No more private AR 'copycat'' transfers in MA?

[Drix]

As long as it says she reserves the right to alter or amend the guidance it doesn't matter what the **** the guidance says.

 

[EJFudd]

As long as it says she reserves the right to alter or amend the guidance it doesn't matter what the **** the guidance says.

Exactly right. It's all a bad joke. This isn't how "law" is supposed to work in America... but then again, this ain't law.

 

[JGstunt]

Read that very slowly.... it is saying transfers before 7/20 wont be prosecuted... in now way does it mean a gun transferred pre 7/20 can be transferred to you now... and I know if I were to risk it you'd have to pay me more than double....

If you 'obtained' the gun prior to 7/20 then you can legally posses, own or transfer it ...

 

[not new guy]

Read that very slowly.... it is saying transfers before 7/20 wont be prosecuted... in now way does it mean a gun transferred pre 7/20 can be transferred to you now... and I know if I were to risk it you'd have to pay me more than double....

I think the opposite interpretation is definitely the more reasonable of the two given how it's phrased, but that of course is worth exactly nothing in the face of this shifting tyranny.

 

[jasons]

If you 'obtained' the gun prior to 7/20 then you can legally posses, own or transfer it ...

Sure, just like she said you can transfer it to an out of state dealer or to a police buyback program.

 

[Horrible]

As long as it says she reserves the right to alter or amend the guidance it doesn't matter what the **** the guidance says.

Exactly right. It's all a bad joke. This isn't how "law" is supposed to work in America... but then again, this ain't law.

Correct and correct. 7/20 date is not codified into the MGLs. Take that for what it is worth. There is no legislation by FAQ.

 

[jjm403]

This is such a grey area its not even funny. will it ever get better??

 

[Lxpony]

Correct and correct. 7/20 date is not codified into the MGLs. Take that for what it is worth. There is no legislation by FAQ.

Good point. If I were to find a FFL in mass that would have the balls to sell me a brand new AR15 tomorrow, show me where in the MGL it states that transaction is illegal? why would anyone assume they will be prosecuted if they aren't breaking any documented "on the books" law?

 

[oldguy68]

When Hillery gets in office. All will be better!

 

[Maui5150]

Since I am in the market, have been doing a ton of reading calling and asking.

General consensus

The Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016.

Think of these guns as Pre-Guidance. Just as we can purchase a pre-ban gun that already was legally in the State, the same is attached to guns. We almost need a bunch of new labels, Pre-Ban, Pre-Guidance, etc. If the AGO intent was to stop FTF transfers of Post-Ban : Pre-Guidance guns, then it should have been stated. Should have read something like "The Guidance will not be applied to possession and ownership of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016. Only transfers out of state where legally allowed shall be permitted."

If my interpretation is wrong, I think the AGO would have a tough time trying to enforce something where other pre-ban guns that were legally in the state can be transferred FTF. This not even to address the area of her interpretation.

This really seems directed at the FFLs, stopping new guns from being sold by dealers post July 20

 

[Horrible]

Since I am in the market, have been doing a ton of reading calling and asking.

General consensus

The Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016.

Think of these guns as Pre-Guidance. Just as we can purchase a pre-ban gun that already was legally in the State, the same is attached to guns. We almost need a bunch of new labels, Pre-Ban, Pre-Guidance, etc. If the AGO intent was to stop FTF transfers of Post-Ban : Pre-Guidance guns, then it should have been stated. Should have read something like "The Guidance will not be applied to possession and ownership of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016. Only transfers out of state where legally allowed shall be permitted."

If my interpretation is wrong, I think the AGO would have a tough time trying to enforce something where other pre-ban guns that were legally in the state can be transferred FTF. This not even to address the area of her interpretation.

This really seems directed at the FFLs, stopping new guns from being sold by dealers post July 20

Read the last line of the Queen Maura's decree again.

 

[jasons]

Since I am in the market, have been doing a ton of reading calling and asking.

General consensus

The Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016.

Think of these guns as Pre-Guidance. Just as we can purchase a pre-ban gun that already was legally in the State, the same is attached to guns. We almost need a bunch of new labels, Pre-Ban, Pre-Guidance, etc. If the AGO intent was to stop FTF transfers of Post-Ban : Pre-Guidance guns, then it should have been stated. Should have read something like "The Guidance will not be applied to possession and ownership of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016. Only transfers out of state where legally allowed shall be permitted."

If my interpretation is wrong, I think the AGO would have a tough time trying to enforce something where other pre-ban guns that were legally in the state can be transferred FTF. This not even to address the area of her interpretation.

This really seems directed at the FFLs, stopping new guns from being sold by dealers post July 20

You're trying to make sense of the senseless, and the "general consensus" is irrelevant.

 

[EJFudd]

Read the last line of the Queen Maura's decree again.

Yep.

You're trying to make sense of the senseless, and the "general consensus" is irrelevant.

Yep.

 

[CMEBoston]

If you 'obtained' the gun prior to 7/20 then you can legally posses, own or transfer it ...

But it's "illegal" for someone to have one transferred to them after 7/20.. This theory on her reinterpretation is flawed... So, you first...

In actuality none of it is "illegal" wgt common law that's been in practice for over 20 years

 

[CMEBoston]

Since I am in the market, have been doing a ton of reading calling and asking.

General consensus

The Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016.

Think of these guns as Pre-Guidance. Just as we can purchase a pre-ban gun that already was legally in the State, the same is attached to guns. We almost need a bunch of new labels, Pre-Ban, Pre-Guidance, etc. If the AGO intent was to stop FTF transfers of Post-Ban : Pre-Guidance guns, then it should have been stated. Should have read something like "The Guidance will not be applied to possession and ownership of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016. Only transfers out of state where legally allowed shall be permitted."

If my interpretation is wrong, I think the AGO would have a tough time trying to enforce something where other pre-ban guns that were legally in the state can be transferred FTF. This not even to address the area of her interpretation.

This really seems directed at the FFLs, stopping new guns from being sold by dealers post July 20

You're interpretation is based in both desperation and false hope. Her goal is to rid the state of Killy guns, what makes you think she's ok with new owners getting said Killy guns after her guidance? You gotta think like a tyrant... Come on people.

 

[CMEBoston]

You're trying to make sense of the senseless, and the "general consensus" is irrelevant.

Put much more eloquently.... But yup, this.

 

[Mountain]

The Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016.

Damn, and to think of all the neutered AR's I have built. If I had waited for this statement I could have retained the evil features.

Oh wait, so what about possession after 7/20? No evil features other than allotment, so no assault weapons in possession? I'm so confused...

 

[CMEBoston]

it means if you possessed, transferred or owned one prior to the 20th YOU won't be prosecuted. It's not written for the gun itself it's written for us serfs... A gun can't "own or transfer" itself..


ETA: I hate this woman, I hate we have to even debate this stuff....

 

[W.E.C]

(Not so ) patiently waiting and checking every post for the news that lil ms. Alfred e. Newman was over ruled, and sanctioned .

please hold the redundant comments to a minimum , it's like wasting ammo.
hold your fire till you get a target.

 

[AntiHippie]

You're interpretation is based in both desperation and false hope. Her goal is to rid the state of Killy guns, what makes you think she's ok with new owners getting said Killy guns after her guidance? You gotta think like a tyrant... Come on people.

Her goal was to make her bones with the hopeful Communist party running for the presidency. Nothing more. This was a 'look at me' move.

 

[CMEBoston]

Her goal was to make her bones with the hopeful Communist party running for the presidency. Nothing more. This was a 'look at me' move.

I won't disagree with you there but she certainly did screw things up royally. My point is if you are trying to stay within the text of her poorly written directive because you want a scary black rifle you are on a fools errand.

If you want a scary black rifle in there someone willing to sell you a scary black rifle then by all means buy the scary black rifle. We all know you would be within the law to do so..... But thinking mara will approve because of an arbitrary date is just silly.

 

[AntiHippie]

I won't disagree with you there but she certainly did screw things up royally. My point is if you are trying to stay within the text of her poorly written directive because you want a scary black rifle you are on a fools errand.

If you want a scary black rifle in there someone willing to sell you a scary black rifle then by all means buy the scary black rifle. We all know you would be within the law to do so..... But thinking mara will approve because of an arbitrary date is just silly.

I agree!

 

[babygorilla]

Read that very slowly.... it is saying transfers before 7/20 wont be prosecuted... in now way does it mean a gun transferred pre 7/20 can be transferred to you now... and I know if I were to risk it you'd have to pay me more than double....

You should read it even slower then. The risk is to the transferee, not the transferer.

 

[bill o]

You guys are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Maui5150]

You should read it even slower then. The risk is to the transferee, not the transferer.

I definitely agree with you there. For a person, whether they sold an enumerated gun before 7/20 i.e. they did it 5 years ago and worried about look back on a crime they had no idea they were committing because all laws and rules made it appear it was legal - guidance seems to definitely indicate they are safe.

For the person who bought before 7/20 and then sells? It also seems to say that if the transfer an enumerated gun which was obtained before 7/20, they are currently covered.

What seems at risk, would be potentially the buyer.

I can see where many think the buyer is at risk. I can also see where others would say no, the gun is "pre-Guidance" and was legal and like the pre-bans, if they were in the state legally before, they can still be FTF.

Regardless, it is a complete contradictory cluster.

 

[jasons]

I definitely agree with you there. For a person, whether they sold an enumerated gun before 7/20 i.e. they did it 5 years ago and worried about look back on a crime they had no idea they were committing because all laws and rules made it appear it was legal - guidance seems to definitely indicate they are safe.

For the person who bought before 7/20 and then sells? It also seems to say that if the transfer an enumerated gun which was obtained before 7/20, they are currently covered.

What seems at risk, would be potentially the buyer.

I can see where many think the buyer is at risk. I can also see where others would say no, the gun is "pre-Guidance" and was legal and like the pre-bans, if they were in the state legally before, they can still be FTF.

Regardless, it is a complete contradictory cluster.

This "pre-guidance" thing isn't a real thing so get that out of your brain housing group. The difference with this crap and the pre-ban concept is that the pre-ban concept is actually based in law. None of this 7/20 BS has any legal basis - it's just empty promises designed to placate and distract people who should know better than to trust the AG's office.

Bottom line, if a gun really is an "assault weapon" then 131M applies.

 

[Mass-diver]

This "pre-guidance" thing isn't a real thing so get that out of your brain housing group. The difference with this crap and the pre-ban concept is that the pre-ban concept is actually based in law. None of this 7/20 BS has any legal basis - it's just empty promises designed to placate and distract people who should know better than to trust the AG's office.

Bottom line, if a gun really is an "assault weapon" then 131M applies.

While I agree that the 7/20 has no legal basis (it's obviously not in the law), if an MA gun owner is trying to evaluate his or her risk/exposure, the chances of getting jammed up likely go up if you are buying/selling ARs post 7/20, even though legally, you are not really much worse off than buying/selling any post '98 AR.

 

[jasons]

While I agree that the 7/20 has no legal basis (it's obviously not in the law), if an MA gun owner is trying to evaluate his or her risk/exposure, the chances of getting jammed up likely go up if you are buying/selling ARs post 7/20, even though legally, you are not really much worse off than buying/selling any post '98 AR.

Sure. Sort of irrelevant now though, it's not like we can go back in time.

 

[bostonhockey]

so has anyone transferred an AR post 7/20 that was obtained pre 7/20 had any issues? I would think someone would have spoken up by now if they had some issues doing this. I have a spare AR that I want to private sale and 2 different gun shops have told me its legal, 2 others have told me its not. I just don't know what to do at this point

 

[92G]

first step would be to not accept legal advice from a gun shop. also if they claim it's legal then they should be willing to do the FFL transfer for you.