+1. It's time for the NRA to bring the fight here. Coakley and Patrick have shown absolutely no respect for the law-abiding firearms community or the 2nd amendment.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
+1. It's time for the NRA to bring the fight here. Coakley and Patrick have shown absolutely no respect for the law-abiding firearms community or the 2nd amendment.
Mass-diver
NES Member
Yup, I think I started a thread a while ago title "Where's the NRA?" I guess they give some support to GOAL. But, again I'm not really interested in my money (as a member of these groups) going toward political candidates. We are never going to win that way here in MA. I want my money to go to some smart lawyers that can challenge this BS!
As I've said in this thread, the supreme court has ruled that we can have handguns in our homes for self defense. The fact that I can't buy the pistol that my local cops carries is a ban, it should be challenged. There are court cases in progress in other states against similar bans.
Yeah, I remember the thread. I agree 100% that supporting candidates is never going to work here. The courts are our only chance, and even that's going to be a tough fight. I am ready to try though.
Why does everything have to turn into "bash the NRA" on here? Every Time there's a thread complaining about how convoluted Mass laws/regs are, people inevitably blame the NRA. Don't we have GOAL in this Commonwealth? No one blames them do they? Fighting the state is always a hard battle and blaming groups isn't gonna change anything. It gets a little old to have the same people watch the state burn to the ground and say "someone should do something" but not do anything themselves.
We have GOAL and they do a great job, but lets be honest, the state is corrupt to its core and its gonna take a lot of effort to get things changed.
I know people like to use the NRA for a whipping boy but really, how about worrying about getting things changed at the grassroots?
We have GOAL and they do a great job, but lets be honest, the state is corrupt to its core and its gonna take a lot of effort to get things changed.
I know people like to use the NRA for a whipping boy but really, how about worrying about getting things changed at the grassroots?
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Just because it isn't happening as fast as you want, doesn't mean it won't happen here. Using the courts is going to take DECADES to role back all of this crap. The legal system doesn't turn fast at all. Those challenges you see elsewhere become precedent for challenges here and vice versa. There is a national movement to challenge infringing state laws through the courts and MA is not being passed by on this.
Mass-diver
NES Member
Good to hear. It just makes me jealous when I hear other placed already have the ball rolling. Lots of people think that the AG might even role over and play dead to a serious challenge. So DECADES of fighting might not even be necessary.
And, in terms of the NRA, my family and I have given big bucks to this organization for years and year. I'm still a proud member, but they avoid MA like the plaque. I know they give GOAL support behind the scenes, but really, we are ground zero for gun rights, they should bring the fight here.
Personally, I think that the NRA should take a back seat in MA. Their open presence would hurt, not help.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
Considering their current record on challenges via the judiciary, I would have to agree to some extent. Though they have actually been doing some good work with CalGuns Foundation in CA, and I hold out hope they get their act together in the near future given apparently they have cleared house on a lot of the problem attorneys. But the TX challenge re: 18-20 yros and what they are billing as Heller II (which is an AWB case) is not giving me the warm and fuzzies.
Joe G
NES Member
Going back to the OP, I'm trying to understand how this sale could take place. In order to make a sale, the dealer would have to have the firearm in inventory, or place an order with his distributor for that particular model. Is the AG expecting that the dealer won't be careful enough when obtaining inventory?
It isn't unusual for dealers to have firearms and magazines in stock that can be purchased by Law Enforcement but not by the average citizen. As to whether that dealer is willing to transfer them to non-LEO's is where this becomes possible.
Mass-diver
NES Member
The moonbats are already 100% against us. It's not like we are ever going to win some PR battle. We need money to fund a legal challenge.
Many dealers also have guns in stock that they intend to sell out of state. (ETA: Those that are set up to do so legally of course! We were talking about how dealers would have things not on the EOPS list but still be legal - this was meant to be read in that context, so AG office...don't go reading in to that please!)
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,821
FIFY
Some small challenges, some large and a lot of challenges that will require defendants and not plaintiffs. This last one is indicative of how much of a mess MA laws are.
This is not just an indictment of the content/intention of the law but also the quality of the legal prose. This is a legislature that pumps out quantity over quality. Additionally, there is a judicial branch that is completely autonomous of case law and judicial standards common in the rest of the country. Heller/McDonald allows us to reset a host of REALLY BAD case law, but there is a host of other REALLY BAD case law and legal opinion here in MA that is completely irrespective of the 2nd Amendment.
The more we get involved in cases here in MA, the more we are discovering that there are some major deficiencies in adhering to constitutional principles laid out in the constitution and the 4th, 5th, 14th amendments, et al; A lot of which is going to require standing by those criminally accused to fix as these issues are creeping up in criminal procedure and other areas not readily addressable via pro active litigation.
They are outsiders and I've personally seen the reaction of MA legistraitors to an NRA Rep testifying and it wasn't kind.
In MA in particular, citizens are better served by having NRA "behind the curtains".
Also keep in mind the quote that GSG referenced this AM where a SJC judge admitted that "we don't abide by the US Constitution or USSC rulings" (paraphrased)!!!
![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
Nothing in MA courts will be easy when those at the highest court in the Commiewealth flaunt Fed Law and USSC rulings!!
You got that right Mark !!!
![[thumbsup]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/044.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbsup]")
His past HAS been very damaging to gun owners in this state. I can't believe anyone would still do business with him after all he has done.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Anything for a buck is his favorite saying. Putting profit over the rights of gun owners in this state is unforgivable.
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
My point exactly!
You know what I say?? If the Patrick administration will be kind enough to generate a nice TEST CASE for us by prosecuting Joe Dealer for a felony for selling a Sig with Walnut grips, more power to us! We will eventually get this case to overturn the entire EOPS/AG reg BS.
I say, somebody with deep pockets, sell the rat the gun!
I say, somebody with deep pockets, sell the rat the gun!
You want to fund Joe Dealers legal fee's and pay them for the down time if their shop gets shut down?!
To Halfcocked, if he was a troll, then why has my phone been ringing off the hook?
Well, I would give what I can afford to GOAL to fund their defense. That isn't much, but I expect that others have deeper pockets. Anyway, if a dealer does get busted, I hope the funds are raised to fight this properly.
Last edited:
Mass-diver
NES Member
Looks this we are back to my point, the NRA gives millions to buy legislators - how about some funds that could actually have a huge impact on gun regulation?
Last time the AG tried to go after a dealer for violating the reg (not the EPOS law IIRC), the AG no showed in court. I'm not sure how motivated Martha is to get into a drawn out legal battle over regs that clearly violate Heller (if I can have a gun in my house, you can't ban me from buying the pistol my local PD carries by labeling it UNSAFE). No way that wins in court.
If/when a Joe Dealer get's caught they would need a 6 figure disposable income to fight this. That right there is a bad business decision. The AG reg's were in place before the Heller decision, so I am not sure if that decision would apply here.
The NRA won't do that.
This thread getting to post #144 is a bunch of nattering.
Mass-diver
NES Member
Regulations similar to the AGs are being challenged across the nation in the wake of Heller.
Truth is the AG regs don't even really hurt dealers, it's the consumer that get the shaft. There are certainly some dealers completely happy to keep selling us 10 year old glocks for $700.
Did they force you to pay $700 for a 10 year old Glock?
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Other than that, I agree with you. The dealers have little incentive in
getting the regs removed because they are more or less all constrained to the same
pool of new and used guns they can sell, and people who want guns will still buy
something... although it easily could be argued that people would buy MORE guns if
the "blockade" wasn't in place.
Although, it also does f**k them up on consignments. There are guns they can
never put on consignment because of the regs, too... so for the shops that do those,
they are getting boned by the regs as well, because they typically won't take in
a gun that they can't show paper for if it isn't compliant. Or they can take those guns in, but
only move them on Gunbroker, and a GB sale is a pain in the ass compared to turning it around
in the store.
-Mike
Did they force you to pay $700 for a 10 year old Glock?
Other than that, I agree with you. The dealers have little incentive in
getting the regs removed because they are more or less all constrained to the same
pool of new and used guns they can sell, and people who want guns will still buy
something... although it easily could be argued that people would buy MORE guns if
the "blockade" wasn't in place.
Although, it also does f**k them up on consignments. There are guns they can
never put on consignment because of the regs, too... so for the shops that do those,
they are getting boned by the regs as well, because they typically won't take in
a gun that they can't show paper for if it isn't compliant. Or they can take those guns in, but
only move them on Gunbroker, and a GB sale is a pain in the ass compared to turning it around
in the store.
-Mike
The regs absolutely hurt dealers in MA. There's any number of threads asking "which non-compliant handgun do you want" and I know there are some I would have bought by now if they were easier to find.
Similar threads
