Dissapproved???Updated final time 8/25

[drgrant]

This is great.... the AG now gets to make up FAKE, imaginary laws that don't exist, and the ATF believes her?

I wonder if we can send a FOIA request to BATFE to get a copy of this correspondence in writing. Then again, she probably just -called- them, using her "leave no trace" program of denial.

Yet another reason for this bitch to be disbarred and kicked out of office.


-Mike

 

[JonJ]

Get ready, she's gonna make a run for Governor.

 

[hicksonj]

This is an extension of the unilateral actions taken outside of the legislature to create laws, including the out of state ammo sales notices.

I would be interested in exploring a court action if the need arises. I'm sure goal would be on board too.

 

[hicksonj]

deleted

 

[securityboy]

???
I thought suppressors were banned in MA by state law. Is that incorrect?

FFL/SOT's (Manufacturers and Dealers) used to be able to have them, until the AG decided to interpret the law to say they couldn't...

Manufacturers can have them, and you can use a trust as well IIRC.

Manufacturers could, trusts (unless it a manufacture too) could not.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Manufacturers can have them, and you can use a trust as well IIRC.

Are you sure about this? (suppressors)? I have in front of me a letter from Ham Perkins, the then "Firearms Specialist" for Mass. The letter is to me and dated Oct, 1990. It explains the then little known 1989 law change to allow manufacturers to have "silencers". I had requested the letter for back-up when I ordered my first suppressor. I sent the letter to the now defunct Machine Gun News, Dan Shea published it, and that was the start of suppressors coming into Mass. If you are correct that they can be brought in with a trust, this could open doors. I'll admit that I have not researched this myself. I have always assumed that the law change was to allow the larger Mass manufacturers to compete in the suppressor market for the military. Jack. P.S. Any of you old timers remember Ham Perkins? He was quite something. He would say things like " A license to carry a firearm is just what it says. You have the license, you can carry the firearm".

 

[clinotus]

This is an extension of the unilateral actions taken outside of the legislature to create laws, including the out of state ammo sales notices.

I would be interested in exploring a court action if the need arises. I'm sure goal would be on board too.

Let me know where and when to donate.

 

[drgrant]

Let me know where and when to donate.

+2..... I really don't have much of a direct stake in this, but I'd be willing to donate some money to help punish this bitch.

-Mike

 

[terraformer]

+2..... I really don't have much of a direct stake in this, but I'd be willing to donate some money to help punish this bitch.

-Mike

Same here.

 

[theGringo]

I keep reading through this thread and asking myself the same question, "Can they do that"? Can something be deemed "illegal" by administrative fiat, in the absence of any legislative or regulatory action?

Mail order ammo was quashed by the threat of legal action, which successfully intimidated ammuntion sellers. This is worse, it seems to me. Here we have the State's AG telling a federal agency that a particular type of firearm is "illegal" just because she says so.

Somethin' just don't sound right.

 

[Mass-diver]

I keep reading through this thread and asking myself the same question, "Can they do that"? Can something be deemed "illegal" by administrative fiat, in the absence of any legislative or regulatory action?

Mail order ammo was quashed by the threat of legal action, which successfully intimidated ammuntion sellers. This is worse, it seems to me. Here we have the State's AG telling a federal agency that a particular type of firearm is "illegal" just because she says so.

Somethin' just don't sound right.

I agree. Everything else that has been done (mail order etc) is complete BS, but this is really a whole new level. The AG has sidesteped the entire legislative process and simply declared a whole class of firearms illegal - even in MA this is stunning.

My CLEO won't let me have an SBR (I can carry a loaded high-cap pistol and I can have rifle with a 16" barrel, but apparently I'm not quite safe enough to have a rifle with a slightly shorter barrel), but I'm still extremely concerned about this development and I want to try to support any legal action that is taken to remedy this situation.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Does anybody else have a Form 1 in the works?

 

[drgrant]

What pisses me off more about this is I bet the ATF will "enforce" the "ban" without any kind of due dilligence required.

They should at least require some kind of signed letter from the AG, that backs up or explains the law. If they can't get that, then they should tell the AG to go screw. Of course, BATFE is more than willing to bone gun owners whenever they can use an excuse to do it.

-Mike

 

[clinotus]

I keep reading through this thread and asking myself the same question, "Can they do that"? Can something be deemed "illegal" by administrative fiat, in the absence of any legislative or regulatory action?

Mail order ammo was quashed by the threat of legal action, which successfully intimidated ammuntion sellers. This is worse, it seems to me. Here we have the State's AG telling a federal agency that a particular type of firearm is "illegal" just because she says so.

Somethin' just don't sound right.

What pisses me off more about this is I bet the ATF will "enforce" the "ban" without any kind of due dilligence required.

They should at least require some kind of signed letter from the AG, that backs up or explains the law. If they can't get that, then they should tell the AG to go screw. Of course, BATFE is more than willing to bone gun owners whenever they can use an excuse to do it.

-Mike

I agree this whole situation sounds suspect, but our AG has been known to utilize the enforcement of questionable intentions via legal threats whether they be true or false. We do need something concrete. What would work in her favor is that everyone so far has been hobbled by her office, is is really a law or an interpretation? Who knows. But this...this is on a whole new level.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

I can't figure out if it's "them against "us" or "us" against "them". It's sure as shit not by for and of the people. Jack.

 

[theGringo]

I agree this whole situation sounds suspect, but our AG has been known to utilize the enforcement of questionable intentions via legal threats whether they be true or false. We do need something concrete. What would work in her favor is that everyone so far has been hobbled by her office, is is really a law or an interpretation? Who knows. But this...this is on a whole new level.

My guess is that nothing will be found in the MGLs or CMR to support the evident contention that SBRs are illegal after some specified date.

Time to clarify this, and then begin impeachment proceedings, if in fact this is a gross overstep of the AG's authority.

 

[hicksonj]

The ATF is not going to get into a pissing match with MA. They have no motivation to challenge the law, beside a few bucks in stamp fees.

The underlying issue here is, after talking with Jim Wallace this morning, that the bureaucracy is at the heart of this. While the elected officials change and people even get fired from appointed jobs, there is a collection of deeply entrenched people with a specific ideology that are really driving the bus. You can fire them all and they will be rehired by another department by their cronies, and they will reignite the fire from that post.

Another serious issue that hasn't been noticed is the following: if you own an SBR currently (and followed all the right steps in obtaining the ATF approval) in MA, your license and future ability to get licensed is in serious jeopardy. According to the AG's letter, you own an illegal firearm.

 

[theGringo]

Another serious issue that hasn't been noticed is the following: if you own an SBR currently (and followed all the right steps in obtaining the ATF approval) in MA, your license and future ability to get licensed is in serious jeopardy. According to the AG's letter, you own an illegal firearm.

That issue was touched upon in Post #27. If I owned an SBR, I'd sure be wondering what my legal status was. Will GOAL contact the AG for written clarification?

 

[KMaurer]

Talk about being a snob, people were trying to help the guy out, myself included. All in all the best advice given in the thread was a post by patio to just call. Everyone has different experiences and routes to take with this stuff as the gray areas are so large.

I see your contribution to the thread is still nothing more than a shit filled comment. You should follow your own advice.

People may have the best intentions, but that doesn't make a lot of difference if they give bad advice. Even if they're trying to help, people need to realize that giving opinions about topics they know little or nothing about usually causes more harm than good.

Ken

 

[drgrant]

Another serious issue that hasn't been noticed is the following: if you own an SBR currently (and followed all the right steps in obtaining the ATF approval) in MA, your license and future ability to get licensed is in serious jeopardy. According to the AG's letter, you own an illegal firearm.

I don't really think legal status is a problem. This is pure bloviation from the AG's office and everyone with more than one brain cell knows it. It would only be a problem if a proseuctor could somehow successfully argue "Because the AG said so" in a court of criminal law. Even in MA I can't imagine that would hold water.

If I'm mistaken, and the courts are that bad (willing to send someone to jail for violating a law that doesn't actually exist) then I guess I have to move up my "get the hell out of MA" itinerary on an accelerated schedule.

-Mike

 

[clinotus]

People may have the best intentions, but that doesn't make a lot of difference if they give bad advice. Even if they're trying to help, people need to realize that giving opinions about topics they know little or nothing about usually causes more harm than good.

Ken

PM so we don't derail further.

 

[hicksonj]

I'm working with the ATF NFA department right now to figure this out. It looks like it was a misreading on a letter sent by the CHSB in reference to SBS, AOWs, and Covert Weapons. I'm getting a copy of the letter faxed to me right now.

 

[economist]

I'm working with the ATF NFA department right now to figure this out. It looks like it was a misreading on a letter sent by the CHSB in reference to SBS, AOWs, and Covert Weapons. I'm getting a copy of the letter faxed to me right now.

Thanks for the work and for the information. Excellent!

 

[EddieCoyle]

Thanks for the work and for the information. Excellent!

+1

Rep points inbound.

 

[clinotus]

I'm working with the ATF NFA department right now to figure this out. It looks like it was a misreading on a letter sent by the CHSB in reference to SBS, AOWs, and Covert Weapons. I'm getting a copy of the letter faxed to me right now.

Thank you!

+'d as well.

 

[WillyJP]

Thanks for the follow-up. It will be interesting to see what happens to the pending Form 1's if this was just a misunderstanding (e.g. will it take some time for the "correction" to filter down to the examiners and in that time will they have a slew of applications denied). I've got two Form 1's submitted early July.

Typical MA cluster f!

 

[Squished]

I'm working with the ATF NFA department right now to figure this out. It looks like it was a misreading on a letter sent by the CHSB in reference to SBS, AOWs, and Covert Weapons. I'm getting a copy of the letter faxed to me right now.

Thanks for the work! +1 for you!

 

[terraformer]

I'm working with the ATF NFA department right now to figure this out. It looks like it was a misreading on a letter sent by the CHSB in reference to SBS, AOWs, and Covert Weapons. I'm getting a copy of the letter faxed to me right now.

Can you post the letter here so we can see it?

 

[m91196]

I'm working with the ATF NFA department right now to figure this out. It looks like it was a misreading on a letter sent by the CHSB in reference to SBS, AOWs, and Covert Weapons. I'm getting a copy of the letter faxed to me right now.

Please let me know what you find. I have spoken with the NRA, their legal team was interested(?).
Bottom line I want to stir it up.
This is a discrace.
And I want my SBR.

 

[cb1]

I'm working with the ATF NFA department right now to figure this out. It looks like it was a misreading on a letter sent by the CHSB in reference to SBS, AOWs, and Covert Weapons. I'm getting a copy of the letter faxed to me right now.

+1

Thank you for taking the time to fight for my rights