GOAL Alert - Senator Tarr's "Act to Protect Due Process" Focus Efforts On This Bill!

After reading the bill, I think the date is put on there to cover her going after somone in the between her edict and this bill. Seems like belt and suspenders approach which isn't a bad thing.

I say this looks very good. Hopefully it can pass.

Is Baker on board? Deleo? Keep up the pressure.
 
I see this as a win-win in that it removes the AG from Consumer Regs to regulate guns, rolls back her directive, but does keep the same AWB in place prior to 7/20/16. If all this can be done before they break for the summer session, then it's a no-brainer. If people demand it contain a repeal of the pre-7/20 AWB, then you are maybe looking at 3 to 5 years down the road just to get the AG's ruling removed through the legal process or hopefully by the legislators. I think that they are really pissed that Healey overreached with her reinterpretation of the law; something she has no right or authority to do!

If we can get this one through, then we can start working on the old pre-ban crap. Just as someone said, our rights were taken away by incremental steps (slippery slope), so that is the only way we are going to get them back; by incremental steps.
 
Let me be the tin foil tard... It's what I'm good at.
As stated and as I understand you guys. This erases the last week. And prevents more like it. The fines are a tough one to swallow.

Could she sneak attack using the fa10's down the road?

As long as I dont have to be afraid of the fa10 system I MAY just use it..... Part of me doesn't care. Part of me likes my dog too much. [laugh]
 
Last edited:
Lowbird said:
Let me be the tin foil tard... It's what I'm good at.
As stated and as I understand you guys. This erases the last week. And prevents more like it. The fines are a tough one to swallow.

Could she sneak attack using the fa10's down the road?

As long as I dont have to be afraid of the fa10 system I MAY just use it..... Part of me doesn't care. Part of men like my dog too much. [laugh]
Click to expand...

the fines are the comprises. They are the part that allow people who wouldn't normally support the bill to support it so they can remain tough on crime and guns.
 
I have but only one question the the MOLON LABE NO COMPROMISE WHAT THE **** IS GOAL DOING types that I see in all the threads about this stuff lately.

What the **** are you doing about this? Aside from calling some reps, what per se are you doing? Are you planning to storm the statehouse and start offing politicians? Are you going to somehow march 100k angry gun owners, armed and open carrying up to the statehouse steps? No? Then sit down and let the adults do what they are doing and try to fix this mess. If it means having stricter penalties for people who break the laws that even us gun owners have been demanding they do for the last umpteen years, than so be it, but I gotta tell ya, the no compromise where is goal types are getting really, really goddamn tiring.

You don't go from 0-100 in one step. The first step is getting this set back to Wednesday 7/20/16, so unless you have a flux capacitor and a goddamn deloreon, this is how we need to do it.
 
Last edited:
Lowbird said:
The fines are a tough one to swallow.
Click to expand...

Someone hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread with regard to fines and penalities: "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."
 
Let me try starting this again. I apologize for posting my initial angry response before thinking about it further.

Here is how I read the bill. If you think I'm wrong about some of it, please correct me and *share your reasoning*.
Section 1 is great, it gets rid of AG rules and regulations about guns under the 93A consumer protection statute.
However, did the AG mention/invoke anything about 93A in her 7/20 announcement?

Section 2 appears to be grandfathering of pre 7/21 AWs. How is this different from the grandfathering rejected by Jim at the rally last week? Also, it only seems to cover guns that went through MIRCs. What about guns that went through NICS (federal) as a lower (not a gun re MA) and then were built up and registered on a paper FA-10? From NES group buys alone, there are probably well over a thousand of these.

Section 3 says that the definition of AW can't change without legislative input, which is great. However, her 7/20 directive contends that she hasn't changed the definition of AW, just clearly stated what it has meant the whole time. She's obviously being disingenuous here at best, but how does this new language keep her from just maintaining the farce?

Section 4 increases the penalty for failing to file an FA-10. I don't care at all about the fine increase. However, adding a prison term triggers the following language in Section 131 of Ch 140: "a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed;" This means failing to file an FA-10 is a lifetime disqualification for a MA LTC.

Section 5 gets tougher on real criminals, good stuff.
 
Scarab440 said:
the fines are the comprises. They are the part that allow people who wouldn't normally support the bill to support it so they can remain tough on crime and guns.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Same with the increased minimum sentence part. This is exactly the kind of thing law abiding owners already have nothing to fear because this shit's out there already anyhow. The fines are a hard pill to swallow, but they already exist. Increasing them doesn't bankrupt anyone because the amount is still pretty low (relatively speaking). This looks like a win-win for us.
 
HKdrummer said:
You don't go from 0-100 in one step. The first step is getting this set back to Wednesday 7/20/16, so unless you have a flux capacitor and a goddamn deloreon, this is how we need to do it.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I want to do. I'm just trying to understand how this bill does that.
 
jar said:
Let me try starting this again. I apologize for posting my initial angry response before thinking about it further.

Here is how I read the bill. If you think I'm wrong about some of it, please correct me and *share your reasoning*.
Section 1 is great, it gets rid of AG rules and regulations about guns under the 93A consumer protection statute.
However, did the AG mention/invoke anything about 93A in her 7/20 announcement?

Section 2 appears to be grandfathering of pre 7/21 AWs. How is this different from the grandfathering rejected by Jim at the rally last week? Also, it only seems to cover guns that went through MIRCs. What about guns that went through NICS (federal) as a lower (not a gun re MA) and then were built up and registered on a paper FA-10? From NES group buys alone, there are probably well over a thousand of these.

Section 3 says that the definition of AW can't change without legislative input, which is great. However, her 7/20 directive contends that she hasn't changed the definition of AW, just clearly stated what it has meant the whole time. She's obviously being disingenuous here at best, but how does this new language keep her from just maintaining the farce?

Section 4 increases the penalty for failing to file an FA-10. I don't care at all about the fine increase. However, adding a prison term triggers the following language in Section 131 of Ch 140: "a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed;" This means failing to file an FA-10 is a lifetime disqualification for a MA LTC.

Section 5 gets tougher on real criminals, good stuff.
Click to expand...
The 7/21 date is noted to close any loophole that Healey might try to exploit, that's it, that's why it's noted - the bill provides protections for anything done before 7/21, this is why it's noted.

ETA regarding section 3, removing her powers via 93A nullifies this as she did change the definition via the "copycat" bs, (not to mention what was noted in her "guidance")
 
Last edited:
this sounds promising.

While I dont have a dog in the fight since I am no longer in that hell hole, my first thoughts when I heard of this BS was the horror of the fact that she somehow circumvented legislature to do this. When my wife, who isnt an anti, but isnt head over heels pro 2A either learned of it, she expressed the same shock about the lack of due process that I did.

I think that leaning on that angle of attack when calling/emailing your reps etc would be far more effective than using the "My 2A rights!" approach with likely liberal minded politicians. Dont tell them youre concerned because youre a gun owner, but youre horrified because she was able to change a law all on her own, and somehow the governor thought this was a fantastic thing? Whats to stop her from doing it again focused on a different agenda?
 
Mike S said:
The 7/21 date is noted to close any loophole that Healey might try to exploit, that's it, that's why it's noted - the bill provides protections for anything done before 7/21, this is why it's noted.

ETA regarding section 3, removing her powers via 93A nullifies this as she did change the definition via the "copycat" bs, (not to mention what was noted in her "guidance")
Click to expand...

A crossing of T's and dotting of I's if you will. Basically making it so there is no open window for her to exploit any owners who have bought anything. Correct?
 
Editor said:
Someone hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread with regard to fines and penalities: "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."
Click to expand...

I can understand that. I equate what you said to the " If you have nothing to hide" drivel. If I'm off base let me know.

(We have laws now. Enforce those first before adding to the rape.)

Having said that. This past week proves we have no friggin idea if we have anything to hide. If that makes sense.

We may get a "win" here. Yet it comes with the cost of a greater distrust for the people who work for us.
 
jar said:
Let me try starting this again. I apologize for posting my initial angry response before thinking about it further.

Section 2 appears to be grandfathering of pre 7/21 AWs. How is this different from the grandfathering rejected by Jim at the rally last week? Also, it only seems to cover guns that went through MIRCs. What about guns that went through NICS (federal) as a lower (not a gun re MA) and then were built up and registered on a paper FA-10? From NES group buys alone, there are probably well over a thousand of these.
Click to expand...

My read:
By rolling back to pre-7/20 language (in effect, affirming the AWB as interpreted for the last 22 years) you are back to well-known ground: Finish your build, skip the grenade launcher and other extra killy features just as you always have, and eFA10 it.


I have two (cheap, polymer) lowers that were never built. Correctly 4473d by the seller, and correctly NOT fa10d, these now sit in limbo.
 
jar said:
Does this accept the AG's interpretation? How can GOAL support that? If it doesn't, why does it say anything about pre-7/21?
Click to expand...

I think that this little nugget in the bill might cover it:

5 sale of weapons. Further, that any such rule or regulations having previously being promulgated
6 are hereby repealed.
 
jar said:
Section 4 increases the penalty for failing to file an FA-10. I don't care at all about the fine increase. However, adding a prison term triggers the following language in Section 131 of Ch 140: "a violation of any law regulating the use, possession, ownership, transfer, purchase, sale, lease, rental, receipt or transportation of weapons or ammunition for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed;" This means failing to file an FA-10 is a lifetime disqualification for a MA LTC.
Click to expand...

Per my previous note, I'm also uneasy with this section only. It feels like there is a opportunity for misinterpretation which could have significant unintentional consequences. I would like to be assured a good "MA" 2A attorney has reviewed it.
 
I'm doing my best to follow along, and support the stuff that helps. I feel like the rest of you that I have to get an internet law degree to understand all of the ways they are ****ing us.

With that being said, I contacted my reps, made sure they knew I was LE (and a firearms instructor in LE additionally), and that I did not believe these laws in any way/shape/form made me 'safer'. I encouraged them to support the bill, and my wife did the same.
 
Individualist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Looks ok but I agree seems like there could be some confusion over FA10 if an ffl screwed up, or frb has bad data, and unbuilt or unfinished items.
 
mwalsh9152 said:
this sounds promising.

While I dont have a dog in the fight since I am no longer in that hell hole, my first thoughts when I heard of this BS was the horror of the fact that she somehow circumvented legislature to do this. When my wife, who isnt an anti, but isnt head over heels pro 2A either learned of it, she expressed the same shock about the lack of due process that I did.

I think that leaning on that angle of attack when calling/emailing your reps etc would be far more effective than using the "My 2A rights!" approach with likely liberal minded politicians. Dont tell them youre concerned because youre a gun owner, but youre horrified because she was able to change a law all on her own, and somehow the governor thought this was a fantastic thing? Whats to stop her from doing it again focused on a different agenda?
Click to expand...

This should insult anyone who knows what the separation of powers is. That's probably why there is so much bipartisan support.

Mike
 

Similar threads

Mainstream Media Misrepresenting Crime Statistics In Order To Protect Biden
Replies
6
Views
234
SS1
SS1
Amber Alert Chicopee
2
Replies
42
Views
785
Garys
Garys
Sen. Joni Ernst Introduces Bill to Protect Firearm Dealers From Biden’s Weaponized ATF
Replies
6
Views
261
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
This hurt my brain reading this "article" on an AR-15
Replies
14
Views
559
Broc
Broc
Sheriff encourages citizens "to arm themselves and protect themselves" from home invaders
Replies
7
Views
452
LT5
L
Back
Top Bottom