuffs if I heard that in real life.
 
p.. said:
Here's a screenshot of the senator speaking. He seemed like he was listening and will go back to work on the concerns raised, but the bill is going to go through.
Click to expand...

My rep listened politely, agreed with some of my points and even said she represented "all her constituents" and wouldn't vote for the house version of the bill. Then she voted for it anyway.
 
pinefd said:
I probably wouldn't have bothered to correct him if he had said 1898, but he said 1998.


Frank
Click to expand...

No, I deserved it. And I did it twice.

But I really am pretty sure it's sometime in 1898. People say 1899 just to be safe. I'd look it up, but I'm sorta busy today. Either way, an AR doesn't quite qualify.
 
Picton said:
No, I deserved it. And I did it twice.

But I really am pretty sure it's sometime in 1898. People say 1899 just to be safe. I'd look it up, but I'm sorta busy today. Either way, an AR doesn't quite qualify.
Click to expand...
MGL "any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899"
USC "manufactured in or before 1898"

Federal law has additional qualifiers but just looking at dates, those are the two definitions
 

Similar threads

Memorial Day 2024
Replies
10
Views
253
crazymjb
crazymjb
NH Gun Grab 2024?
Replies
22
Views
2K
design
design
2024 Paris Olypmics rifle shooting
Replies
3
Views
197
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
1K
StevieP
StevieP
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
669
Zappa
Zappa
Back
Top Bottom