Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers

[10thSFFD]

Notice in the articles she is quoted in that the only thing she seems to be touting is that "gun sales have dropped". It's pretty clear this was what it was about the whole time. Not necessarily semi auto rifles but any type of firearm. Create enough uncertainty where no one really knows what is legal anymore.

She is evaluated by her puppet masters on numbers. Immediate drop in sales of weapons is an excellent accomplishment. It means her bold move worked. Check mark. It means others will follow her lead. Check mark.

You, getting angry and frustrated. Great! Her strategy is working. Check mark.

We need to regroup and be much smarter than we are now.

 

[10thSFFD]

Which is is why we need sales in MA to go back up and reach all time highs.

ETA: Two things. It sends a message to Healey and it helps the FFL's stay in business.

We can fight a war with the Liberty 45.

Even if each of one of us will purchase a gun now, we will still play a defense.

How do you change the playing field?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This is a classic double cross.

Out side agrees to a middle ground; the other side re-interprets the law to move the goalpost away from the agreed solution.

We saw this when Canada passed bill C68. Competitive shooters were assured that "hi cap licenses" would be available, and this was put into law. Once the bill passed, this changed to "no such licenses shall be issued".

 

[inkdesigner]

Which is is why we need sales in MA to go back up and reach all time highs.

ETA: Two things. It sends a message to Healey and it helps the FFL's stay in business.

We can fight a war with the Liberty 45.

Nice idea, but it was my understanding that, because of the new directive, FFL's can't even get new AR/AK's shipped to them here in MA to sell as the manufacturers/distributors won't do it. Somebody, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[dennism]

How do you change the playing field?

Poison the registration well, but that may be illegal.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Will Rogers never met Maura Healey

 

[10thSFFD]

This is a classic double cross.

Out side agrees to a middle ground; the other side re-interprets the law to move the goalpost away from the agreed solution.

We saw this when Canada passed bill C68. Competitive shooters were assured that "hi cap licenses" would be available, and this was put into law. Once the bill passed, this changed to "no such licenses shall be issued".

Correct.

If we have 400,000 in MA we need to show it. That is the task. Arguing about bills which will ultimately spell our end is waste of the time.

 

[Jason Flare]

Even if each of one of us will purchase a gun now, we will still play a defense.

How do you change the playing field?

Gun sales need to go through the roof. We need to clean out the MA FFL's and expect that they get more guns in to satisfy the demand.

Set records that the press and Healey can't ignore.

 

[10thSFFD]

Poison the registration well, but that may be illegal.

The good thing about democracy is the fact that you do not need illegal in order to make a change.

 

[10thSFFD]

Gun sales need to go through the roof. We need to clean out the MA FFL's and expect that they get more guns in to satisfy the demand.

Set records that the press and Healey can't ignore.

U.S. gun sales will go up anyway. Once Trump is elected we will not need to watch that indicator anymore.

Instead of spending your money on something which may be illegal soon, I would rather use that money to support those who can fight for us. It is an absolute disgrace that GOAL has 5 people!!!
WTF?

 

[jdubois]

The fed. .gov considers the lower receiver the firearm. The state did not. I need the language that first determined the above to be law

18 USC § 921(3)(B)

and, in addition to that, the language that changed a 100% into a firearm in MA.

There is none. Doesn't matter. The definition of "assault weapon" in C.140 § 121 is not dependent upon the "assault weapon" being a "weapon" ("firearm" in almost all MA law means handgun, so it's not the term that you want to use when discussing state law).

(We may have a loophole!)

I don't think you've found your smoking gun, as it were...

 

[Jason Flare]

18 USC § 921(3)(B)



There is none. Doesn't matter. The definition of "assault weapon" in C.140 § 121 is not dependent upon the "assault weapon" being a "weapon" ("firearm" in almost all MA law means handgun, so it's not the term that you want to use when discussing state law).



I don't think you've found your smoking gun, as it were...

The MA firearm distinction aside, where's the language that says we now have to fa10 a 100% lower.

 

[92G]

Which is is why we need sales in MA to go back up and reach all time highs.

ETA: Two things. It sends a message to Healey and it helps the FFL's stay in business.

time for everyone to buy that mini 14 you've been drooling over since 1974! i love the mini. it's laser beam accurate so long as I never go higher than an RDS and keep it at least 10 feet away from a benchrest at all times.

who says you need a pistol grip to be an operator? that is so 2015.

all joking aside, installing the accustrut for like $80 brought it to a 2MOA at 100 yards with bulk XM193. not terrible at all.

 

[jdubois]

The MA firearm distinction aside, where's the language that says we now have to fa10 a 100% lower.

There is none. You don't have to, and shouldn't, file an FA-10 on just a lower. But if (and that's a very big if) a lower is an "assault weapon", not filing an FA-10 doesn't stop you from being in violation of the AWB by possessing the lower.

 

[durask]

time for everyone to buy that mini 14 you've been drooling over since 1974! i love the mini. it's laser beam accurate so long as I never go higher than an RDS and keep it at least 10 feet away from a benchrest at all times.

who says you need a pistol grip to be an operator? that is so 2015.

all joking aside, installing the accustrut for like $80 brought it to a 2MOA at 100 yards with bulk XM193. not terrible at all.

Are stores still selling them? I thought most are afraid to sell even Ruger 10/22?

Although, ugh, I am really not a fan of Mini 14. I generally like Ruger products, usually a good bang for the buck but Mini 14 is one exception in their lineup for me.

 

[amm5061]

time for everyone to buy that mini 14 you've been drooling over since 1974!

Except that's an assault weapon now, too...

 

[92G]

Except that's an assault weapon now, too...

everything is an assault weapon. nothing is an assault weapon. everybody knows. nobody knows.

- - - Updated - - -

Are stores still selling them? I thought most are afraid to sell even Ruger 10/22?

Although, ugh, I am really not a fan of Mini 14. I generally like Ruger products, usually a good bang for the buck but Mini 14 is one exception in their lineup for me.

I was anti-mini-14 for a while. sold mine ~18 months ago and then ~6 months later felt like there was a hole in my heart. a certain emotional vacancy just can't put into words. so acquired another mini and really pimped this one out. with the accu-strut installed it's a nifty piece. i'm a fan. the newer production ones come with a pic rail and scope rings included. Ruger really takes care of the buyer in that regard.

 

[Mr. Gold]

Which is is why we need sales in MA to go back up and reach all time highs.

ETA: Two things. It sends a message to Healey and it helps the FFL's stay in business.

We can fight a war with the Liberty 45.

For the life of me - I did not understand why everyone obeyed so fast. That was stupid. Yes, stupid.

She did not make a new law, only issued a guidance. I'm still waiting to understand what would have happened if almost everyone would have ignored her guidance.
Then what? , 95% of FFL and stores would have been sued and closed ? - no way in hell.

Everyone is afraid to be singled out, it's just crazy. If we ALL show them we don't give a F we can't be singled out !

If you decide to be the single pussy that obeyed - then you will be marked and shamed within the community -
That should be everyone's fear, not the fear from the tyrant general !

Almost literally- tomorrow she comes out with "You can not breath air without paying tax because law.... actually meant that" then what do we do ?

The Gun community in MA shit its pants and it only took one clown to cause that. Yey for freedom.

I'm ****ing embarrassed.

 

[pupchow]

There is none. You don't have to, and shouldn't, file an FA-10 on just a lower. But if (and that's a very big if) a lower is an "assault weapon", not filing an FA-10 doesn't stop you from being in violation of the AWB by possessing the lower.

That's my thinking. The AGO's guidance dictates that a lower receiver is to be treated as if it's an item which would fall under the AWB.

The requirement for registering, "... who purchases or obtains a firearm, rifle or shotgun or machine gun ..." is another issue, as far as I'm concerned. If I already lawfully possess the lower, and it doesn't yet meet the definition of a firearm, I'm not burdened with the registration requirement. When it does, I'll mail in an FA10.

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

Except that's an assault weapon now, too...

Not that anyone has the real answer, but no, it isn't.

If you read the MGL it lists evil guns by name, and their copies or duplicates, and says they are assault weapons except those that are listed in appendix A of USC 18 922 which are not.

The Ruger Mini 14 and 10/22 are both in that list and are not assault weapons.

Of course, I can't find anyone willing to sell one.

I know somehow I am wrong as the phrase "shall not include" will be clarified by the AG to mean "is definitely".

 

[92G]

For the life of me - I did not understand why everyone obeyed so fast. That was stupid. Yes, stupid.

Everyone is afraid to be singled out, it's just crazy. If we ALL show them we don't give a F we can't be singled out !

The Gun community in MA shit its pants and it only took one bitch to cause that. Yey for freedom.

easy solution. become an FFL. invest in a shop. then lead the way!

 

[namedpipes]

well there is another time she hasn't played by the rules

Nor her partner, a sitting judge:

As I read the article, Justice Wolohojian allowed her lover, Healey, to operate a campaign headquarters out of her (the judge's) home. Gabrielle is not allowed (per the code of judicial conduct) to even have a campaign sign on the lawn, never mind a closet full of them.

How many more laws will Healey and her cronies break before they go down?

 

[slipknot]

Talked to a lawyer tonight. He said DA's and judges will not interpret laws and give out legal advice. You will not get clarification, on the record, from your county DA or an ADA. They do this to avoid lawsuits.

Healey pulled a smart one. She felt, rightly or wrongly, that she had the power to do what judges and DA's will not do; she offered a new interpretation of the Ma AWB.

It is not law. We know that. Take it for what it is worth. It is her opinion of what the AWB actually says after 22 years. But it is not law.

The best thing that could have happened would have been for every FFL to ignore the guidance and point out that it ran contrary to 22 years of settled law. But, these people have families to feed and didn't want the hassle from the AG.

Remember, this guidance is not law. If the FFL's ignored her, and if the gun owners in the state backed the FFL's, the AG would have backed down and her state and national political career would have been over. She offered guidance on, essentially, a 22 year old law. She did it quickly. She didn't give anyone time to think and everyone fell for it.

Two reasons we fell for it is because A. It was unprecedented and B. We are not united. We do not stand together and we are afraid to stand alone.

How do we win going forward? Unlike the judges and DA's who won't give legal advice for fear of being sued the AG has dared us to sue her, and we can't sue her unless and until we have a loss. We are in a stalemate because she doesn't want us to have a loss. A loss to us equals a test case and a lawsuit. She doesn't want bad national publicity and she doesn't want to risk a loss. She's bluffing.

BTW, this reminds me of the no law against open carry in MA. No one open carries for fear of losing the right to open carry. For all practical purposes we have a self imposed ban on virtually all semiautos and it's not even a law. It exists and is effective because we bought a guidance we should have laughed at.

Where do we go from here? I don't know. I do know we have to stand up to this.

ETA : OK. I have some ideas but I want to bounce them off a few people first before the world can read it here.

Great post and I agree

bounce your ideas off Comm2A and GOAL first but don't post it on the web, I think we can't let her see any of our strategy

 

[durask]

Great post and I agree

bounce your ideas off Comm2A and GOAL first but don't post it on the web, I think we can't let her see any of our strategy

Agree.

As many of us as possible should volunteer and let GOAL and Comm2A plan the strategy.

 

[nhpoke]

Gun sales need to go through the roof. We need to clean out the MA FFL's and expect that they get more guns in to satisfy the demand.

Set records that the press and Healey can't ignore.

You could also just sell them to one another, or trade them frequently, like multiple times a day .

 

[kevin9]

The MA firearm distinction aside, where's the language that says we now have to fa10 a 100% lower.

The Interchangability Test in her guidance is what has people concerned/confused:

2. Interchangeability Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if it has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an Enumerated Weapon. A receiver will be treated as the same as or interchangeable with the receiver on an Enumerated Weapon if it includes or accepts two or more operating components that are the same as or interchangeable with those of an Enumerated Weapon.

Technically this doesn't say the receiver (i.e. lower) is an assault weapon, but it does appear to say that any weapon one might make with it would be an assault weapon. It's not that big a leap to then say that if all one can do with a lower is make an "illegal assault weapon" then its illegal too.
YMMV. IANAL

 

[n1oty]

I am warming to the notion that we could all conspire in advance to purchase thousands of these rifles in one day just to make the statement. As noted here already, her "guidance" at the moment is just that and not settled law. However, a successful disobedience would require thousands of us "rifle consumers" to commit to purchasing one or more rifles on the same day. It would also require the participation of at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the FFL's. The final predicate required would revolve around whether the FFL's could acquire sufficient stock. This is not the type of thing where you want 30 people buying from a handful of dealers.

 

[Jason Flare]

There is none. You don't have to, and shouldn't, file an FA-10 on just a lower. But if (and that's a very big if) a lower is an "assault weapon", not filing an FA-10 doesn't stop you from being in violation of the AWB by possessing the lower.

Thank you again. LOL. If I fa10 100% ar lowers, the assumption by the AG would be that I built them into guns capable of firing a bullet. Correct?

 

[kevin9]

Thank you again. LOL. If I fa10 100% ar lowers, the assumption by the AG would be that I built them into guns capable of firing a bullet. Correct?

And any such weapon you might build would automatically be an assault weapon, therefore the lower should be treated as an assault weapon even though the law and guidance doesn't say so. The AG is thus proactively protecting you from becoming a felon-in-waiting.

 

[Jason Flare]

I am warming to the notion that we could all conspire in advance to purchase thousands of these rifles in one day just to make the statement. As noted here already, her "guidance" at the moment is just that and not settled law. However, a successful disobedience would require thousands of us "rifle consumers" to commit to purchasing one or more rifles on the same day. It would also require the participation of at least 1/3 to 1/2 of the FFL's. The final predicate required would revolve around whether the FFL's could acquire sufficient stock. This is not the type of thing where you want 30 people buying from a handful of dealers.

I need to talk to a lawyer but I suspect I would be 100% in on this.

I don't think she wants a lawsuit and I think she will not prosecute and give us a test case.

And if she does prosecute, I'll have to deal with it. You can thank me later.