Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there a specific concern you're attempting to resolve here?

Well yes, my goal is to well enough informed for when I write in my reps and governor. Having a better understanding of how the state laws, federal laws and AG plays a role will better serve me. My initial reaction was anger, but I prefer to act out instead of react out.
 
That's not strictly true. Nothing in her guidance precludes the prosecution of individuals who obtain a newspeak AWB gun unless they obtained it "prior to July 20, 2016." I don't see how you could win with an estoppel defense after that date if a DA decides to "get tough on crime."


Which is why I said for now. I agree she can go after anyone if she really wanted to.
 
I think my poster-board will read:

AG Healey
ASSAULTED
my rights and should be
banned from MA

I'll have my kids decorate it with glitter so they can say when they get older they helped overthrow a communist AG.

I was thinking: You have 2,000 felons in front of the statehouse.
You're soft on crime.


Too soon?
 
Response from Senator Flanagan:

Dear Matt,

Thank you for your email. The Attorney General should not have changed this law without any sort of public process or input from gun owners. I learned of this change through the news this week and was not given any information prior to her press conference. I have many questions about what this means for law abiding gun owners in Massachusetts and I am working with my colleagues on next steps. I do support the rights of responsible, licensed gun owners in the state and I appreciate you sharing your concerns with me.


Respectfully,
Jennifer L. Flanagan
State Senator
Worcester & Middlesex District

Well, I'm glad your senator agreed that she shouldn't have done this... but this speaks to a more fundamental misunderstanding.

"The Attorney General should not have changed this law without any sort of public process or input from gun owners."

That should read, "The Attorney General does not have the legal authority to change a law."
 
The more thought I give to this, the more I think this stunt is to help Healey break the career rut all the MA AGs have suffered from. She thinks this will bring her national attention and a position inside the federal AG office should Shillary buy/steal the election.

YES! It is a "Look at ME" I'm a rebel and not afraid of the NRA! Oh yah and I'll lick your smelly Tw@t too...[grin]
 
It is my understanding that she has the authority to interpret the law as she chooses and therefore the authority to change it. If this is true that is something that needs to be changed. No one should have the authority to change rules and regulations on a whim and turn thousands into criminals, especially without due process.

Well, I'm glad your senator agreed that she shouldn't have done this... but this speaks to a more fundamental misunderstanding.

"The Attorney General should not have changed this law without any sort of public process or input from gun owners."

That should read, "The Attorney General does not have the legal authority to change a law."
 
Ha. Finally caught up...

MH_zpsnijablq9.jpg
 
Well..... my answer to the latest AG spewage was to join GOAL. Signed up online today.

She only made us stronger. Let's coin "Massachusetts Strong". What is the official sales count on firearms AND lowers on Wednesday? How many people have since joined the NRA & GOAL? She has awoken a beast!
 
You are going to blame a gun shop for simply explaining what we all knew for 22 years, information that has been widely joked about, explained, discussed on the public forum and countless others for two centuries, information that could be easily seen and verified simply by looking at a manufactures website.... You're going to blame this one a tv interview that simply stated the obvious and stated the fact of the law?

No, this isn't MFS fault or anyone else. We followed the law and so did they. This is the fault of tyrants that seek power and control.

If your going to cower from them and hope "they might not notice" then go back and hide your head in your hands

So a MA gun shop owner should have expected what? That a news crew was there to do some pro-gun op-ed piece? As soon as they showed up he should have told them to **** off and find someone else for their hatchet job. Where was the BLM movement before the media created them. These shitheads today are a bunch of neo-hippies looking for some cause to glom on to. Talking to the media is like talking to cops. YOU DON'T ****ING DO IT!

The FBI stats prove that even though blacks are committing crimes 8-1 over whites, whites are being killed by cops 3-1 vs. blacks. So what does that mean? It means that a white person is 24x as likely to be shot by a cop than a black person. 8x fewer encounters w/ police and 3x as many deaths. Where's the outrage? Oh ya the media hasn't whipped us up into a frenzy over it so it doesn't exist. My bad...

Now I'm not saying that all blacks are criminals or that all cops are murderous shitbags. Hell I come from a family of cops and would have been one myself. If the MA affirmative action laws didn't make me too white, Irish and male to be a cop in MA. The point is, unless you are black, muzzie, LGBT or some other protected alphabet soup class, the media is your enemy. Everyone should know this by now. A gun owner in MA and especially a gun shop owner in MA has no excuse.

****, I'm surprised he didn't just throw the real loophole out while he was at it. Many of you know what I am referencing and if you don't, don't ask.
 
I just spoke with State Senator Michael Moore's office. The young lady I spoke with was very nice and correctly assumed that I was calling "about the AG Healy thing." I said "You have obviously been getting a lot of calls concerning this. Good!"

She said yes they had been getting lots of calls about the gun issue as well as some robocalls being put through concerning some pipeline.

"At least you people KNOW what you are calling about"

I told her "It is really not about firearms, it is about a state official usurping the power of the legislature not relegated to her"

I then sent a note to the Senator through his web-page and an e-mail to his official senate address.

THE MESSAGE IS THE AG USURPING POWER NOT RELEGATED TO HER AND RE-DEFINING THE LAW!
 
Strange, I took a quick peek at the Brady and Demanding Moms websites and FecesBook pages (including the MA chapter), and not even the slightest

mention of Healeys maneuver.

I would have thought that they'd be standing in the aisles cheering and high fiving one another over this.

Even that blowhard Rosenthal has been quite about it.
 
YES! It is a "Look at ME" I'm a rebel and not afraid of the NRA! Oh yah and I'll lick your smelly Tw@t too...[grin]

It didn't work for Scut Harshblather, it won't work for her. Didn't work for Reily or Belotti or Coakley as well. We have decades upon decades of people hitting the AG's office aspiring for more and then effectively disappearing from service.

But I concur that virtually everything she does is about her image and not about the office she holds.
 
"The Attorney General should not have changed this law without any sort of public process or input from gun owners."

That should read, "The Attorney General does not have the legal authority to change a law."

Exodious,

I'm Alex Flig, the attorney who prosecuted the Draper v. Healey case. If you've been following that saga, there was a huge dispute re laws/statutes and regulations in the District Court proceedings. Based on my work on Draper I can tell you with near 100% confidence that you are absolutely CORRECT: laws are enacted by the legislative branch; regulations are put in place by an executive branch agency. The agency MAY interpret the law with wide latitude, but that latitude is not without limits.

What the AG has effectively done here is not interpreted--she has legislated. This, however, is a longer discussion.

Alex
 
Here is why we are so F'@#$ed in this state. This is a quote from a guy in another forum I frequent when asked to define assault weapon:

"It would take a committee of a hundred lawyers to hash out a textual definition of "assault weapon" and we all know that it would be imperfect. On the other hand, a dozen of your relatives would give a dozen different descriptions of your grandmother too. I betcha they would all still recognize her. An assault weapon is one whose primary purpose is to kill humans. They were designed for war. I wouldn't count any weapon designed or produced before WW2 and give the Germans credit for the first true modern assault rifle but I would agree that is a bit arbitrary (see 100 lawyers above). The market has developed knock off weapons to sell to civilians. I believe it was the Israelis who developed the first assault pistol type weapon. Those knock offs and auto pistols are still assault weapons to anyone with a brain. Even your grandmother would say so."


Believe it or not he agrees with AG [rolleyes]
 
This occurred to me last night and I would like one of the lawyers here to flesh it out for me.

Is it possible to indite the state of MA or the AG's office itself for being complicit in these thousands of sales of supposedly banned items? Forcing her to use the good faith purchases and wording of the law she just rewrote as proof of their (the state's) innocence. Which would essentially render her edict null and void. Even if she can keep her new rules going forward, it would put the rifles from before the edict squarely in "not assault rifle" territory. Thereby stopping any possibility of her coming after any of you for the purchases from before the 20th.

The law, as written, is the law. None of us who followed it broke it. That would seem to be the only defense she would have available to her in such a case. Again IANAL, so if one of the com2a boys could give me some input on this I would appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
Another quote from the same liberal when asked about gun violence in the land of no guns, Washington DC

"True. Sadly inner city gun violence has not responded to control efforts. It doesn't impact citizens other than young black and brown males for the most part. No evidence that assault rifles would help in any way."
 
I just spoke with State Senator Michael Moore's office. The young lady I spoke with was very nice and correctly assumed that I was calling "about the AG Healy thing." I said "You have obviously been getting a lot of calls concerning this. Good!"

She said yes they had been getting lots of calls about the gun issue as well as some robocalls being put through concerning some pipeline.

"At least you people KNOW what you are calling about"

I told her "It is really not about firearms, it is about a state official usurping the power of the legislature not relegated to her"

I then sent a note to the Senator through his web-page and an e-mail to his official senate address.

THE MESSAGE IS THE AG USURPING POWER NOT RELEGATED TO HER AND RE-DEFINING THE LAW!

I called twice. Left a vmail on Wednesday and spoke with an aide yesterday in addition to my email to him.

I haven't heard anything back, but I know that GOAL was meeting with my State Rep and a few others. The Republican Caucus is meeting tomorrow to discuss this and many other items according to my State Rep. So, the State House might not be completely empty!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom