• 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.

Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers

Status
Not open for further replies.
CAR

CAR

Joined
Mar 31, 2015
Messages
302
Likes
177
Location
Norfolk County, MA
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
At the risk of starting a panic, in the Boston Globe app today I see a letter from Maura Healy on Opinion page A11 titled "Closing the loophole" announcing that she is sending a letter to the state's gun dealers informing them that weapons "functionally equivalent" to prohibited weapons are in fact prohibited, specifically that cosmetic features like flash hiders and pistol grips are not what made the weapon prohibited but rather its semiautomatic operation.

tin foil hat time, I can't find that same letter on their website and I don't get the paper in physical form. Can anyone else confirm or deny the presence of that letter?

I'm so ramped up I took a screenshot to make sure I have a copy but I don't think I can post it here. Anyone else seeing that???

EDIT: Found the article on their site, added a link in a followup message and here

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html
 
Last edited:
The hell with it, here's the screenshot. If anyone know for sure that it's inappropriate for it to be posted in this way let me know by private message and I'll take it down, or the admins are welcome to take it down on my behalf.

EDIT: Removed screenshot since the link has been found and is in message #1 and #4 of this thread.
 
Last edited:
"If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal."

That looks like a ban on all semi-auto rifles.
 
CAR said:
At the risk of starting a panic, in the Boston Globe app today I see a letter from Maura Healy on Opinion page A11 titled "Closing the loophole" announcing that she is sending a letter to the state's gun dealers informing them that weapons "functionally equivalent" to prohibited weapons are in fact prohibited, specifically that cosmetic features like flash hiders and pistol grips are not what made the weapon prohibited but rather its semiautomatic operation.

tin foil hat time, I can't find that same letter on their website and I don't get the paper in physical form. Can anyone else confirm or deny the presence of that letter?

I'm so ramped up I took a screenshot to ame sure I have a copy but I don't think I can post it here. Anyone else seeing that???
Click to expand...

So she is creating her own definition which is not as the AWB was defined by Washington and adopted into law by the MA legislature. Sort of reminds me of Harshbarger and his stupid consumer safety regulations; regulations without legislation.
 
An 'assault weapon ' is specifically described under statute. She's going to have a hard time with this one, unless she gets the legislature to change the statute.

Btw, she just emptied the shelves at every store in new England
 
Last edited:
Zero regard for liberty. She clearly knows better than the founding fathers. Makes me sick to work and pay taxes to this state.
 
Palladin said:
An 'assault weapon ' is specifically described under statute. She's going to have a hard time with this one, unless she gets the legislature to change the statute.

Btw, she just emptied the shelves at every store in new England
Click to expand...

Getting our lovely reps under the gold dome to change this would only take a secound
 
This episode is particularly offensive. I hope all the stores laugh it off, as they should. If even one complies, it turns into a dangerous game.
 
Palladin said:
An 'assault weapon ' is specifically described under statute. She's going to have a hard time with this one, unless she gets the legislature to change the statute.

Btw, she just emptied the shelves at every store in new England
Click to expand...


She has the precedent of the loaded chamber indicator that tells her she can make the rules about acceptable firearm features. I don't think it's that big of a reach for her and is taking us down a very dangerous path.
 
CAR said:
At the risk of starting a panic, in the Boston Globe app today I see a letter from Maura Healy on Opinion page A11 titled "Closing the loophole" announcing that she is sending a letter to the state's gun dealers informing them that weapons "functionally equivalent" to prohibited weapons are in fact prohibited, specifically that cosmetic features like flash hiders and pistol grips are not what made the weapon prohibited but rather its semiautomatic operation.

tin foil hat time, I can't find that same letter on their website and I don't get the paper in physical form. Can anyone else confirm or deny the presence of that letter?

I'm so ramped up I took a screenshot to make sure I have a copy but I don't think I can post it here. Anyone else seeing that???

EDIT: Found the article on their site, added a link in a followup message and here

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html
Click to expand...



Holy shit! I just read this thread, and your now posted link.

The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.

As someone else has said, that's appears to be pretty much every semi-automatic firearm. This can't possibly be legal, even in Massachusetts.
 
Some dealers will follow the letter, some won't. Those that don't may get sued. Those that get sued will loose at the state level and need to make it to the Federal level. With how that front is going, it will get interesting around here.

The statute is specific, mentioning these items specifically - she has taken it upon herself to change the law.
 
Banning flash suppressors and telescoping stocks, she admits, are "small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon." So she's admitting that there's no point in banning them.

I like that a lawyer hasn't learned the word "lethality," too.
 
IANAL, but there should be standing to sue prior to any dealers being prosecuted...

If this sticks itll be the nail in the coffin in figuring out NH. Not because the issue so much as the fact that our legislature took this issue up, decided against it with input from conatituents, and the AG has now said **** you anyway, even if its proobably illegal.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
She probably sees California gun law as a model and wants to go there and beyond, without the inconvenience of legislation. Clearly her personal agenda carries more weight than the law. [rolleyes]

Somehow 'attorney' general is quite the oxymoron in her case, as one would assume an attorney knows something about law.
 
massBRS said:
This episode is particularly offensive. I hope all the stores laugh it off, as they should. If even one complies, it turns into a dangerous game.
Click to expand...

An Opinion piece? Is she going to go to a gun shop today and arrest the first transaction involving a S&W M&P with crowned barrel and fixed stock?

Or is this simply posturing to assert to the Legislature that here "Opinion" is the AWB should be rewritten to include all semi-auto assault weapons?
 
People should be getting in her face about this. At her office, at home, out in public - everywhere.
 
This is serious. Its more than just her pissing into the wind. Even when its eventually shut down in court.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
 
Palladin said:
An 'assault weapon ' is specifically described under statute. She's going to have a hard time with this one, unless she gets the legislature to change the statute.

Btw, she just emptied the shelves at every store in new England
Click to expand...

According to her, anything sold today (WEds) is already illegal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Biden Closing "Gun show loophole"
2
Replies
30
Views
860
zboys
zboys
Thousands more gun dealers must run background checks on buyers as Biden administration moves to close 'doggone dangerous' loophole
Replies
4
Views
186
AJK129
AJK129
ATF Report Undermines Left’s Hysteria Over So-Called ‘Gun Show Loophole’
Replies
0
Views
151
Reptile
Reptile
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
488
Zappa
Zappa
Local Dealers who Sell on Consignment Through GunBroker?
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
alan226
alan226
Back
Top Bottom