This may be more than a compromise. It may be a gain. In addition to the AWB going back to 7/19 status, which would be a win, it ma effect the AGs regs on handguns. Additionally it may create a weird scenario where if you had you LTC prior to 7/20 if you get caught with evil features on your rifle you couldn't be prosecuted for it. Maybe...
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
GOAL Alert - Senator Tarr's "Act to Protect Due Process" Focus Efforts On This Bill!
- Thread starter Mike S
- Start date
lines 23 -24: b). Prohibition - No material change to the definition of weapon or assault weapon as defined in section 121 of chapter 140 shall be made by administrative action.
line 39: Section 6. This act shall be effective as of July 21, 2016.
line 39: Section 6. This act shall be effective as of July 21, 2016.
Mike S
NES Member
It's about her authority under 93A. Amending 121 won't help. Regarding the date, the bill provides protections for anything done before 7/21, this is why it's noted.
The 93A change is the meat here, it removes her, and everyone else's authority.
- - - Updated - - -
See my last reply to JAR
My legalese is weak, but I'm assuming this restores the "no more than two evil features" definition, and prohibits any future AG from trying this crap again. Also removes the "felon in waiting" nonsense that exists as of 7/20.
Mike S
NES Member
Refer to it by name for now
- - - Updated - - -
No maybe about it
- - - Updated - - -
That's a separate issue, let's focus on stopping the AG for now.
So what about the law abiding gun owners who purchased on 7/21?
Mike S
NES Member
Regarding the configuration of an AR15, etc. this would reset back to 7/19/16.
- - - Updated - - -
See my reply above
Dont we have 2 better laws out there- one removing the copycat and one preventing the ag from enforcing weapons policy? This law seems lil it is still shitting on us and does nothing to reconcile the fundamental problems. I would rather be a felon in legality than submit to this.
Mike S
NES Member
No, this is the better law, Humason's language is incorporated into this bill.
Please focus on this one.
See reply's above as well, it seems that you don't understand what the bill does.
Editor
NES Member
Firstly, we don't have any laws out there: There have been a couple of bills filed this week, and they do not a law make.
An Act to Protect Due Process and Strengthen Public Safety rolls up the previous two **and a lot more**. This is the one to support.
^^^This.
I think (IANAL) the language protects those who bought, sold, or registered 'assault weapons' as defined solely by evil features during this 'time of chaos'.
I think the summary from GOAL may be confusing based on your answers following. Will check out the bill itself. I would assume this is the only one with a shot of passing.
A rollback to July 19 while stripping the AG of get ability to do this would be huge, IMO.
A rollback to July 19 while stripping the AG of get ability to do this would be huge, IMO.
Mike S
NES Member
It's way more than "somewhat" it completely shuts down Healey and ends the abusive actions from her office, plus provides protection should she try an end around.
- - - Updated - - -
Your reading comprehension needs work.
Last edited by a moderator:
Individualist
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,663
- Likes
- 4,366
Section 5: Adds 5 to 10 years to the sentence of a person convicted for use of firearms while committing a felony if the person did not have a license or the firearm was purchased and a gun transfer was not recorded.
Has this been scrubbed by a 2A attorney? Maybe I just don't understand the legal lingo, but I'm not so keen in this because of some confusion over FA10 transfer registration vs federal 4473 transfer. Is in itself having an improperly (according to whoever's interpretation of law) registered lower, rifle or handgun a felony and thus simply having said firearm adds an addition 5-10 years to that felony term? What happens if I purchased a gun on a paper FA10, and the seller did not properly do and correct the transfer, but I never knew about it, yet have my copy of the FA10? Am I in felony possession?
I wish this Bill wasn't muddied up with changes to law and punishment, and simply focused on reversing the illegal AG action. However, if it can both reverse her past action and prevent further similar actions, while at the same time removing the secret AG list and conditions then it makes sense to have to give up something in return. In that respect it is fair.
Has this been scrubbed by a 2A attorney? Maybe I just don't understand the legal lingo, but I'm not so keen in this because of some confusion over FA10 transfer registration vs federal 4473 transfer. Is in itself having an improperly (according to whoever's interpretation of law) registered lower, rifle or handgun a felony and thus simply having said firearm adds an addition 5-10 years to that felony term? What happens if I purchased a gun on a paper FA10, and the seller did not properly do and correct the transfer, but I never knew about it, yet have my copy of the FA10? Am I in felony possession?
I wish this Bill wasn't muddied up with changes to law and punishment, and simply focused on reversing the illegal AG action. However, if it can both reverse her past action and prevent further similar actions, while at the same time removing the secret AG list and conditions then it makes sense to have to give up something in return. In that respect it is fair.
Last edited:
Mike S
NES Member
Just to be clear, the summary came with the bill, from Sen. Tarr's office.
- - - Updated - - -
If you don't understand it, why are you taking shots at me instead of asking?
Have somebody read it to you again.
If it were to pass in its entirety, it would be a meaningful gain. I don't really see a problem with the increased penalties for people breaking the law because I try not to break the law. And I don't plan to use a firearm to commit a felony and I have a license. If I did, I reckon I have bigger fish to fry than a longer sentence.
ETA: Let's stop screaming at each other long enough to call our legislators and ask them to support this. If you don't understand the bill yet, please read the summary. If you still don't understand it, or you think it's bad, then call your legislator and ask them to protect your rights, or whatever.
My read of this bill is that at minimum it protects anyone affected by last week's edict and at maximum it rolls back pre 7/19 and rips up 'The List'. I don't see a bad outcome for passing it, unless your good outcome is outside the realm of possibility, i.e. repeal AWB this weekend.
Last edited:
OK, then maybe the summary is couched for politcal reasons.
Same amount as before, and she can't replace it with pumice again.
- - - Updated - - -
Your language is still unclear to me. Does this undo what she already did? When you say this 'ends' her actions, it implies to me to prevent further action in the future. That statement says nothing about stomping out past actions (on 7/20).
However, I think the bill does undo the effect of the guidance, so I will support it, and call the legislature, starting with the Senate, because it seems to be a Senate bill.
I think the problem in this thread is more with the summary of the bill, than the bill itself. But, since I don't trust my legalese to human translation skills 100%, I'd like to hear it from the experts. Does this bill completely undo/repeal/invalidate all the effects of the 7/20 'guidance' letter?
amm5061
NES Member
This reads to me like a combination of both of our previous bills with a little extra to make it a little more palatable to the Antis. Everything gets reset. Healey's decrees are all nullified, and she and all of the Executive gets the authority to regulate gun sales stripped. It increases the fine for unreported transactions, and increases the minimum jail time for someone committing a felony with an already illegal to possess firearm (ie: they don't have an LTC or the gun is stolen, eradicated serial number, etc.).
All in all, I don't see why we shouldn't be supporting this.
All in all, I don't see why we shouldn't be supporting this.
Similar threads
