Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers

[Jason Flare]

Yeah, it's been a long week.

Already discussed it with my wife.

I guess it's always got to begin in MA.

We're the cradle of Liberty for a reason.

 

[Wrench75]

There is no recall mechinism in MA.
I wonder if there is a way to get one by ballot initative though.
Someone more versed in politics might have the answer.

You ready for a real kick in the ass? Guess who's office handles ballot initiatives. Go on guess.... Yep the AG's office. This is the exempted topics section from the pdf explaining how ballot initiatives work in MA.

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/State-Ballot-Question-Petitions-08-2015.pdf

EXCLUDED SUBJECTS AND SUMMARY

The Constitution excludes from the Initiative subjects that relate to religion, judges, the courts, *** (that alone probably protects her since she is the head officer of the court)
particular localities of the Commonwealth, specific appropriations, and certain provisions of the
state constitution’s Declaration of Rights. Additionally, substantially the same petition cannot
have appeared on the ballot at either of the two immediately preceding biennial state
elections.

The Attorney General bears the responsibility of determining whether the petition is an
acceptable subject of the Initiative, and if so, he or she prepares a fair and concise summary
and returns this summary and the proposed law to the petitioners. If the Attorney General
determines the petition relates to an excluded matter, the petition is disallowed.

Now isn't that a bitch? She holds what is probably the most protected position in the state. What is she worried about? Thanks to the way the state is set up, and her wifesband on the MA court of appeals, she is sitting pretty. Figuratively speaking of course. <shudder>

 

[Executive]

I'd focus on the fact that Maura basically just made the other two branches of government moot, and can and obviously will do whatever she wants. If your rep is a dem throwing a couple appeals to emotion in there should help:

"What if one day a republican AG gets in and uses this to change the abortion laws?"
"But she did de facto change a law that buyers, sellers, manufactures, legislative, judicial and executive branches all perfectly understood as X for two decades, and instead now decrees it means Y"
"Is it going to take people, who jumped through hoops for year to comply with the law, and are no threat to anyone other than paper targets at the range getting arrested for this "reinterpretation" to finally sink in as dangerous as it is as a massive abuse of power?"

I'd try and play up lessor on the "gun" side of it, and more-so on the de facto re-writing of legislation by the AG, which is a gross violation of checks and balances and abuse of power by a government official, who can obviously oppress the minorities in this state without any recourse from anyone.


Edit: using the phrase "de facto" will be important because it will be said,ad nasuim "she didn't change the law". However technically correct that may be, under the facts and circumstances of the situation, changing 18 years of precedence in enforcement overnight, and overtly calling the actions under the original intent and interpretation, she is de facto changing the law.

Again, start off calm and rational, toss in a couple appeals to emotion, voice your fear of complete government tyranny without using the word tyranny and above all STAY CALM.

For accuracy, I'm pretty sure you mean "ex post facto", which means "retroactively" or "after the fact", rather than de facto, which means "in fact".

I agree with your statement, and I thank you for contributing to this very important thread.


Chris

 

[glockerblogger]

I think we have a simple point to show the bad faith exhibited by the AG regarding AWB.

If the spirit of the directive was really to close the loop hole, why is it that the AG's office estimated 10K assault weapons sold in Mass last year?

if I had to guess (and this can be easily confirmed) - 10K likely represents most rifles sold last year in MA.

So the AG knew exactly the scope / reach she was after - go after most rifles, not the ocassional or rare one that went thru the loop hole.

 

[mousegunfan]

Idiots: Stop posting legal documents and research !!!

Healey's cronys read this shit just as easily as you do and it comes up with a Google search.

Stop doing the ****ing legwork for the opposing team.

Can we stop this name calling. . Do you really think the AG and their slew of lawyers don't understand all the angles? Have you heard of discovery in-case this goes to court. No one is giving away top secrete strategy's. Information coming out is best seen by all members so they can make their case to other citizens. Your not going to surprise the AG with any of this.

Hey Blue, thanks for the negative rep for giving my opinion.

 

[massvet]

A question that also begs an answer is what happens when Maura does leave office, let's say another AG might change their mind on this interpretation and similarities test. Then is there an Unban? What of the charges, if any, to individuals or business answer to during her reign?

 

[crazymjb]

Can we stop this name calling. . Do you really think the AG and their slew of lawyers don't understand all the angles? Have you heard of discovery in-case this goes to court. No one is giving away top secrete strategy's. Information coming out is best seen by all members so they can make their case to other citizens. Your not going to surprise the AG with any of this.

Not everything is discoverable... Furthermore, they aren't/wouldn't be requesting all the open source stuff we have, like the relevant case law, etc. What doesn't need to happen is people doing all her research for her and posting it here.

Mike

 

[Beansie]

For accuracy, I'm pretty sure you mean "ex post facto", which means "retroactively" or "after the fact", rather than de facto, which means "in fact".

I agree with your statement, and I thank you for contributing to this very important thread.


Chris

I'm not a lawyer or anything but I thought I mean de facto. Lol

I mean she did in fact (based on facts and circumstances) or in effect (if you look at the way the people involved now act) change the law.

Maybe I'm wrong. Sorry if that's the case.

 

[Mountain]

'We' taught Mauron one of her key points that initiated this whole cluster. The concept of cosmetic differences, no significant difference in operation, effectiveness, etc. came from US. Whether via a specific dealer or via online research of our frequent musings, her talking points were handed to her on a silver platter. We should help her no further.

No more legal conjecture.

 

[crazymjb]

'We' taught Mauron one of her key points that initiated this whole cluster. The concept of cosmetic differences, no significant difference in operation, effectiveness, etc. came from US. Whether via a specific dealer or via online research of our frequent musings, her talking points were handed to her on a silver platter. We should help her no further.

No more legal conjecture.

To be fair that's not an issue for her, it's for the LEGISLATURE. But yes, what we used to fight against the stupidity of an assault weapons ban has been turned around and used against us.

Mike

 

[headednorth]

'We' taught Mauron one of her key points that initiated this whole cluster. The concept of cosmetic differences, no significant difference in operation, effectiveness, etc. came from US. Whether via a specific dealer or via online research of our frequent musings, her talking points were handed to her on a silver platter. We should help her no further.

No more legal conjecture.

There's a lot of stuff we shouldn't be talking about. I saw a guy make a snarky post on Maura's own FB page referencing 80% lowers. My eyes popped out of my head! Talk about a slow learner.

 

[pdm]

The internet makes a lot of people dumber than they would otherwise have the ability to be.

 

[campbsw]

I don't get it. What is wrong with some gun owners that are sitting back and letting this happen.

I was talking to a gun owner today, never met him before, and I mentioned what has been going on. So he says (and I'll paraphrase) that he's heard about what the AG did but wasn't following it.......let that sink in......WHAT!!!!!!! So he asked what's been happening and I give him the short version. Still doesn't seem to phase him. I suggest he call and/or email his rep and senator, he's not really interested. I mention that there is the possibility this could be applied to all semi-autos rifle and handguns (maybe he doesn't own a black gun). Still not concerned. Then he mentions that his guns are at his other house in NH so it really doesn't affect him. Oh, ok, so I guess he's safe so why would he care about anyone else... what an a$$.

This kind of self centered BS is what caused the problem and it's what the AG is counting on.

For any gun owners not even willing to make calls or send email, I hope you're first on the list.

If you know someone like this, tell them to step up or get lost. They are not your friend.

I've been making calls, sending email, trying to get in to talk to people myself (I'm meeting with Walsh tomorrow). Also calling people I know are neutral to anti on guns and trying to get them to call their reps in support because of the overreach by the AG (with moderate success, including a former DNC delegate). And I am NOT a gun owner.

Sorry about the rant, I'm just really really pissed off right now.

- Couldn't agree more, of the six or seven folks I have talked to at my club none we getting involved to the level of attending rallies or reaching out to their legislators. I've said it before, but our own community is under-educated on most of these issues and the their ramifications. Not sure about others, but I haven't heard a peep from my club, which should be serving as at least a hub of getting out information and motivating like minded folks.

 

[pupchow]

Do you really think the AG and their slew of lawyers don't understand all the angles?

Based upon my recent email exchanges with three related state agencies, I do not.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

- Couldn't agree more, of the six or seven folks I have talked to at my club none we getting involved to the level of attending rallies or reaching out to their legislators. I've said it before, but our own community is under-educated on most of these issues and the their ramifications. Not sure about others, but I haven't heard a peep from my club, which should be serving as at least a hub of getting out information and motivating like minded folks.

Too many gun owners feel it doesn't affect them because they are FUDDS. One day they will wake up and we will be England.

- - - Updated - - -

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Australia still allow bolt action rifles and some shotguns? or not?

 

[nhpoke]

I think we have a simple point to show the bad faith exhibited by the AG regarding AWB.

If the spirit of the directive was really to close the loop hole, why is it that the AG's office estimated 10K assault weapons sold in Mass last year?

if I had to guess (and this can be easily confirmed) - 10K likely represents most rifles sold last year in MA.

So the AG knew exactly the scope / reach she was after - go after most rifles, not the ocassional or rare one that went thru the loop hole.

There is no loop hole. There is only the law.

There is the law, as written, which people have been following for the past 22 years.
There is the new law, that as of last week make thousands and thousands of criminals because your AG held a press conference and changed the interpretation.

That's not a loop hole. That's a change in the clear meaning of the words as they are written.

 

[10thSFFD]

- Couldn't agree more, of the six or seven folks I have talked to at my club none we getting involved to the level of attending rallies or reaching out to their legislators. I've said it before, but our own community is under-educated on most of these issues and the their ramifications. Not sure about others, but I haven't heard a peep from my club, which should be serving as at least a hub of getting out information and motivating like minded folks.

Human nature. This is not a problem with communications. There were people, who "did not know about concentration camps", even when they were standing right in front of them. Majority of people believe that, if they will ignore evil, evil will go somewhere else. They also believe, that if you critique evil, evil will pick you up before others. They want others to be picked first. To slow down this unpleasant process, they are willing to report and spy on others to show their loyalty and obedience. Nice people alone can't fight evil. Evil knows it very well.

 

[pdm]

Human nature. This is not a problem with communications. There were people, who "did not know about concentration camps", even when they were standing right in front of them. Majority of people believe that, if they will ignore evil, evil will go somewhere else. They also believe, that if you critique evil, evil will pick you up before others. They want others to be picked first. To slow down this unpleasant process, they are willing to report and spy on others to show their loyalty and obedience. Nice people alone can't fight evil. Evil knows it very well.

You remember Sully, when I promised to kill you last?
That's right Matrix, you did!
I lied.

[video]https://youtu.be/zB6pvQt0I8s?t=86[/video]

 

[Rider]

Human nature. This is not a problem with communications. There were people, who "did not know about concentration camps", even when they were standing right in front of them. Majority of people believe that, if they will ignore evil, evil will go somewhere else. They also believe, that if you critique evil, evil will pick you up before others. They want others to be picked first. To slow down this unpleasant process, they are willing to report and spy on others to show their loyalty and obedience. Nice people alone can't fight evil. Evil knows it very well.

The fact is, 'inequality' aside, everyone in this country is too fat and happy. They got theirs, whatever it's at, and they don't want to lose it. Do they want more, oh, yeah, but first they want to hang on to what they have.

So they are perfectly happy that the politicians are going after the other guys. Whether it's taxes, guns, jobs, or something else, as long as the pols are demonizing someone else, they don't care. They don't realize 'the 1%' actually means anyone with a job, or that 'assault weapons' means all guns, because as you say, they think if they deny it then it won't affect them.

Now, if people really had nothing left to lose, you would see things playing out in a wholly different manner.

I keep coming back to 'the things you own end up owning you'. It is so true.

 

[Mr. Gold]

Now, if people really had nothing left to lose, you would see things playing out in a wholly different manner.

I'll go ahead and disagree with you, just for the sake of argument.

Even when people have nothing to lose - they do nothing. The fantasy of "one more step and we shall see" - well, is a fantasy.

People are sheep, it's dry and overused, it's biologically untrue but literally true. They will follow whatever trend.

The average NFL watching, mother's day celebrating valentines day observing person will not do anything, ever. let's let it go.

Hollywood tales, media, etc has everyone believing there's "something so great in the human race". No there isn't.

If it weren't for less than 1% of humans in history, we'd be all picking up lice of each other's hair still, in some cave.
We just followed the bright ones, that's all.

Let's not forget what was the % of the ones that rose against the crown.

We all live in the fantasy of "one more step". We're a frog in the water, for a lone time now.

The only thing to change this are leaders. Otherwise, out of nothing comes nothing.

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

JFC delete that first paragraph.

it will remain in your quote

 

[IPSC_DRL]

There is NO "loophole" - there is a specific set of criteria which were complied with.

The manufacturers did NOT "decide what the law is" - the legislature did. THREE times.

The only one unilaterally deciding "what the law is" is Healey herself - and flouting 22 years of accepted criteria, under oft-enacted law to do so, for political purposes.

 

[EJFudd]

There is NO "loophole" - there is a specific set of criteria which were complied with.

The manufacturers did NOT "decide what the law is" - the legislature did. THREE times.

The only one unilaterally deciding "what the law is" is Healey herself - and flouting 22 years of accepted criteria, under oft-enacted law to do so, for political purposes.

Yep. 9 days later and my brain still can't accept what she did to us and, so far, is still getting away with it. You'd think that sort of unilateral takeover of the law couldn't possibly happen in the United States of America... but it did.

 

[Rider]

Yep. 9 days later and my brain still can't accept what she did to us and, so far, is still getting away with it. You'd think that sort of unilateral takeover of the law couldn't possibly happen in the United States of America... but it did.

As others have said, this is the new way of things. Obama largely unleashed it, but rule by executive degree and see you in court will be the new law of the land. It will make it much easier to get things done since you won't have to get that pesky consent of the governed. In places where things aren't too far gone(i.e. MA) you may even see some incredibly bitter elections as people realize they are voting for a Supreme Leader, and not just some schmuck who has to keep the gov't running.

 

[Obie1]

I don't get it. What is wrong with some gun owners that are sitting back and letting this happen.



I've been making calls, sending email, trying to get in to talk to people myself (I'm meeting with Walsh tomorrow). Also calling people I know are neutral to anti on guns and trying to get them to call their reps in support because of the overreach by the AG (with moderate success, including a former DNC delegate). And I am NOT a gun owner.

Sorry about the rant, I'm just really really pissed off right now.

Wait, what?

 

[Mountain]

it will remain in your quote

Appears to have been removed- good!

 

[Mr. Brownstone]

Appears to have been removed- good!

cool!

 

[headednorth]

There is NO "loophole" - there is a specific set of criteria which were complied with.

The manufacturers did NOT "decide what the law is" - the legislature did. THREE times.

The only one unilaterally deciding "what the law is" is Healey herself - and flouting 22 years of accepted criteria, under oft-enacted law to do so, for political purposes.

I've been telling people,"If the speed limit is 60 and I'm driving 55, am I exploiting a loophole or am I complying with the law?"

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

I still like the analogy

Race cars are not allowed on the road, your car is a Mass Legal race car as it has 4 tires and runs on an internal combustion engine, so she could declare that manufacturers were all getting around the law, and they are now illegal and have been illegal and you are all felons

 

[standfast86]

As others have said, this is the new way of things. Obama largely unleashed it, but rule by executive degree and see you in court will be the new law of the land. It will make it much easier to get things done since you won't have to get that pesky consent of the governed. In places where things aren't too far gone(i.e. MA) you may even see some incredibly bitter elections as people realize they are voting for a Supreme Leader, and not just some schmuck who has to keep the gov't running.

Difference now with EO's and say, the 50's, is that now the executive branch has enormous enforcement agencies with limitless resources to do its bidding while the courts sort it out.