Boston globe Mill article

Broc said:
Dont sh*t your pants, bro.

No one can prove you bought a LOWER + UPPER separate at the same time.
Click to expand...
depends upon how far the vendetta process will go.
plus, the way it works - it is not THEM who will have to prove you did it - it will be up to YOU to prove that you did not.
we all here are playing a game with, potentially, some stupid prizes. and it is still worth it, the game.
just may get somewhat more realistic and closer to what it was back then when red jackets did it all the same here last time.
 
namedpipes said:
So, in the past 8 years, three of the 723 Mass based FFLs committed a crime.

Man, the streets must be red with blood down there in Mass...

Stay safe, men and ladies of NES!
Click to expand...
and one of them must have been that Tyngsboro cop who owned Hitman Firearms
 
Warm_Garand said:
Are you asking me what I would do if I was them?

Because I can think of a lot of things that I would do if I was them.

That is my starting point.

Are you going to pretend that they have no power and could't complicate your life if they only wanted to?

How big a boat would you have to buy a lawyer before you decided: F*ck It, I'm moving out of the state OR I'm dumping half of my gun collection?

I have a number. Do you?

The question is does harassing people who have acquired guns they don't personally approve of A) serve their political interests, and B) do they have the political will.

What is your answer to those questions?
Click to expand...
My answer is that I don't know what you're talking about. Who is going to do what to buyers who haven't violated any laws? How would the state "harass" them?
 
Broc said:
Dont sh*t your pants, bro.

No one can prove you bought a LOWER + UPPER separate at the same time.
Click to expand...

I'm not, so don't assume there bro. I like revolvers much more than semi-auto handguns and I am definitely not a fan of Glocks. Just curious how far Maura might push this now that she is queen of the state. And it would also not surprise me if some dumbass used a credit card to purchase both at the same time, or close thereto.
 
Woodsloafer said:
I'm not, so don't assume there bro. I like revolvers much more than semi-auto handguns and I am definitely not a fan of Glocks. Just curious how far Maura might push this now that she is queen of the state. And it would also not surprise me if some dumbass used a credit card to purchase both at the same time, or close thereto.
Click to expand...
Bro, are you sure you are not sh*tting your pants? (LOL, jk)

No one is going to start searching customer CC transactions details.
 
kalash said:
How would the state "harass" them?
Click to expand...
do an IRS audit on all of them, for beginning? who knows, there are always multitude of ways for a government tyranny to be applied, when/if it gets really politically important to them.
like all those japanese citizens who were scooped like chicken and sent to concentration camps at ww2 times. did not take too long nor was too difficult.

like your avatar alone makes you a potential russian spy - go prove you`re not.
 
Broc said:
Bro, are you sure you are not sh*tting your pants? (LOL, jk)

No one is going to start searching customer CC transactions details.
Click to expand...

They don't have review a bunch of CC transactions, they just have to review the dealer's records and see who bought what and then they might review respective transactions to see what was purchased at that same time to determine what the intent was. Hopefully nothing comes of it, and probably won't, but it would suck to be the example Maura might want to set. Even if it gets thrown out in court, that person's life may be f***ed up for a while.
 
Broc said:
Dont sh*t your pants, bro.

No one can prove you bought a LOWER + UPPER separate at the same time.
Click to expand...

I started to type out a response, but realized that I would be accused of "giving Maura ideas".

Serious question. What's your IQ?

You're sprawled across threads accusing people of being silly "pant-shitters", and yet it's clear (to me at least) that you don't have a f***ing clue.

Your ideas might sound viable on a bar stool surrounded by equally stupid people, but they won't sound nearly as deft, say, sitting across the desk from an actual investigator conducting an interview holding a 4473 that you signed and dated.

I don't think anybody needs to "shit their pants", but if I had a close friend who likes to play fast and loose with MA law or who gets sloppy about storage requirements or checking items for their manufacturing dates I'd probably tell him to wire his shit a little tighter--like right NOW--before it gets pushed in.

Does that sound like bad advise to you?
 
Woodsloafer said:
Just curious how far Maura might push this now that she is queen of the state.
Click to expand...
Push what? Her various "re-imaginings" of actual longstanding MA law?

I've said it before and I'll say it until someone proves me wrong: Maura is going to let the MA legislature do her dirty work... punishing us for whatever she wants to punish us for. The legislature has already declared their intent... and Maura will sign anything they put on her desk. Isn't that enough?
 
Warm_Garand said:
Ah. The "These aren't my pants" defense.

Cunning.
Click to expand...
Idk what I'm defending. You have yet to explain what you think is going to happen to people who haven't broken any laws. You just sit there yelling "the end is near, repent!" over and over again. What, specifically, are people supposed to be afraid of?
 
paul73 said:
depends upon how far the vendetta process will go.
plus, the way it works - it is not THEM who will have to prove you did it - it will be up to YOU to prove that you did not.
we all here are playing a game with, potentially, some stupid prizes. and it is still worth it, the game.
just may get somewhat more realistic and closer to what it was back then when red jackets did it all the same here last time.
Click to expand...
As to proving "you bought", the state will have to get past "it shall be unlawful for a purvey of firearms" when you are not one. The buyer's exposure is failing to E-FA10 the gun once they "build" it. It would be a stretch to try to get the buyer on "conspiracy to commit an unfair and deceptive trade practice against himself", and certainly require considerable analytical strain.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
As to proving "you bought", the state will have to get past "it shall be unlawful for a purvey of firearms" when you are not one. The buyer's exposure is failing to E-FA10 the gun once they "build" it. It would be a stretch to try to get the buyer on "conspiracy to commit an unfair and deceptive trade practice against himself", and certainly require considerable analytical strain.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, the eFA10 is a legal "must" once the gun is assembled.

As a thought exercise, I'm not sure how anyone would go about establishing when a gun was assembled and capable of firing a shot to prove guilt. Also, the penalty for a first offense of not filing an eFA10 is a fine and the statute of limitations is six years.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
As to proving "you bought", the state will have to get past "it shall be unlawful for a purvey of firearms" when you are not one. The buyer's exposure is failing to E-FA10 the gun once they "build" it. It would be a stretch to try to get the buyer on "conspiracy to commit an unfair and deceptive trade practice against himself", and certainly require considerable analytical strain.
Click to expand...
i do not think it will be that angle, at least not immediately...

it is more realistic to expect an assault there from either taxation of licensing standpoint, or both.
licensing is an extremely powerful tool, and very profitable. plus you can put all you want on top of it, from mental check-ups to rectal exams.

like it was always so interesting to me why they only demand an eye exam to be allowed to drive a car. it is such a lost revenue stream. there could have been a lot more done there, and at an excellent profit.
 
Last edited:
Reptile said:
Marsha will send in her goon squad and arrest the dealers selling “illegal guns”.
Click to expand...

Not going to happen in the current environment and SC rulings. That can happen when the MA Legislature takes up sweeping gun "reform" bills that get passed and all this crap becomes law. THEN Maura will send in the goons. Though depending on what the legislature enacts, it could be put under legal scrutiny pretty quick. As has been said a lot in these threads, the current laws of the land are not actually good for the gun grabbers though it will take years to work itself out.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
As to proving "you bought", the state will have to get past "it shall be unlawful for a purvey of firearms" when you are not one. The buyer's exposure is failing to E-FA10 the gun once they "build" it. It would be a stretch to try to get the buyer on "conspiracy to commit an unfair and deceptive trade practice against himself", and certainly require considerable analytical strain.
Click to expand...

I defer to your expertise--but has ATF ever asserted that placing an upper on a lower can be considered "manufacturing"?

The answer, of course, is YES.

And if ATF considers the simple act of placing an upper on a lower to be "manufacturing", why can't the Commonwealth of MA consider it "manufacturing"?

And lastly--what is the legal penalty for "manufacturing" an "assault weapon" in MA?
 

Similar threads

LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
351
M1911
M1911
“The mill“ in Littleton
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
chris_1001
chris_1001
Boston Police Officer Shot
Replies
21
Views
769
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
This hurt my brain reading this "article" on an AR-15
Replies
14
Views
577
Broc
Broc
I love this article.
Replies
0
Views
176
rogersmithiii
R
Back
Top Bottom