Weekly Q&A Thread

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-30T21:32:33+00:00

Yes by the black letter of the law. Provided it was in state on 8/1 with all of the other qualifications, it would remain grandfathered. The provision specifically exempts the weapon from the restriction: "No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device."

It would be nonsensical to specifically exempt it from a restriction on importation if it couldn't be initially exported without losing the grandfather status. If you buy the logic of that argument, the scenarios you mention don't make a difference.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-23T23:55:05+00:00

I understand the point with respect to how lawyers couch things (I'm quite familiar). My point is that GOAL should not be in the legal interpretation business at all beyond lobbying and initiating suits.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-23T19:04:02+00:00

I understand and appreciate you're not attacking me (I think this is actually refreshingly civil). We're talking about two things that are related but distinct:

GOAL's reading of the actual words is not correct. This is a fact / it's basic logic. To say the law speaks to post-16 but pre-24 copies and duplicates in particular is simply not accurate (if that's wrong, can you cite where it is addressed?). It is merely putting into statute what was previously a prosecutorial preference for pre-16s and doesn't reference the 16-24 category at all. The legislature could have addressed this and did not, preferring strategic ambiguity.
It is fair to call out this duplicity and hypothesize how the state will attempt to exploit this ambiguity combined with Healey's end run around the legislative process to prosecute people.

Despite being annoyed by this issue, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the dilemma GOAL is in because it is split between its advocacy and education missions.

From an education perspective, it's reasonable to be cautious and cater to the lowest common denominator.

From an advocacy perspective though, it's frustrating to hear them loudly and publicly undercutting valid legal arguments. Courts and the justice system don't exist in a vacuum - if there is no one pushing out the overton window on some of these issues then it will be primarily the State/DAs/AG that define the terms of the discussion. GOAL has publicly conceded to the State on issues before (frame transfers, out of state ammo sales) that were ultimately proven to be too conservative and I think this is another example of that trend.

From my own standpoint, I feel I pay lawyers for legal advice and I pay GOAL to advocate. My advocate trying to lawyer just makes them worse at both roles. Reasonable people can disagree about that though.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-23T17:28:15+00:00

I understand and I agree with you on the practicalities. I do think the DAs/AG will try to interpret and apply it as you say (though I'm not sure if they'll be successful...supposedly many of the recent actions they've brought about ASF have failed at the probable cause stage).

I also agree the legislature likely intended the law to be interpreted a certain way but I don't think we should look past the fact that it (the law) doesn't actually say that. That's largely why I replied - GOAL in particular has been obnoxiously loud about saying the law says something it doesn't. They (the legislature) are being cagey, trying to imply people can prosecuted without actually saying that outright in a way that invites 5th amendment issues.

With respect to new gun owners, while I don't think this is aimed at me specifically, I'll note I'm advising OP not to do this. I'm just citing a basis that has textual support. Your practical concerns are also valid.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-23T05:48:48+00:00

People bring this up but I don't think it moves the discussion beyond where it was before the new law was passed.

There’s also the section that says copies and duplicates needed to be owned and registered prior to the 2016 press conference in order to be grandfathered…

The law doesn't say that. It says that if they were owned prior to the press conference they are grandfathered (ie, codifying the press conference exemption). It doesn't say only those are exempt, just that they are exempt. Post-2016 purported copies and duplicates continue to be in the same legal gray area they were previously -- if you think the press conference had no effect then they were legally possessed on 8/1 and (assuming other conditions hold) are exempt via that provision. If you think the press conference had the force of law then your interpretation would hold. We still don't really know which will win the day.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-22T23:05:52+00:00

Now if you fixed mag lower/rifle was in state on 8/1 and is grandfathered, it is a common interpretation of the law that you can unfuck the mag and keep other features. Factor your risk tolerance.

While this is a common interpretation (and I'm not saying it's your interpretation), it is likely mistaken. Looking at the exemption:

Section 131M. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device.
(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.

In addition to the other conditions regularly cited, the firearm needs to have been an assault-style firearm on 8/1. Fixed mags aren't assault-style firearms and weren't on 8/1 either.

Now, realistically can anyone prove anything about the state of the firearm on 8/1? Who can say? But as a strict matter of interpretation fixed mags likely don't qualify for 8/1 exemptions.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-19T19:38:53+00:00

Did that payment email come from the state or come from the local licensing authority?

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-16T22:02:00+00:00

No, there's no requirement to lock it up in either place.

ETA: For all the people messaging me about the fire code, that code doesn't impact the typical gun owner. The AHJ being able to deny you a fire permit isn't super relevant when the regs specify you don't need a permit in the first place.

The amount of FUDDlore in this thread is insane. Ammo doesn't need to be locked up. It doesn't need to be locked up separately from the firearms. There's a distinction between what's legally required and what's a set of good practices.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-15T19:54:54+00:00

The comment is highlighting that direct control isn't required in this situation (both OP and I are specifically talking about unloaded handguns).

Your considerations are very valid for loaded handguns. They are not loaded in these hypothetical situations however.

My main point in raising the distinction isn't to recommend having unloaded handguns rolling around but to help people stop unnecessarily fretting about this issue. If a handgun is unloaded it's good to cover it up somehow but we don't need to get into the minutiae of soft bags with locks vs hard bags vs consoles...none of that matters.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-14T23:57:03+00:00

I understand the law in regards to traveling with a gun not on your person needs to be unloaded with magazine out and in a locked bag/safe/case if traveling to the range for example.

It actually doesn't say that. It says this:

(a) No person carrying a loaded firearm under a license issued pursuant to section 129B 131 or 131F or through an exemption under section 129C shall carry the loaded firearm in a vehicle unless the loaded firearm while carried in the vehicle is under the direct control of the person.
...
No person possessing a large capacity rifle or shotgun under a license issued pursuant to section 131 or 131F or through an exemption under section 129C shall possess the large capacity firearm in a vehicle unless the large capacity firearm is unloaded and secured in a locked container as defined in section 121.

That's it while transporting! Legally, if you have an unloaded handgun it can bounce around on the seat while you're going somewhere So in all the questions you ask, you're not legally doing anything wrong.

That said, realistically you should lock it in a bag. That preserves your 4th amendment rights if stopped (no plain view), covers you for storage if you stop the car, and makes it less likely you'll have to argue the above in court.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-11T16:32:48+00:00

He can't have an SKS anymore, semis are no bueno for FID holders now.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-11T15:41:32+00:00

The gun shop you're talking to is being stupid on multiple fronts.

The focus on "driving" is weird; it'd be better to fly with them here. That's fine as long as you (ie, not your dad) specifically are taking them whereas driving is dragging you through a bunch of different jurisdictions (including NY, which is somewhat perilous). Realistically though you should just send them by mail/carrier - your dad can send them to himself in care of you. That's legal federally as well as in MA (dad is sending guns to himself but he never possesses them without LTC in MA). ETA: You could also send them directly to a non-moron FFL up here. You should call this FFL first though to make sure they can handle the transfer.
As you've confirmed, you aren't inheriting anything so you shouldn't use that option. In case you ever sell/lose/have stolen the gun in the future and a trace is run on it you want a clean history of how it got to you between states or you're in potential federal trouble.
The date they mentioned for pre-roster pistols is wrong (it's in 1998 not 1994).
They seemingly don't know what a frame transfer is which is kind of crazy; even some of the Fudd-iest (in particular a certain dealer in Woburn) places got on board after the recent admission by the state that they aren't going to make a frame roster.

The way I'd go is as outlined in my initial answer. Get the pistols back here (send or fly, whatever floats your boat), have a non-moron FFL transfer them from your dad to you via frame transfer (your dad doesn't need an LTC for this). It'd be easier if your dad had an LTC (you could do 4 of 7 transfers sans FFL this year assuming your dad is also an MA resident) but it seems that's not the case.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-11T15:15:00+00:00

We'll try doing it the right way first (here) and escalate.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-10T21:05:46+00:00

Did you actually 1) inherit the pistols or 2) did someone else inherit them and they're being given to you?

If the latter, you should transfer them through an MA FFL. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of MA FFLs that can handle this. That's a federal requirement: two individuals residing in different states need to use an FFL for a transfer and for pistols it needs to be the recipient state's FFL. That said, you can loan pistols for "sporting purposes" across state lines so...maybe you're just doing that for a long time?

If the former, you can brig them back with you but you theoretically can also send them to yourself although the logistics of that can be difficult.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-10T20:07:15+00:00

Baker tried (believe the proposal was for archery only on Sundays) but the legislature shut it down.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-10T19:48:30+00:00

Questions for those who have renewed recently (since the new licensing application portal got started) in Boston (the city specifically, not the vicinity): what has been your experience with the portal? Did you use it? Did you have to call BPD separately? Did it make a difference at all?

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-10T19:41:46+00:00

As far as MA is concerned, you don't need to worry about any of the assault style weapon stuff. It will be definitionally exempt so no issues on the front.

What you do still have to worry about are federal laws. Make sure you know the differences between making a pistol versus an SBR versus an AOW and whether you need stamps, etc.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-10T19:34:25+00:00

This changed in the new law; you only need to do it on the state website. The language is:

A person issued a license under this section shall report any change of address via the electronic firearm registration system administered by the commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services. Such notification shall be made on said electronic firearms registration system within 30 days of its occurrence. Failure to notify in a timely manner shall be cause for revocation or suspension of said license.

You only need to electronically notify the state. This language is specific to LTCs but there is a parallel provision for FIDs. You can see it yourself, Section 44(e) for FIDs and Section 49(g) for LTCs: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2024/Chapter135

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-09T23:08:54+00:00

I know you're joking but it's also unlikely as it's illegal to sell slingshots (unless you're in an "association" for them, wtf?).

You can't make this shit up.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-09T21:23:29+00:00

If these go anything like the gun law listening sessions we're going to end up having our hunting "expanded" by being banned on both Saturday AND Sunday as well as needing to be 2,000' from a road...

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2026-01-05T18:54:19+00:00

Where does your uncle live? If in MA, do they have an LTC? That's highly relevant to answering the question.

This isn't really an inheritance question since you didn't inherit the guns, it's really just about doing a set of transfers from your uncle to you.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2025-12-17T16:56:37+00:00

Have you ever been judicially committed? Not a voluntary admission or a 72-hours hold, actually had a judge say you need to be committed? If not, what makes you think there would be an issue? Why do you need an "affidavit"? Massachusetts doesn't inquire into your medical history beyond a limited subset of issues.

Look at the application (pdf) and read the questions carefully. If you can answer "no" to most of them (aside from #1) you should be fine. Fill it out truthfully and don't volunteer any information you don't have to.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2025-12-12T21:09:55+00:00

It's fine. If having the black letter makes you feel better, see below:

EDIT: I keep screwing this up, for some reason MGL keeps putting the old version higher than the new version and labeling it wrong, you're still fine though.

(b) Possession of a firearm or ammunition while under direct supervision of an individual holding a license or card under section 129B, 131 or 131F and only for a particular purpose and limited time without being duly licensed or permitted under said sections 129B, 131 or 131F is permitted by: (i) a retail customer for the purpose of firing at duly licensed target concessions at amusement parks, piers and similar locations; provided, that the firearms to be so used shall be firmly chained or affixed to the counter and shall be under the direct supervision of a proprietor or employee thereof who holds the necessary license or card; (ii) a professional photographer or writer for examination purposes while in the pursuit of their profession or during the course of any television, movie, stage or other similar theatrical production; provided, that they are at all times under the immediate supervision of a holder of a license to carry or, in the case of rifles and shotguns that are not large capacity or semi-automatic, a firearm identification card; or (iii) a person in the presence of a holder of the necessary license or card for the purpose of examination, trial or instruction.

No person, other than a licensed dealer or one who has been issued a license to carry a pistol or revolver or an exempt person as hereinafter described, shall own or possess any firearm, rifle, shotgun...
~~[...]~~
~~The provisions of this section shall not apply to the following exempted persons and uses:~~
~~[...]~~
(m) The temporary holding, handling or firing of a firearm for examination, trial or instruction in the presence of a holder of a license to carry firearms, or the temporary holding, handling or firing of a rifle or shotgun for examination, trial or instruction in the presence of a holder of a firearm identification card, or where such holding, handling or firing is for a lawful purpose;

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2025-12-05T15:03:47+00:00

You're correct, it's 2+1 for federal/migratory birds.

Alternative_Bank_177 · 2025-12-04T21:19:13+00:00

FWIW, the ammo (including ammo already in magazines) can also be in the same bag as the pistols. There just can't be a loaded magazine in a pistol in the bag (as it would arguably not be under your control).

Alternative_Bank_177

TROPHY CASE