Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito signed a bill banning bump stocks and trigger cranks for firearms in November. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security put this legislation into effect, and released a notice Thursday asking residents to transfer custody of any firearms prohibited under this legislation to the police.

The notice allows recipients a 90-day grace period, according to the letter by EOPSS Secretary Daniel Bennett. Possession of any prohibited items after Feb. 1 “will expose the owner to criminal prosecution,” Bennett wrote.

Bennett’s letter was addressed to licensed firearms holders and notified owners of the new legislation which would prohibit them from possessing specific add-ons to firearms. The letter also provided definitions of the banned objects.

The law defines a bump stock as “any device for a weapon that increases the rate of fire achievable with such weapon by using energy from the recoil of the weapon to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.”

In addition to banning bump stocks, the bill made it illegal to own another attachment known as a trigger crank because of a similar threat posed by its availability.

After the Feb. 1 deadline, the bump stocks must be transferred to police custody where they will be destroyed.

Massachusetts will become one of the only states to ban the possession of bump stocks after the deadly shooting in Las Vegas in last October, according to Bennett’s letter.

Rachel Cohen, 41, of the South End, said she supports stricter gun laws like this measure in an effort to prevent future mass shootings.

“The Vegas shooting really calls gun regulations into question,” Cohen said. “The shooter was clearly mentally unstable, yet our government allowed him to buy over 40 guns. No one should be able to buy that many guns. No one needs anywhere close to that many guns, but they sold them to him anyway and there’s the problem with our system.”

While the legislation will not be implemented until February, critics have voiced concerns over the logistics and legality of the mandate being presented to owners of these firearm devices.

Darrell Jones, 47, of Dorchester, said he believes gun owners will argue for their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves with personal firearms.

“Safety’s important, no doubt,” Jones said. “But with situations like this, you’re always going to have those people who will argue that possessing their own firearm will keep them safer that disarming others ever will.”

The Gun Owners’ Action League explained in a statement that they viewed the option to comply with this legislation as “unconstitutional.”

“At this time, GOAL is weighing options as to what is the best course of action going forward,” the release stated. “In our opinion, this is an illegal and unconstitutional taking of property without compensation by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.”

However, anti-gun advocates have supported this legislation, considering it as a move in the right direction in terms of gun safety. Carol Coakley, the office coordinator at Massachusetts Peace Action, said a there is a middle ground position that would counter those who are skeptical of the implementation of the bill.

“There certainly is a gray area there,” Coakley said. “Yet, we often have to weigh these concerns and these rights against safety, and in this case, I certainly think it’s a safety issue.”

Coakley explained her stance on the issue of firearm regulation, and said that in her opinion, the case for add-ons such as bump stocks and trigger cranks is hard to justify.

“I absolutely favor [this legislation] because I see no possible reason why anyone would want that in hunting or in killing people or that sort of thing,” Coakley said. “I don’t see why people would need it. [This legislation] is a step in the right direction and I think we’ll save a few lives.”

Benjamin Long, 36, of North End, said he thinks the banning of bump stocks will improve safety in Boston.

“The less guns on the street, the better, in my opinion,” Long said. “There’s no reason people should have access to the kind of dangerous firearms they have today, not for hunting or protection or whatever they claim they’re buying them for.”

Hannah Schoenbaum contributed to the reporting of this article.