Can i buy an AR-15 from someone else.

[M1911]

I can read this two ways. The first way is that if you obtained it prior to the 20th you're now free to own, possess and transfer it after the 20th. The second is that any transfer of the firearm had to have occurred prior to the 20th

Exactly.

 

[flythebluesky]

If you sell it after June 20, however, it has then been transferred after June 20 and is no longer blessed.

Regardless of all of that, she clearly said that all of them are illegal, she is electing not to prosecute at this time. There are no blessed weapons other than the pre-94 ban weapons.

Yeah. I see what you're saying. I was at the website and that seems to conflict with the PDF... see:

Q: What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?

• If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault weapon. The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.

• The AGO also will not enforce the law against a gun dealer that possesses or transfers a “copy or duplicate” weapon that was obtained on or before July 20, 2016, provided that transfers, if any, are made to persons or businesses in states where ownership of the weapon is legal.

Key phrase is "where ownership of the weapon is legal.. and the AG says ownership is not legal in MA, therefore is AG is saying no transfers within MA? Or not? Only allowed to transfer out of MA, it seems? This whole thing is not as clear as it should be.

 

[nhpoke]

The whole thing is a complete disaster from a clarity perspective.

I watched the press conference where she announced this. There was a short Q&A session at the end and a question about the existing firearms was asked. She clearly indicated that those are "illegal firearms", but that she didn't intend to prosecute the owners of those firearms at this time. The firearms aren't blessed in any way, they are illegal and the owners have committed a crime, but she isn't pursuing prosecution of that crime.

People didn't think they were breaking the law, but they were. Now, after June 20 2016 people have a better understanding of the law, because the AG explained it to them, and committing those crimes after this date could result in prosecution.

I completely disagree with her opinion on this, but it is her opinion.

 

[Beansie]

Yeah. I see what you're saying. I was at the website and that seems to conflict with the PDF... see:

Q: What if I already own a gun that is a copy or duplicate?

• If a weapon is a copy or duplicate of one of the models enumerated in the law, it is an Assault weapon. The Enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer by an individual gun owner of weapons obtained on or before July 20, 2016.

• The AGO also will not enforce the law against a gun dealer that possesses or transfers a “copy or duplicate” weapon that was obtained on or before July 20, 2016, provided that transfers, if any, are made to persons or businesses in states where ownership of the weapon is legal.

Key phrase is "where ownership of the weapon is legal.. and the AG says ownership is not legal in MA, therefore is AG is saying no transfers within MA? Or not? Only allowed to transfer out of MA, it seems? This whole thing is not as clear as it should be.

I'm not a lawyer and all that, and this is all moot because she will obviously do whatever she wants when she wants to but:

That is saying fact-to-face transfers in MA of pre 7/20 rifles okay. Transfer in state of pre 7/20 rifles not okay.

She's trying to say "we have X number of these rifles in MA, over time we will have X-1" and eliminate any way of having it be X or X+1 tomorrow.


But again, it's irrelevant because she is just going to do whatever she wants. What the notice says today is pointless to try and decipher, or any MA law for that matter. She is going to do what Maura wants, when Maura wants to do it.

 

[mikelawtown]

dealers cant sell. simple

Hey I bought mine in good faith long before the 20th . so im selling if I want , when I want.. She doesn't even know what she's saying at this point it's so messed up.

 

[rwl1955]

all part of the plan folks. Since they can't get legislation thru the House or Senate they are resorting to Executive Orders and liberal State AG's.

 

[Asaltweapon]

all part of the plan folks. Since they can't get legislation thru the House or Senate they are resorting to Executive Orders and liberal State AG's.

It clearly has worked for Obamma.

 

[42!]

The whole discussion of what the AG will or won't prosecute is irrelevant since it will be a PO (having a bad day) who makes the arrest and/or a DA who wants to make a name for themselves that will prosecute.

What the AG "promised" does not apply to either of these groups. But they can still act based on the gun now being illegal.

Even if you get an out right Dismissal you'll still probably lose you LTC, all your guns, and $5k-$10K in legal costs. Not to mention a couple nights in jail, doesn't that sound like fun?

 

[daveyburt]

this is how i understand it/could be wrong:

pre-94, no change as long as you owned it before 7/20, cannot transfer in state
post-94, illegal to posses, cannot transfer in state, she may not arrest you today, but another DA could prosecute without question

Any gun she deems an assault weapon based on 'similarity' tests (undefined) is an assault weapon / illegal to posses/transfer in state

subject to change on a whim (literally).

everyone make their calls today?

 

[nhpoke]

this is how i understand it/could be wrong:

pre-94, no change as long as you owned it before 7/20, cannot transfer in state
post-94, illegal to posses, cannot transfer in state, she may not arrest you today, but another DA could prosecute without question

Any gun she deems an assault weapon based on 'similarity' tests (undefined) is an assault weapon / illegal to posses/transfer in state

subject to change on a whim (literally).

everyone make their calls today?

Matches my understanding of her interpretation.

 

[Beansie]

She doesn't even know what she's saying at this point

I think believing this is a grave mistake man.

I'm pretty confident she knows exactly what she is saying at this point, and know exactly what she will say tomorrow and the day after.

 

[mikelawtown]

I think believing this is a grave mistake man.

I'm pretty confident she knows exactly what she is saying at this point, and know exactly what she will say tomorrow and the day after.

so why a Million questions on so many quotes from her? Its all screwed up and we know it.
Don't speed it's against the law

 

[Beansie]

so why a Million questions on so many quotes from her? Its all screwed up and we know it.

We are asking questions, and we are confused because we want to follow the law (or know if it's go time, depending on the individual).

What I'm saying is SHE isn't confused at all, and doesn't care about the law. She cares about what scores her political points with the D base. If violent confiscation will get her cheers from the DNC stage, she'll order that next. She knows what she is saying, ultimately, is my only point. She's well aware what she did, what she's going to do next, and that us peons have no recourse.

She went to the Shitehouse, got her talking points, came back and let everyone (including Charlie) know what she was doing, and did it. It was calculated, the thinly veiled threats are calculated and the confusion purposely created and calculated.

Make no mistake. This wasn't an action by an idiot who just doesn't understand guns. This was a calculated political move to boost her career with purposely implied threats to force compliance, as we can't get too uppity seeing as any old local LEO can arrest us for possession of an illegal firearm, right this instant. They are all registered. There is a list on her desk right now of who owns what.

She doesn't care about you, or victims of gun violence or police or BLM or any of it. Maura cares about Maura, and she'll obviously do whatever she wants, whenever she wants it. She is saying we are her enemy, and clearly throwing her clout around. Assuming she "doesn't know what she's talking about" is dangerous as hell is all I'm trying to say.

 

[Tracer1951]

It's perfectly clear isn't it?

"In fact, people who have purchased these guns over the years in good faith, believing they were able to purchase them, can keep them and they can resell them if they wish.” “But, on a forward going basis we want to be clear that the law in fact, prohibits the sale of these kinds of guns.”

Ummm... So which is it?

Clear as mud!!! (as it was intended)

 

[Obie1]

That is one of the business phrases that I truly hate...

I hear it way too much. When I do, I respond with these criteria:

• The 7 Characteristics of Life:
• Living Things are Composed of Cells:
• Living Things Have Different Levels of Organization:
• Living Things Use Energy:
• Living Things Respond To Their Environment:
• Living Things Grow:
• Living Things Reproduce:
• Living Things Adapt To Their Environment: