Emergency Preamble to be signed Weds?

More precisely the defense is "entrapment by estoppel". If the state (or feds) incude you to do something by telling you it is legal, and them prosecutes you for it, it is entrapment.

The doctrine does not work across jurisdictional lines. A state actor telling you something federally legal, or vice-versa, does not meet the criteria for this defense. By extension, a local government official (cop, mayor, etc.) tellins you somethig is legal at the state level may (emphasis may) not qualify under the same doctrine.
Which can lead to an interesting conundrum for a MA Dealer. FFLs as a condition of their federal license must follow all relevant state and local laws and regulations. So if sale of long guns not on an actual published roster is against state law, then while there might be a defense in state court, there would not be such a defense at the federal level.
 
Which can lead to an interesting conundrum for a MA Dealer. FFLs as a condition of their federal license must follow all relevant state and local laws and regulations. So if sale of long guns not on an actual published roster is against state law, then while there might be a defense in state court, there would not be such a defense at the federal level.
Excellent point. The "non-enforcement decaration" was not issued to be fair to gun dealers or consumers, but to deny one attack surface that could be used when bringing court action against the law.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but the Supreme court has always acknowledged (even in Bruen) that some states license. I wish they hadn't because they took it as an invite to run wild in handful of states we all know and love to dislike. A license implies a fee of some sort, so kind of the same but different
In Bruen, the question wasn't if licensing was unconstitutional but rather if requiring special need was constitutional

In Heller the question of licensing wasn't address "(b)ecause Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief"

The question of if licensing is constitutional has not been directly addressed.

Edited because standard brackets [ ] used to show a change within a quotation are recognized as tags
 
The question of if licensing is constitutional has not been directly addressed.
Your statement above is exactly my understanding of Bruen. But I have wondered if I understood this correctly.

I have thought that a situation like this would make anti-2A activists tread carefully to avoid giving anyone standing to have this question reconsidered. But of course extreme partisans don't think that way.

The announcement that people who receive their LTC after a certain date may need to take additional training before they can renew really emphasizes this partisan thinking. So the State's position is "even though you have been licensed for six years, we will revoke your license because you failed to do training that was not available at the time when you were trained." I can hardly think of a stronger argument that licensing schemes are fundamentally capricious and fail any basic test of fairness.

Of course, on the realistic side, I expect a completely different landscape by the time anyone needs to renew in six years, and I doubt any of this matters.
 
Was looking through the law changes and here's an interesting one I'd never heard of:

Chapter 140 Section 126: Placards, signs or advertisements; prima facie evidence



So, if you are traveling out of NH, and you have a bumper sticker that says "Honk and I shoot", you're in the business of selling firearms without a license in the state?
This isn’t anywhere in the text of H4885. Was this in the prior law?
 
Me and the wife just signed the petition. The Healy administration is hoping that the emergency preamble will make people think that there is no point to going for the referendum. It's a trap. Please get as many people to sign as possible. The governor is subverting the will of the people and this helps demonstrate it.
 
I must be missing something. If it only applies to guns on the roster, why is a frame transfer necessary?
Because you still have to duck CMR940, assuming we're talking a Glock or a subvariant of a listed gun that "supposedly isn't cmr940 compliant" - another example would be a post-98 Sig P series that doesn't have that gay glory hole in the chamber hood.
 
Me and the wife just signed the petition. The Healy administration is hoping that the emergency preamble will make people think that there is no point to going for the referendum. It's a trap. Please get as many people to sign as possible. The governor is subverting the will of the people and this helps demonstrate it.
Good point. I was trying to put together something to send to club members about the new law, but only could come up with like 3 or 4 things that I could actually give them as bullet points. Maybe instead, I'll tell them to check GOAL's website for now and get out and sign.
 
Your statement above is exactly my understanding of Bruen. But I have wondered if I understood this correctly.

I have thought that a situation like this would make anti-2A activists tread carefully to avoid giving anyone standing to have this question reconsidered. But of course extreme partisans don't think that way.

The announcement that people who receive their LTC after a certain date may need to take additional training before they can renew really emphasizes this partisan thinking. So the State's position is "even though you have been licensed for six years, we will revoke your license because you failed to do training that was not available at the time when you were trained." I can hardly think of a stronger argument that licensing schemes are fundamentally capricious and fail any basic test of fairness.

Of course, on the realistic side, I expect a completely different landscape by the time anyone needs to renew in six years, and I doubt any of this matters.
The announcement that people receiving licenses after 8/1 would need to retrain is not even complying with the text of the law which specifically excludes anyone holding a license prior to the "implementation" of the training. Since the state hasn't even begun to develop the training requirements nor implement the electronic system to record trainings, everyone licensed before the training goes live is exempt from retraining.

1569 ... Persons lawfully possessing a firearm identification card or license to carry firearms on August 1, 2024, shall be exempt from this section upon expiration of such card or license and when applying for renewal of such licensure as required under this chapter; provided, however, that persons possessing a firearms identification card or license to carry firearms prior to the implementation of live firearms trainings as required in this section shall also be exempt from such requirement.
 
Which can lead to an interesting conundrum for a MA Dealer. FFLs as a condition of their federal license must follow all relevant state and local laws and regulations. So if sale of long guns not on an actual published roster is against state law, then while there might be a defense in state court, there would not be such a defense at the federal level.

While there's a paucity of case law involving that chunk of code (i can't find a single case, although im sure one exists) there's nothing stopping them from going full retard if they really wanted to wave that flag. They have done it with the Lacey act and they become massive fgts about it.

Feds: "Goosedobble here!!!! vee have determined that you have imported fish from Brazil where the standard for harvest is 6.3 inches, and the average measurement of ur fish was 6.2 inches per the inspector!!! You must pay zee fine!!!! 1000 per fish!!!! And u still may go to JAYLE if u don't obey. "

Fisherman "our bad we didn't realize they were that small. We even contacted the Brazilian government and they said it was ok so we figured you wouldn't care. "

Brazil: "Yes america, we actually don't care its ok if he harvested those fish. We have determined it not to be a major ecological issue. Carry on. "

Feds: NEIN NEIN NEIN!!!!!! Zat is ze lawrs!!! Zey will pay ze fines and get on Ze Train for ZE INDICTMENT!


The lacey act is a fun example of where fed shitbirds have weaponized laws from someone elses jurisdiction, and ignored the legality of that jurisdictions exective office decrees.
 
What's with the titanic link?
No idea. I took the screen-shot off of an MSN news video.

It appears that they pulled/scrubbed the MSN news video and the link now goes to the titanic video.

Not too surprising .... since the news video did not paint a good image for MA gov.
 
Last edited:
Quick questions:
How many "guidance letters" ("guidance notices"?) have been sent out recently? 1,2,3?
Can someone list them each as bullet points with an official link and a couple words of description?

Here's an example, correct as needed:
  • Healey signed emergency preamble on Wednesday October 2, 2024, which makes the following happen
    • No more carry of 11+ magazines (Large Capacity Feeding Device aka LCFD) (or you become a felon)
    • Transport of LCFD must be stored unloaded and secured in a locked container (or you become a felon)
    • No semi-auto rifles or shotguns with FID only, LTC REQUIRED (or you become a felon)
  • "Guidance 1*" says xyz , here is the link with more info: https://asdf.pdq.mouse/
  • "Guidance 2*" says abc, here is the link with more info: https://asdf.pdq.mouse/
  • "Guidance 3*" says pdq , here is the link with more info: https://asdf.pdq.mouse/
*please note, none of the "guidance" complies with MGL. You are on your own as to what to do.​


I'd like to send to our club today (what's left of it). No opinions, only facts/data. If I can't get this together, I am just going to have to point them to GOAL's website. There is nothing else. Well, that and to get out and sign petition before tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
I'm the Dem MA Guv and I can amend any law that our General Court passes if I don't like it or want to add my two cents to it If you don't believe just check around.
 
That would end up in court in a heart beat. A car or boat is not constitutionally protected. Be right there in the same camp as a poll tax.
You mean like the 11% CA excise tax on guns and ammo that is in full force and effect.

Or the $25/gun .05/round of ammo tax passed in Seattle and upheld by the courts.

Or the fee needed in several states (MA, NY, NJ) to exercise the 2A right?
 
Don't think there's going to be a run on frame transfers on roster guns...
I'm talking Glocks frames here.

Glocks guns are on the Roster but do not meet AG regulations.

Glock frames are not guns and since the complete guns are on the roster - Glock frames can be sold from shops.

The flood gates are open folks!!!

Mortgage the house and bring your credit card to the liquor store.
 
So I’ve been thinking about the following as I read through the replies.

#1 rule of non-compliance is:
STFU!!!

#2 rule of non-compliance is:
Don’t post your not going to comply on a public forum and oh yeah, see rule #1!

Maybe it’s just me.

And remember you can't be compelled to speak (or to document) your potential incriminating evidence. You can't lie to the government (they can lie to you) but you can refuse to answer (in any form) their questions.
 
Back
Top Bottom