Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers

[je25ff]

JFC...they are talking about whether or not lighting the Bunker Hill bridge (yes, Bunker Hill) blue when Officer Tarantino was shot...

 

[Obie1]

Now he's excusing himself re the Zakim Bridge lighting thing.

He "takes a backseat to no one..." Except that's where he rides in his limo.

 

[ISOTOX]

Baaaahhhhaaaaaaaaa. To many sheep that are content with really talking a lot about it and doing nothing.

 

[Obie1]

Now the lispy hen is defending his decision

 

[W.E.C]

gov. Beaker speaks........

 

[JCV]

i mean at least when they round us all up and stick us in a camp, we'll be with like minded individuals.............right?

 

[calsdad]

I don't know. Were they actually assault weapons, or do they only become assault weapons once assembled?



I think there is ambiguity. Those rifles were purchased at a time when the common understanding was that they were good to go. She can change the rules now, but applying them in a criminal context after the fact is going to be a much harder argument for someone to make. Regarding the going forward possession of the rifles, she says that her own (new) official guidelines don't apply to rifles obtained prior to yesterday. For someone to argue that they do - directly in the face of her saying that they don't - would be absurd.

And absurd is going to stop what exactly?

Have you not been paying attention? We passed the absurd sign quite a while ago.

 

[Goliathan]

First call!

 

[sixer]

Here we go...

 

[Obie1]

First question is about AG ruling

 

[browncoat]

Man, this is crazy. As a brother to the south of you guys in the People's Republic of Komneticut I feel your pain and now wait to see when our POS AG tries the same thing. They might wait till after the election because Stutterin Douchebags approval ratings are so bad but they will try. My question is this though. As a non resident with a Mass LTC can I still legally bring my AR into Mass to shoot at a Mass range ?
Honestly this bullshit this **** pulled is so far out the only thing I can be sure of is for now it will only screw states with a ban in place. Everything...I really can't comment because It should not be legal to begin with.

My guess is you can only bring it in 100% safely if it is pre 94.

 

[Obie1]

Decision was to send a comm to gunshops that assault weapons are banned. She has the authority to do that.

 

[sixer]

"She has the authority and jurisdiction to do [it]"

 

[je25ff]

He caved. He said she has the authority and jurisdiction. He wants a list.

We're doomed.

 

[crackerman]

The answer is squirmy.

You guys are ****ed. I am saddened that any of my Tax Money goes to support that government.

 

[sixer]

He basically just blew it off.

 

[Goliathan]

And that's all we're going to hear on the subject

 

[Obie1]

Hopes sometime that there will be list explaining what is legal and what is not.

 

[Geoff C]

We hope at some point there will be a list of what is banned and what is not. Wow good job, maybe you should have put that out before the ruling.

 

[calsdad]

I sent the following to my senator and congressman...

I am writing today to ask for your assistance. Please take whatever actions are necessary to prevent the Attorney General, Maura Healey, from rewriting and redefining our existing gun laws.
She has recently decided to take action against lawful gun owners and is in essence implementing a ban on the sale of any rifle she, apparently in her sole discretion, deems to be an assault rifle.
She should not have the power to do this and I would urge you and your fellow legislators to stop her. Massachusetts gun laws are known to be some of the strictest in the country. The maze of laws that already exist make it difficult enough for law abiding people to enjoy the shooting sports. More importantly any further laws would continue to erode the rights of Massachusetts citizens to keep and bear arms, a right which is guaranteed not only by the Constitution of the United States but also by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I think it is also important to note that the firearms the AG is attempting to eliminate are rarely used in any crimes. According to the Boston Herald – “According to FBI statistics, rifles of any variety were used in just two of the Bay State’s 779 murders in the past five years….”.

That's nice - but doesn't even address the major issue - and that is that she RETROACTIVELY decided what was legal and what was not - and then pinky-swore not to go after us *at this time*.

Compared to that - being worried about the shooting sports is nonsense.

 

[browncoat]

Palmetto just cancelled my order for an upper that I paid for weeks ago! 3-5 days to get my money back.

That sucks, and is also stupid. Uppers can go on existing lowers.

 

[bill o]

We hope at some point there will be a list of what is banned and what is not. Wow good job, maybe you should have put that out before the ruling.

She explicitly said there will be no lists. Just fear and uncertainty.

 

[soam]

Baker gave a non-answer answer that basically said "AG has the power to do it, shut up and go away."

 

[drumenigma]

Oh boy. Another "list". Just what we need.

 

[Obie1]

Now talking about bathrooms and Common Core

 

[Come and take]

Some petitions out there. Whatever we can do sign them!


Hey,

I just started the petition "Massachusetts State House: Maura Healy to recall her position as Attorney General" and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name.

My goal is to reach 100 signatures and I need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here:

https://www.change.org/p/massachuse...ium=email&utm_campaign=share_email_responsive

Thanks!
Stop


Sent from my iPad

 

[not new guy]

And absurd is going to stop what exactly?

Have you not been paying attention? We passed the absurd sign quite a while ago.

I knew somebody would throw absurd back in my face.

What I meant is that it would be absurd for them to try to press criminal charges when the guidance - which is the law for all intents and purposes at this point - clearly states that it doesn't apply to rifles obtained pre-yesterday. As mentioned before, I think that was an intentional move to avoid ex post facto issues. She could change her guidance in the future, but the way things stand today it would be absurd for a prosecutor to try to use this guidance to prosecute someone with a rifle obtained prior to the 20th.

 

[amm5061]

This is so beyond ****ed up. She has the authority to send the letter, but how the **** does she have the authority to just unilaterally change the interpretation of an 18 year-old law which references a definition that is at this point 22 years old?

 

[bigblue]

Yeah lets sign more petitions, that'l fix it!

This is so beyond

****ed up. She has the authority to send the letter, but how the ****[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif] does she have the authority to just unilaterally change the interpretation of an 18 year-old law which references a definition that is at this point 22 years old?

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]Thing is, its in the AWB and was from the beginning. Part A was just ignored from the get-go. What we need is the legislature to remove part A from the AWB and we are back to the prior interpretation.[/FONT]

 

[KMS]

Hmm does this mean pre 94 AKs will be at a premium in MA...and if so can I still sell to MA residents?

I'm confused.