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

Someone from GOAL please explain how I am wrong on this;


Further, that any such rule or regulations having previously being promulgated
are hereby repealed.





Except that it wasn't a Rule or Regulation. The LCI is a Rule/Regulation, the approved handgun list may also fit this, what she did is "Guidance" (a.k.a. a re-interpretation). The language in HD4949 un-does her Guidance by making it clear the law is about the defined features, and removes the "copy" language. But this one appears to only protect those that bought in the past.

I'd like to be wrong on this but it just doesn't look like it will change anything going forward on the AWB except protecting past buyers.
 
42! said:
Someone from GOAL please explain how I am wrong on this; Further, that any such rule or regulations having previously being promulgated are hereby repealed. Except that it wasn't a Rule or Regulation. The LCI is a Rule/Regulation, the approved handgun list may also fit this, what she did is "Guidance" (a.k.a. a re-interpretation). The language in HD4949 un-does her Guidance by making it clear the law is about the defined features, and removes the "copy" language. But this one appears to only protect those that bought in the past. I'd like to be wrong on this but it just doesn't look like it will change anything going forward on the AWB except protecting past buyers.
Click to expand...
I believe it comes down to how you interpret "Material Change"

“Material change”-Change, alteration or modification to any provision contained in this section which has its objective, effect, or impact, one or more weapons, by class, type or specific model, being added or subtracted from the definition of assault weapons or weapon [\quote]
Click to expand...
 
Mr. Brownstone said:
I believe it comes down to how you interpret "Material Change"

“Material change”-Change, alteration or modification to any provision contained in this section which has its objective, effect, or impact, one or more weapons, by class, type or specific model, being added or subtracted from the definition of assault weapons or weapon [\quote]
Click to expand...

She didn't change anything in the section.
Click to expand...
 
42! said:
Someone from GOAL please explain how I am wrong on this;


Further, that any such rule or regulations having previously being promulgated
are hereby repealed.





Except that it wasn't a Rule or Regulation. The LCI is a Rule/Regulation, the approved handgun list may also fit this, what she did is "Guidance" (a.k.a. a re-interpretation). The language in HD4949 un-does her Guidance by making it clear the law is about the defined features, and removes the "copy" language. But this one appears to only protect those that bought in the past.

I'd like to be wrong on this but it just doesn't look like it will change anything going forward on the AWB except protecting past buyers.
Click to expand...

The rest of the paragraph above the sentence you referenced prevents an AG from using 93A to regulate weapons from when the bill passes into the future. The sentence you reference then applies that prohibition to any past actions (ex. 20 July 2016 directive). If you accept that the sentence you quote provides past protection, then the rest of the paragraph provides current and future protection.

As I understand it, directives are considered either a rule or regulation, or they clarify an agency/office rules or regulations. Thus the first section invalides her directive directly, or by invalidating the rules or regulation the directive is intended to clarify. Either way, it's dead, past, present and future.

Furthermore, Section 3, lines 14-29, prevents anyone from redefining assault weapons by administrative action. Any changes in the legal definition of assault weapons must be done by changing the law through the legislative process.
 
Harsh penalties can be a good thing for something that is inherently evil like murder, rape..ect. Failure to FA10 a firearm is a victimless crime. It isn't beyond possibility that someone without intent could unknowingly violate the statute if a glitch in the system happens and no FA10 is electronically received. I think this bill is half good and half a crap sandwich but, unfortunately that's how politics go.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Len-2A Training said:
Yes, if either the Senate President or Speaker of the House refused to ALLOW it on the floor, it is DOA. We better pray because these 2 dictators can do whatever they want, a democracy it isn't!!
Click to expand...

Can friendly reps refuse to allow ANY business from being done this weekend if they refuse? No doubt there is some bill Deleo wants to get done this weekend.
 
kevin9 said:
The rest of the paragraph above the sentence you referenced prevents an AG from using 93A to regulate weapons from when the bill passes into the future. The sentence you reference then applies that prohibition to any past actions (ex. 20 July 2016 directive). If you accept that the sentence you quote provides past protection, then the rest of the paragraph provides current and future protection.

As I understand it, directives are considered either a rule or regulation, or they clarify an agency/office rules or regulations. Thus the first section invalides her directive directly, or by invalidating the rules or regulation the directive is intended to clarify. Either way, it's dead, past, present and future.

Furthermore, Section 3, lines 14-29, prevents anyone from redefining assault weapons by administrative action. Any changes in the legal definition of assault weapons must be done by changing the law through the legislative process.
Click to expand...


Hmmm, now I have something to think about, thanks.
 
kevin9 said:
The rest of the paragraph above the sentence you referenced prevents an AG from using 93A to regulate weapons from when the bill passes into the future. The sentence you reference then applies that prohibition to any past actions (ex. 20 July 2016 directive). If you accept that the sentence you quote provides past protection, then the rest of the paragraph provides current and future protection.

As I understand it, directives are considered either a rule or regulation, or they clarify an agency/office rules or regulations. Thus the first section invalides her directive directly, or by invalidating the rules or regulation the directive is intended to clarify. Either way, it's dead, past, present and future.

Furthermore, Section 3, lines 14-29, prevents anyone from redefining assault weapons by administrative action. Any changes in the legal definition of assault weapons must be done by changing the law through the legislative process.
Click to expand...
This ^^^

- - - Updated - - -

sig shooter said:
Harsh penalties can be a good thing for something that is inherently evil like murder, rape..ect. Failure to FA10 a firearm is a victimless crime. It isn't beyond possibility that someone without intent could unknowingly violate the statute if a glitch in the system happens and no FA10 is electronically received. I think this bill is half good and half a crap sandwich but, unfortunately that's how politics go.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Remember, bills rarely get passed as written, this one will be no different.

I'm sure we all remember what went down with the senate at the last minute in 2014.
 
Because HD.4949 has no shot of going anywhere, it was submitted by a junior member of the house. Sen. Tarr has A LOT more horsepower on the hill, his bill also addresses and shuts down future acts of aggression from AG Healey or whoever follows her.
 
Mike S said:
Because HD.4949 has no shot of going anywhere, it was submitted by a junior member of the house. Sen. Tarr has A LOT more horsepower on the hill, his bill also addresses and shuts down future acts of aggression from AG Healey or whoever follows her.
Click to expand...

and has been stated.. it throws the antis on the hill a bone to run with..
 
kevin9 said:
The rest of the paragraph above the sentence you referenced prevents an AG from using 93A to regulate weapons from when the bill passes into the future. The sentence you reference then applies that prohibition to any past actions (ex. 20 July 2016 directive). If you accept that the sentence you quote provides past protection, then the rest of the paragraph provides current and future protection.

As I understand it, directives are considered either a rule or regulation, or they clarify an agency/office rules or regulations. Thus the first section invalides her directive directly, or by invalidating the rules or regulation the directive is intended to clarify. Either way, it's dead, past, present and future.

Furthermore, Section 3, lines 14-29, prevents anyone from redefining assault weapons by administrative action. Any changes in the legal definition of assault weapons must be done by changing the law through the legislative process.
Click to expand...

OK, I see it now, I'm glade I was wrong.

Thanks
 
Not to throw cold water on anything, but back when DeLeo was on the Sunday morning channel 5 news show, he was shown a video from Mass Firearms School basically pointing out that the MA AWB was basically on cosmetic features which did not affect the functionality of the rifle. At that time, DeLeo said "we'll have to do something about that." Could Healy's re-defining be the thing that DeLeo was talking about. Is it possible that DeLeo and Healy colluded on this to get something done quickly?
 
dennism said:
Can friendly reps refuse to allow ANY business from being done this weekend if they refuse? No doubt there is some bill Deleo wants to get done this weekend.
Click to expand...

Not without nuking their career. The President and Speaker have nearly unlimited powers of retribution against unruly members.
 
Len-2A Training said:
Yes, if either the Senate President or Speaker of the House refused to ALLOW it on the floor, it is DOA. We better pray because these 2 dictators can do whatever they want, a democracy it isn't!!
Click to expand...

Someone (coyote33) said in the HD-4949 thread that they spoke with Deleo's office today and that they were pretty confident there would be a vote this weekend. (that thread switched to talking about Tarr's bill, that's the one I think he was asking Deleo's office about if I wasn't clear). Fingers crossed.

I emailed my Sen.'s and Deleo. My rep's Linsky so probably not worth the time.
 
kevin9 said:
The rest of the paragraph above the sentence you referenced prevents an AG from using 93A to regulate weapons from when the bill passes into the future. The sentence you reference then applies that prohibition to any past actions (ex. 20 July 2016 directive). If you accept that the sentence you quote provides past protection, then the rest of the paragraph provides current and future protection.

As I understand it, directives are considered either a rule or regulation, or they clarify an agency/office rules or regulations. Thus the first section invalides her directive directly, or by invalidating the rules or regulation the directive is intended to clarify. Either way, it's dead, past, present and future.

Furthermore, Section 3, lines 14-29, prevents anyone from redefining assault weapons by administrative action. Any changes in the legal definition of assault weapons must be done by changing the law through the legislative process.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this explanation.
 
Mike S said:
Because HD.4949 has no shot of going anywhere, it was submitted by a junior member of the house. Sen. Tarr has A LOT more horsepower on the hill, his bill also addresses and shuts down future acts of aggression from AG Healey or whoever follows her.
Click to expand...

Mike, Are you suggesting that HD.4949 and SD.2637 will both be dropped in lieu of this new "Tarr" bill? There is very little time left to re-write letters calling for legislative action for our trip to the Statehouse tomorrow. What action are we requesting? Passage of one, two or all three bills?

If there is a definitive plan or recommendation, can it be added to the first page? We all need to be following the same plan here.

Thanks,
 
Mike S said:
This ^^^

- - - Updated - - -



Remember, bills rarely get passed as written, this one will be no different.

I'm sure we all remember what went down with the senate at the last minute in 2014.
Click to expand...
I hope the FA-10 portion is rewritten but I know here in this state you have to throw in a feel good bone to appease the antis. Realistically though, not sure how they are going to enforce a failure to file a FA10 tho.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
Just want some clarification. Does this bill have a #? Or are we to ask our elected officials to "support senator Tarr's bill"?
 
Why would the anti's give up any of the gains that they have made?

The over-reach on the AG's part seems to be like an experienced chess player offering you an open shot at his queen.

I think the Anti's counter-offer is going to be: Yes to the increased penalties (= more leverage to use against gun owners), no to the language undercutting the AG's powers (she doesn't have them by accident) and yes to the written affirmation of legal amnesty.

That play will remove most of the energy surrounding the issue, and a dramatic step forward in the Anti movement will have been accomplished.

I hope that our side is ready to walk away (loudly, angrily, and publicly) and leave the AG's cavalier menacing of lawful gun owners dangling over each of our heads. At least that way the energy surrounding the issue won't dissipate rapidly--and we can have some hope for reform in the fall session.

My .02. YMMV.
 
Da_lucche said:
I hope the FA-10 portion is rewritten but I know here in this state you have to throw in a feel good bone to appease the antis. Realistically though, not sure how they are going to enforce a failure to file a FA10 tho.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Same as always, they'll use it as an add-on charge

- - - Updated - - -

jefftk said:
Yeah.... it could get worse too... [wink]
Click to expand...

Or it could go nowhere... [thinking]
 

Similar threads

Mainstream Media Misrepresenting Crime Statistics In Order To Protect Biden
Replies
6
Views
275
SS1
SS1
3 House Democrats file bill to ban 50 caliber rifles
2
Replies
33
Views
758
40 Creedmoor fan
4
Amber Alert Chicopee
2
Replies
42
Views
853
Garys
Garys
Sen. Joni Ernst Introduces Bill to Protect Firearm Dealers From Biden’s Weaponized ATF
Replies
6
Views
286
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
This hurt my brain reading this "article" on an AR-15
Replies
14
Views
573
Broc
Broc
Back
Top Bottom