Calling on GOAL and Comm2A: Reaction to 2013 "Enhancement" to MA firearms laws

[Bull27]

I did not it see it...

Am I not reading this correctly?? More than 10 rounds, no matter when it was acquired=disposal. Mags that hold no more than 10 rounds and acquired prior to ban = OK

SECTION 24. Said section 131M of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in line 3, the word “1994.” and inserting in place thereof the following words:- 1994; or (ii) a large capacity feeding device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition; or (iii) a large capacity feeding device that such person lawfully possessed before the effective date of this act that has a capacity of, or that can readily be restored or converted to accept, more than seven but no more than ten rounds of ammunition, where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition

"Any large capacity feeding device that has or can readily be restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of this act must be sold or otherwise lawfully disposed of within one year of the act’s effective date. Such large capacity feeding devices may only be sold or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons."

According to my interpretation it says nothing about disposing of magazines with a 10 round capacity or less. It's all circular legal bullshit so who knows.

 

[BigDaddyAl]

Thats a great post couple comments though:

-10 round mags that are owned prior to the enactment of this law would be grandfathered. However, anything 10+ would have to be destroyed or turned in after the "grace" period. No?

That is how I read it.

-I also believe that if "reasonable time" is given to turn in illegal items (10+ mags) from the time new laws are enacted, that does not evoke ex post facto.

I'm not very familiar with the case law surrounding ex post facto laws, but I can't recall any cases that involved property becoming illegal and where ex post facto was argued.

 

[jmccarthy1983]

So basically my ccw a glock 22 wont have a magazine in it and just 1 round in the chamber since I don't own any 10 round magazines....

 

[gearjunky13]

So basically my ccw a glock 22 wont have a magazine in it and just 1 round in the chamber since I don't own any 10 round magazines....

Ya im sure all then criminals are running to get there 7 round mags as we speek.......you know because they wouldent want to brake the law.

And im sure the bad guys will take pitty on you with your one round capacity hand gun and let you shoot first before they rob you or just kill you........its the right thing to do.

 

[MichaelJR]

I'm looking around....



oh wait I can't find a single f*** that I give. Yep, I don't give a single f***. Couldn't find one. I'm gonna carry whatever I want.

 

[Greschner 4]

And how will the "authorities" be able to differentiate whether the 10 round mag was pre or post ban? Require the manufacturers to date stamp new production 10 rounders? And if the sycophants are successful (which will be short lived, imo) in reducing the load count to 7 (in a 10 round grandfathered mag), does one "in the pipe" count allow you to carry 8? ****ing Blowhards.

 

[jar]

Also, If we fight it now, they can edit it and still pass something, If we wait we could have the whole thing junked if one part of it is unlawful?

Stopping it before it starts is almost always better. I'd rather have my Comm2A donations go toward fighting the crap we're already dealing with rather than trying to get back to where we are now. Fight this as hard as we can in the legislature while filling Comm2A's war chest in case we fail.

 

[bender73]

I feel dirty living in MA.

 

[terraformer]

Stopping it before it starts is almost always better. I'd rather have my Comm2A donations go toward fighting the crap we're already dealing with rather than trying to get back to where we are now. Fight this as hard as we can in the legislature while filling Comm2A's war chest in case we fail.

And severance clauses mean that if one part is declared unconstitutional, everything else stays.

 

[Royal]

I'm going to just keep giving money to Comm2A and not advice.

They know a shitload more about this stuff than I do.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

[BThe reason the original AWB had grandfathering is to prevent a violation of 5th Amendment property taking without due process (also applies to the states through the 14th). Not having grandfathering for mags is clearly problematic. There is an argument (I haven't decided yet how strong it is) that making something now legally owned, illegal going forward, is tantamount to an ex post facto law, which is prohibited by Article I, Section 9 (federal) and Article I, Section 10 (states). Linsky's proposals raise similar issues.

Remember that you are talking about the federal AWB which was nation wide. There was no where else to sell a mag.

The state bans do not have that problem if at least one other state does not implement the magazine ban. The will just do what NY did and tell you to dump them out of state.

Bob

 

[Alchemist17]

I'm not very familiar with the case law surrounding ex post facto laws, but I can't recall any cases that involved property becoming illegal and where ex post facto was argued.

It's not ex-post-facto. For EPF, the law would basically need to say, for instance, that owning a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds during 2012 is a violation of the law. Basically, if something was not illegal at the time of the action, ex post facto means that it cannot be made illegal after the fact. It can, however, be made illegal in the present/future. So the ex post facto clause really doesn't apply here.

There's also the "takings" clause, which prohibits the government from taking property from the people without due process of law and just compensation. Because firearms exports are not easily done for individuals, this was a big deal for a Federal ban, as making them outright illegal meant that people would need to turn them in, which would have required the government to pay market value for each and every assault weapon in existence. Far easier to just make it a ban on further production, as it avoids the issue entirely. This isn't likely as big a deal for the states, as there is a market for them, just not within the state. As for the precedent on previously legal property becoming illegal and forced surrender - see the War on Drugs

The strongest challenge would be based on Heller/MacDonald, as it has been stated that the Second Amendment does apply to the states, and applies to firearms "in common use". If "common use" has any meaning whatsoever, this would be it - there is no question that large-capacity magazines are in common use across the country. But even this is risky, as precedent is not set and lower courts are all over the place in their interpretations. Far better to kill it dead now.

 

[egouin]

For the layman, Is it possible for you explain briefly what grounds and/or violation this bill causes.

Also, If we fight it now, they can edit it and still pass something, If we wait we could have the whole thing junked if one part of it is unlawful?

I'm a computer guy, not an attorney, so forgive me if this is a stupid question. Rather than fight against any single gun legislation, could we not fight ALL/ANY gun laws as unconstitutional and therefor illegal? Clearly any state or federal law limiting gun ownership "infringes" on the right of the people to keep an bear arms. I suppose the risk is having the SCOTUS interpret the 2nd amendment differently than we read it.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

I'm a computer guy, not an attorney, so forgive me if this is a stupid question. Rather than fight against any single gun legislation, could we not fight ALL/ANY gun laws as unconstitutional and therefor illegal? Clearly any state or federal law limiting gun ownership "infringes" on the right of the people to keep an bear arms. I suppose the risk is having the SCOTUS interpret the 2nd amendment differently than we read it.

That would be nice, but no. A fundamental right can be regulated, but must be done so in very limited and non-discriminatory ways. The government can probably require you to have a license to possess a firearm. BUT if they use the issuance of the license to limit access to the right it's another story.

I suspect a poll tax would be constitutional IF it did not have the effect of discriminating.

In our favor, most gun laws, at least here in MA, are designed to prevent exercise of the right.

 

[Bull27]

I'm a computer guy, not an attorney, so forgive me if this is a stupid question. Rather than fight against any single gun legislation, could we not fight ALL/ANY gun laws as unconstitutional and therefor illegal? Clearly any state or federal law limiting gun ownership "infringes" on the right of the people to keep an bear arms. I suppose the risk is having the SCOTUS interpret the 2nd amendment differently than we read it.

^^^^ THIS

 

[jar]

The courts don't work that way. Cases that focus on single targeted issues get somewhere. Cases that throw everything at the wall to see what sticks get mired for YEARS. In 2010, immediately after McDonald, SAF sued over the part of their new regulations that prohibited ranges in the city. NRA sued over everything. SAF's case got a major victory for us at the 7th Circuit (after losing and appealing at the district court) in 2011. NRA's case is still mired in the district court now in 2013.

 

[Mass-diver]

The courts don't work that way. Cases that focus on single targeted issues get somewhere. Cases that throw everything at the wall to see what sticks get mired for YEARS. In 2010, immediately after McDonald, SAF sued over the part of their new regulations that prohibited ranges in the city. NRA sued over everything. SAF's case got a major victory for us at the 7th Circuit (after losing and appealing at the district court) in 2011. NRA's case is still mired in the district court now in 2013.

So there's pretty much no hope (in your opinion) of any if these laws facing a serious legal challenge? We have a had an AWB here in MA for a long time so I assume any new laws (like NY) will stand basically unchallenged?

 

[jar]

So there's pretty much no hope (in your opinion) of any if these laws facing a serious legal challenge? We have a had an AWB here in MA for a long time so I assume any new laws (like NY) will stand basically unchallenged?

No, that's not what I meant. I was responding to the idea that instead of challenging specific laws we challenge everything. Attacking everything at once is oomed to failure. The corect strategy is to chip away law by law. Each win gives us something to use in the next case. This is the strategy that SAF has used successfully around the country and Comm2a has started using here in Mass. Some cases have to wait in line for the ones before, but some can be done in parallel. The more we donate, the faster they can go.

 

[Jbarila]

Whenever I can I send money to all the Orgs progun. From here on out only Com2A gets it. I just made a donation and everytime I give a lesson I am sending them a cut. Also instead of buying Mass Lottery tickets I am sending C2A the cash.