Can I sell my AR-15 if I am in Massachusetts within Massachusetts privately?

[DW357]

Smart man. We love to share openly on a forum like this but it's often not in our best interest. I cringe at certain posts I see because I know Maura is always watching and looking for new ideas in how to more effectively screw us.

Yep. There's no doubt in my mind that all of the stuff posted here plus that MFS interview back in June, HELPED lead the way to the July bull****

 

[TLB]

Yep. There's no doubt in my mind that all of the stuff posted here plus that MFS interview back in June, led to the July bull****

There is no doubt in my mind that a combination of a severe superiority complex with a strong inclination towards excessive authoritarianism and complete disregard for the constitution and the rule of law led to these events.

 

[Ink]

Two reasons that I can think of:

- Most of MA dealers are scared of their own shadow. That's why they make up laws all the time, out of thin air (just like Healey did).
- I'm convinced that if Healey ordered MSP to revoke the state licenses to sell guns/ammo from dealers who "disobeyed" her, that they would do so in a heartbeat. It's administrative with no due process, and they know that the dealers would piss their pants but not fight back in court. So they obey any memo/press conference/rumor/etc. that might impact their business.

your reasons blow

 

[Len-2A Training]

your reasons blow

Agreed, but there is more reality in them than any of us would like to admit.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Due to all the confusion, I put a link to the AGO response to the "Records Request" by David Reinhart in my Sticky here:

https://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/314031-AG-s-New-AWB-7-20-2016

It provides some evidence of the info posted here and elsewhere as to what the AGO claims is legal vs. not legal.

The document is almost 4MB and ~76 pages, so can't be posted as an attachment here.

 

[EJFudd]

Yep. There's no doubt in my mind that all of the stuff posted here plus that MFS interview back in June, HELPED lead the way to the July bull****

There is no doubt in my mind that a combination of a severe superiority complex with a strong inclination towards excessive authoritarianism and complete disregard for the constitution and the rule of law led to these events.

Surprise, surprise. You are both right.

For the record, while there is no question that the infamous MFS interview was a huge & terrible mistake, I cannot hold it against MFS for very long when I see the vast number of folks they are training daily to join our ranks. Going there between classes on a Saturday is nothing short of an inspiration. It actually gives me a little bit of hope for the future of this pathetic leftist-controlled state.

 

[Maui5150]

Due to all the confusion, I put a link to the AGO response to the "Records Request" by David Reinhart in my Sticky here:

https://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/314031-AG-s-New-AWB-7-20-2016

It provides some evidence of the info posted here and elsewhere as to what the AGO claims is legal vs. not legal.

The document is almost 4MB and ~76 pages, so can't be posted as an attachment here.

Thank you for this link and post. I would advise everyone to DOWNLOAD and keep a copy of this file on hand and print out a select few emails from the document for your own records.

I would also advise folks to take discussion offline. We have already been shown that "things can change" so be smart about what is discussed

 

[EJFudd]

There has to be a darn good reason every dealer in MA complied overnight. Either there is a strong chance AG is correct in the laws actual definition and has been applied wrong for 20 years or there is a good chance the dealers would loose in court regardless.

No evidence exists to support the notion that Maura's brand new "re-interpretation" of the law is the correct interpretation and that everyone else in the world has been wrong for 20+ years. It was all invented in Maura's twisted anti-2A peanut brain.

Two reasons that I can think of:

- Most of MA dealers are scared of their own shadow. That's why they make up laws all the time, out of thin air (just like Healey did).
- I'm convinced that if Healey ordered MSP to revoke the state licenses to sell guns/ammo from dealers who "disobeyed" her, that they would do so in a heartbeat. It's administrative with no due process, and they know that the dealers would piss their pants but not fight back in court. So they obey any memo/press conference/rumor/etc. that might impact their business.

With all due respect, dissing the dealers for being too nervous or frightened to go up against our unstable mental case AG lady and her unlimited legal resources right away on 7/20 is not very fair. You know she can put any of them out of business at will, bankrupt them and tie them up in court for years. While her power over individuals may be questionable, her power over the dealers is crushing. I don't believe that any MA dealer, including the most successful ones, has the resources to go up against her all alone and there was no effective MA dealer organization in place to do so.

They did what they had to do under the circumstances. No question that some reacted very poorly while others had some balls. Too bad for me that I picked the wrong ones to visit as the **** was hitting the fan. But they were all just trying to protect themselves as best they could in the face of full blown tyranny. I don't blame them one bit.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I have further revised my post (link above) with page numbers for the pertinent info about legality of selling privately those "AWs" that you possessed and were MA registered prior to 7/20/16.

 

[gunofthrones]

Yes we can. -----obama 2008

 

[Len-2A Training]

With all due respect, dissing the dealers for being too nervous or frightened to go up against our unstable mental case AG lady and her unlimited legal resources right away on 7/20 is not very fair. You know she can put any of them out of business at will, bankrupt them and tie them up in court for years. While her power over individuals may be questionable, her power over the dealers is crushing. I don't believe that any MA dealer, including the most successful ones, has the resources to go up against her all alone and there was no effective MA dealer organization in place to do so.

They did what they had to do under the circumstances. No question that some reacted very poorly while others had some balls. Too bad for me that I picked the wrong ones to visit as the **** was hitting the fan. But they were all just trying to protect themselves as best they could in the face of full blown tyranny. I don't blame them one bit.

I can't say that if I were a MA dealer that I wouldn't do much the same. Yes, the AG has the ability to kill a dealer, totally destroying him/her even if totally unjustified.

However, my blanket statement above was meant to be broader than the AG BS. To wit:

- Refusal to sell Ruger 10/22s to FID holders because pre-ban 3rd party large-capacity mags were in the marketplace.
- Refusal to sell frames . . . that by MGL black and white definition, are not "guns".
- Demanding LTC-A (ONLY) to purchase any pre-ban large-capacity rifle mag.
- Terrorizing Glock owners that possession is a felony (the RAT allegedly did this to an NES'r, who then PM'd me as he was scared of going to jail).
- Requiring FA-10s on sale of frames/stripped lowers (might have done us a favor in retrospect however).

 

[drgrant]

With all due respect, dissing the dealers for being too nervous or frightened to go up against our unstable mental case AG lady and her unlimited legal resources right away on 7/20 is not very fair. You know she can put any of them out of business at will, bankrupt them and tie them up in court for years. While her power over individuals may be questionable, her power over the dealers is crushing. I don't believe that any MA dealer, including the most successful ones, has the resources to go up against her all alone and there was no effective MA dealer organization in place to do so.

Some have the resources but it is cost/benefit analysis. Legal costs are staggering, and if that stupid **** stops your business by yanking a license or suspending it (eg, getting the PD to suspend it) then there goes your revenue stream. We're talking "wait, I could move my store to a free state for
this kind of money" type of proposition here (and most certainly win, instead of gambling. )

That said, I do have to admit it would be pretty cool if the dealers all collectively told her to go **** herself on day 0. I think she would have just about had a stroke and not been prepared to deal with that. Most of the AGs office bullshit is based on fear and very few actual prosecutions.

That said the risk was (potentially) huge so it never got taken. I can't say that I blame them for ducking. It did NOT help us though that, practically upon the receipt of the letter, a few of "the big ones" basically came out and said they were already bending over. There was no "we will be reviewing this with our attorneys" etc.

I think it's also naive of people to try to think of dealers as "fellow gun owners". While I know and have worked for several FFLs that would easily fit this definition, most aren't. Most are pretty much just businesses, like anything else. I think too many gun owners try to attribute piety to gun shops WRT fighting over rights etc. Most gun shops don't care about that stuff, they just want to sell things. That said, obviously there's a nexus where a failure to do something results in a loss of revenue... I can't even imagine trying to run a shop in MA at this point. Before 7/20 it was probably doable. After it, not so much, as now the "ban" bullshit is likely hitting them pretty hard.

-Mike

 

[StevieP]

Screen grab from the document Len S linked to, above.

Can we put this in a sticky???

 

[gmbarroso]

View attachment 182660

Screen grab from the document Len S linked to, above.

Can we put this in a sticky???

I wish he he hadn't blocked the email address of whomever replied to him.. would make the response email more "reliable", especially because it came from the AG's office

 

[Len-2A Training]

View attachment 182660

Screen grab from the document Len S linked to, above.

Can we put this in a sticky???

It is a Sticky, under my sub-forum with a pointer to the 2 pages where they stated this plus the entire doc . . . likely more interesting stuff in the whole thing, but I haven't read all 76 pgs.

Most stickies get crapped up and then nobody looks at them, they just post the same question again. That's why I put it in my sub-forum where I have the power to lock the thread so it's not a debate thread that gets crapped up.

I wish he he hadn't blocked the email address of whomever replied to him.. would make the response email more "reliable", especially because it came from the AG's office

It was the AG's office that redacted that info, so nobody could contact the individual who responded from the AGO. If dragged into court, the judge could force release of the name, but what's the point, as the entire doc is an official doc from AGO regardless of who responded to the Email.

 

[richc]

If I have a lawfully owned lower bought before Healey started all this nonsense, can I sell it to another MA license holder? Or can I build it out and declare it on an FA-10 without legal risk?

 

[DW357]

If I have a lawfully owned lower bought before Healey started all this nonsense, can I sell it to another MA license holder? Or can I build it out and declare it on an FA-10 without legal risk?

According to the classifieds, yes Of course that doesn't really mean much as nobody seems to know the answer.

 

[Len-2A Training]

If I have a lawfully owned lower bought before Healey started all this nonsense, can I sell it to another MA license holder? Or can I build it out and declare it on an FA-10 without legal risk?

Rich,

If it was FA-10'd by the dealer you bought it from, the answer from the AGO info I posted here is they claim it is legal.

If it wasn't FA-10'd as a stripped lower, they will likely claim that it doesn't meet their exemption as it wasn't previously registered in MA (even though there is a BB entry at the FFL). This is the gray area where we have no real answer.

 

[EJFudd]

If it wasn't FA-10'd as a stripped lower, they will likely claim that it doesn't meet their exemption as it wasn't previously registered in MA (even though there is a BB entry at the FFL). This is the gray area where we have no real answer.

But read again the email allegedly from the AGO quoted by StevieP above:

View attachment 182660

Note the words "lawfully possessed" as opposed to "previously registered"...

 

[mikelawtown]

Rich,

If it was FA-10'd by the dealer you bought it from, the answer from the AGO info I posted here is they claim it is legal.

If it wasn't FA-10'd as a stripped lower, they will likely claim that it doesn't meet their exemption as it wasn't previously registered in MA (even though there is a BB entry at the FFL). This is the gray area where we have no real answer.

Thing is she said "Obtained" Before the 20th

 

[TLB]

But read again the email allegedly from the AGO quoted by StevieP above:


Note the words "lawfully possessed" as opposed to "previously registered"...

Beat me to it. While the question used the term "registered", the answer did not. I would say lowers are GTG based on that if they were legally possessed in MA prior to 7/20. Of course she claims she can change her mind whenever so...

 

[Chevy 2 65]

View attachment 182660

Screen grab from the document Len S linked to, above.

Can we put this in a sticky???

Why is the AGO email address blacked out?? Is that not a public office?

 

[EJFudd]

Beat me to it. While the question used the term "registered", the answer did not. I would say lowers are GTG based on that if they were legally possessed in MA prior to 7/20. Of course she claims she can change her mind whenever so...

And therein lies the real danger. Try to eFA-10 the completed gun (or even the still-stripped lower) and see what happens. Probably nothing but there sure as heck ain't no guarantee of that.

 

[jasons]

The email response posted above says that it's OK to transfer weapons that were "lawfully possessed." Isn't the whole point of this BS that we were all mistaken and they were actually not lawfully possessed like we thought?

They're either assault weapons or they're not. If they are, 131M applies. If they're not, it doesn't. I don't understand the AGO's logic behind this whole "yeah they're assault weapons but don't worry about the actual law / 131M only applies where we say it applies" stance. It's very confusing.

 

[42!]

"131M only applies where we say it applies"

Sounds like you understand her reasoning perfectly.

 

[jasons]

Sounds like you understand her reasoning perfectly.

OK, now I'm really confused.

“We’re going to continue to do our job as attorney general and make sure people’s rights are upheld and the Constitution, the rule of law, is followed. It’s more important than ever.” -Maura Healey 11/15/2016​

 

[Maui5150]

Again, this is a thread that should not be here. For those that know my particulars, you will know why I am happy

But again, threads like these can only lead to harm

 

[TLB]

OK, now I'm really confused.

“We’re going to continue to do our job as attorney general and make sure people’s rights are upheld and the Constitution, the rule of law, is followed. It’s more important than ever.” -Maura Healey 11/15/2016​

1984

 

[crazymjb]

There's a rumor that MIRCS/CJIS is saying no intrastate transfers of banned weapons, period.

Mike

 

[jasons]

Again, this is a thread that should not be here. For those that know my particulars, you will know why I am happy

But again, threads like these can only lead to harm

Pretty sure the AGO already knows she's FOS. We're not telling her anything that she doesn't already know.