End of the pullman arms v. Healey case today?

boiler_eng

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
3,277
Likes
982
Location
Haverhill, MA
Actually, I think that's good if this BS ever gets in front of a sane judge.
Sane judge, probably a pipe dream.

However the more "on the record" things end up on this the worse it is for her in my opinion.

A track record of "official" confusion is more damning than consent decrees in the shadows.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
35,114
Likes
11,739
I get that part, to be expected from the AGO. More wondering about how she would get from point A to point B wrt receivers. I PM'd Rob because it's probably not wise to publicly discuss the mechanics of it.
The mechanics are simple - the dealer can pay $$ and risk conviction by a marsupial court or sign a decree accepting the AGs interpretation. Saves the AG the trouble of actually having to prove anything, like how a "non-gun" (under MGL) is a "similar or copycat gun" under MGL. She has this bizarre logic in which XOR=>AND.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
35,114
Likes
11,739
She would have to change her FAQ again. As Len noted .22LR are good to go. Any liability for a non .22LR build on the lower would be on the builder, not the dealer.
That depends on the courts interpretation, and what is inferred regarding the dealers intention. We are not talking about how the law is worded, but how it is applied.
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
32,916
Likes
15,879
Location
PREM
Some of us have pre-Healey lowers for sale. Not cheap but priced due to her edict (which makes them a scarce commodity).
Silly question - You've built and registered your AR-15 as a .22lr and decide to buy this (or any other upper you have laying around):


Are you supposed to RE-register it as a... Hell, what do you put for caliber? 2.60 caliber?

Once built and "registered", is there a legal requirement to ever re-register it?
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
69,132
Likes
28,102
The mechanics are simple - the dealer can pay $$ and risk conviction by a marsupial court or sign a decree accepting the AGs interpretation. Saves the AG the trouble of actually having to prove anything, like how a "non-gun" (under MGL) is a "similar or copycat gun" under MGL. She has this bizarre logic in which XOR=>AND.
Prosecution for what? Violating a law that doesn't exist?

I think sometimes the consent decree enema acceptance is based off cost and not fear. Dealers attorney goes "well the cheap way out is to do this, and it goes away, otherwise it might cost THIS just to prove you're right. We have a superb chance of winning but it will cost X times as much. " Same thing with the ammo and midway bullshit, etc. Businesses make business
decisions.... often ones not based of "fear of prosecution" but "how much is this going to cost, and even if this is a nearly guaranteed win, will I ever be able to make the money back?" etc.

-Mike
 

boiler_eng

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
3,277
Likes
982
Location
Haverhill, MA
Prosecution for what? Violating a law that doesn't exist?

I think sometimes the consent decree enema acceptance is based off cost and not fear. Dealers attorney goes "well the cheap way out is to do this, and it goes away, otherwise it might cost THIS just to prove you're right. We have a superb chance of winning but it will cost X times as much. " Same thing with the ammo and midway bullshit, etc. Businesses make business
decisions.... often ones not based of "fear of prosecution" but "how much is this going to cost, and even if this is a nearly guaranteed win, will I ever be able to make the money back?" etc.

-Mike
It is legal harassment. As you pointed out, it's the byproducts that are the threat not the end result.

It's the same mindset many drunk on abusing their power get. No one is going to make the AG work late or on the weekend to do their real duties because they wasted time chasing bad cases. There is minimal cost, short of getting voted out of office or losing a big case and falling out of favor. Even with losing a case you just have that fall on the "new guy" who takes your office and had to pick it up mid stream.

It's the "school teacher" mindset. What they say goes, and who is going to believe you if it's your word against theirs. People get the "I don't want to get in trouble" mindset and just let it run over them.

In the case of a consent decrees there is a lot of pain that could be inflicted before you get a chance a vindication. Would love to see someone tell the AG to shove it but as seen in this case the chance is that even if you don't "lose" your case can get pushed into a corner of minutea where you don't really win anything either.

If some 2a billionaire wants to build and sell AWB compliant ARs along with publicizing it and calling the MA AG out then this could easily be ironed out but for mom and pop places where they need the business and cannot afford unending legal bills that's a bit harder.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
35,114
Likes
11,739
Prosecution for what? Violating a law that doesn't exist?
Just try getting caught with a gun in the trunk of your car in a school parking lot and you'll learn about getting prosecuted for a non-existent law (as discussed elsewhere, the offense is carry "on ones person" on school grounds)
I think sometimes the consent decree enema acceptance is based off cost and not fear.
That would be fear of cost.
 

Len-2A Training

Instructor
Instructor
NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 98.1%
52   1   0
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
51,646
Likes
9,442
Location
Escaping to NH
I wonder if the AG can actually force the NON-renewal of a MA Dealer's License? To me, that seems to be the fear driving dealer reactions. Said license is issued by the local police chief, but I don't know if it goes thru a similar vetting process as LTCs (thru FRB) and if so, if FRB would bow down to the AG's demands?
 

Behind Enemy Lines

Dealer
NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
627
Likes
652
I wonder if the AG can actually force the NON-renewal of a MA Dealer's License? To me, that seems to be the fear driving dealer reactions. Said license is issued by the local police chief, but I don't know if it goes thru a similar vetting process as LTCs (thru FRB) and if so, if FRB would bow down to the AG's demands?
There's a claim that very thing has happened - for lowers being sold to build up as .22LR rifles:

 

Da_lucche

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
2,078
Likes
293
Location
Demokratic People's Republik of Massachusux
I thought some retailers have been selling them all along. Not illegal to build a .22LR.
And its not illegal to build or have an ar15 or ak47...healeys edict isnt law. Her whole mission was to fear monger mass ffls into not selling them anymore with threat of a dick slapping and make them parrot that its illegal as a form of misinformation.

Yea it's so illegal hence why over the last 3 years no one has been brought up on charges pertaining to healeys redefinition. You would think a tyrant like her would waste no time....right?

But guess what? It will never go to court because her bullshit would be revealed. Considering how the majority of MA ffls are parroting the same bullshit rhetoric about ar lowers being illegal, she doesnt need to...she did her job.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
35,114
Likes
11,739
But guess what? It will never go to court because her bullshit would be revealed. Considering how the majority of MA ffls are parroting the same bullshit rhetoric about ar lowers being illegal, she doesnt need to...she did her job.
There is no limit as to the level on analytical strain some courts will go with to get the results meetings their public policy social engineering agenda.

For example, no court would uphold a fee to exercise the right to free speech or remain silent, but has for guns.

Or how about a court ruling that internet censorship by the govt is constitutional because other mechanisms such as newspapers and handbills provide a mechanism to meet the free speech requirement - typical logic used in gun rulings.

Courts below SCOTUS have bought the "in use as the time the constitution was written" argument, but not even an agressive AGs office would humiliate itself by offering such an argument in regards to speech.

So, assuming a case would be adjudicated according to the clear wording of the law can be a risky proposition.
 

Mesatchornug

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
1,384
Likes
1,278
Location
Medford
There is no limit as to the level on analytical strain some courts will go with to get the results meetings their public policy social engineering agenda.

For example, no court would uphold a fee to exercise the right to free speech or remain silent, but has for guns.

Or how about a court ruling that internet censorship by the govt is constitutional because other mechanisms such as newspapers and handbills provide a mechanism to meet the free speech requirement - typical logic used in gun rulings.

Courts below SCOTUS have bought the "in use as the time the constitution was written" argument, but not even an agressive AGs office would humiliate itself by offering such an argument in regards to speech.

So, assuming a case would be adjudicated according to the clear wording of the law can be a risky proposition.
I'm with you Rob, but they accepted that remaining silent is insufficient; you now must speak to declare your intent to remain silent during custodial investigation.

Is it that much of a stretch to believe that they'll start demanding a fee?

Hell, we have to pay a fee to fight tickets now. Even if the ticket is factually false you still pay. But somehow this is ok because reasons.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
24,572
Likes
3,240
... no limit as to the level on analytical strain some courts will go with to get the results meetings their public policy social engineering agenda.
...
For example, no court would uphold a fee to exercise the right to free speech or remain silent, but has for guns....
So, how might this be changed? Try to get someone to charge a fee for free speech? That would be fun, hold a meeting at an actual town hall, and then allow "citizen response" only after paying a fee. Get some to actually pay it and speak, then let the fun begin.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
1,502
Likes
635
So, how might this be changed? Try to get someone to charge a fee for free speech?
Have a lot of people start pushing for a $100 fee to vote? You'll have a whole herd of people and politicians that will scream "unconstitutional"! Point out it HAS to be constitutional because it's done with guns. Every single argument against it can be countered with it's done with gun permits so it is constitutional. Keep using the phrases like "pay your fair share", "for the schools think of the children", "repair crumbling roads", ect ect too. Keep pushing endlessly and sooner or later a couple democrats will combine brain power to do the math on how much money would come in for them to buy votes via free shit given to the free shit army and it will become reality. That's when you get 97% of the people to agree that the government shouldn't be charging people money for access to constitutional rights and maybe something will change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsj
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
35,114
Likes
11,739
Keep using the phrases like "pay your fair share", "for the schools think of the children", "repair crumbling roads", ect ect too. K
Your forgot the classic "invest". We have the patriot act that deprives citizens of rights; the Nixonian monetization of the dollar that took us off the metal standard and neutered silver certificates; HIPPA that assures medical privacy unless a government agent utters the root password 'national security'; and of course the "bank secrecy act" mandating disclosure of account info for the govt, so in govspeak "invest" means "spend".
 
Last edited:

rivet_42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
1,045
Likes
433
Have a lot of people start pushing for a $100 fee to vote? You'll have a whole herd of people and politicians that will scream "unconstitutional"! Point out it HAS to be constitutional because it's done with guns.
To be fair, poll taxes (the name for what you describe) were specifically made illegal by the 24th Amendment.

What we'd need would be a court decision that says that placing a fee of roughly $200 on the exercise of one's Second Amendment rights is really a means test, and thus an infringement. (The cost is de facto $200 because of the $100 application fee plus the cost of the class, which, although variable, is roughly also $100.) Courts have traditionally taken a dim view of placing a means test on the exercise of a right; however, given the Second's status as "disfavored right", courts might not agree.

Another gun law that establishes a de facto means test is "gun safety regulations" intended to eliminate inexpensive handguns from the marketplace, such as the import restrictions of GCA68, or "melting point laws".

Of course, any time you establish a means test, it has a disproportionate effect on people of color, which makes the whole thing racist, too.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
1,502
Likes
635
To be fair, poll taxes (the name for what you describe) were specifically made illegal by the 24th Amendment.
It wouldn't be a "tax" though, it would be a "fee" to cover the cost in "supplies" and "manpower" of taking one persons vote, same as with gun permits. Somehow the cost of a laminated card and 10 minutes of a licensing officers time and 3 minutes of someone at the FRB's time comes out to $100, i'm sure the math can be engineered to cost $100 for voting too. Same logic that made obamacares penalty and gun permit fee's "constitutional", just call a tax some other word.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
35,114
Likes
11,739
What we'd need would be a court decision that says that placing a fee of roughly $200 on the exercise of one's Second Amendment rights is really a means test, and thus an infringement. (The cost is de facto $200 because of the $100 application fee plus the cost of the class, which, although variable, is roughly also $100.) Courts have traditionally taken a dim view of placing a means test on the exercise of a right; however, given the Second's status as "disfavored right", courts might not agree.
Attorney David Jensen brought such a case in NYC. The court ignored all such arguments, declared the fee reasonable, and upheld the licensing fees. And this was clearly applicable to "Heller limits" (handgun in the home), so "Heller does not cover carry" did not enter into the basis for the decision.
 

rivet_42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
1,045
Likes
433
Attorney David Jensen brought such a case in NYC. The court ignored all such arguments, declared the fee reasonable, and upheld the licensing fees. And this was clearly applicable to "Heller limits" (handgun in the home), so "Heller does not cover carry" did not enter into the basis for the decision.
"because gunz." Why am I not surprised.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
9,031
Likes
8,632
Location
Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
To be fair, poll taxes (the name for what you describe) were specifically made illegal by the 24th Amendment.

Of course, any time you establish a means test, it has a disproportionate effect on people of color, which makes the whole thing racist, too.
Look at Brookline's application process where they demand proof of club membership and a waiver that you won't sue over/appeal their licensing process. They are probably the most openly racist town in Massachusetts hiding behind a fig leaf of liberalism.

The damn town banned overnight parking to make sure the domestic help and visiting riff-raff from Boston didn't linger in town after the workday ended.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
24,572
Likes
3,240
So, it sounds like what needs to happen is that the second amentment rights need to be tied more closely to the first amendment and other rights. Is there a way to lump them together in some sort of local bylaw "table of fees"? You might need to get a charter change to do that, but if you get the right people on a charter committee, it could happen. What other ways could they be put into the same bin?
 

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
32,916
Likes
15,879
Location
PREM
... The cost is de facto $200 because of the $100 application fee plus the cost of the class, which, although variable, is roughly also $100.) ...
So charge $100 for voter registration fee and require all voters to take a government approved course in civics, before they can register. Which they pay around $100 for.

Just to keep the profile similar.

Have we got any law jockeys around here that could write a suitable obfuscated bill that we could get some congress critter to endorse?
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
24,572
Likes
3,240
I think it should go in as a state bill. Massachusetts lets people submit a bill "on behalf of...", which HAS to go forward. It wouldn't go anywhere anyhow, but it would allow the point to be made and would be easy enough to do it that way.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
35,114
Likes
11,739
I think it should go in as a state bill. Massachusetts lets people submit a bill "on behalf of...", which HAS to go forward. It wouldn't go anywhere anyhow, but it would allow the point to be made and would be easy enough to do it that way.
You are under the mistaken assumption that someone would care. "On behalf of" bills are considered a joke.
 
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
35,114
Likes
11,739
Although it may get on the news. See the bill submitted to outlaw the utterance of "bitch".
True, but that does not change the fact that nobody cares about these bills except the hapless citizen submitting them who may even thing "Referred to study" means someone will be studying his/her bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TLB
Top Bottom