Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers

[DPR]

http://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2016/07/28/healey-gun-regulations

It pains me to post this because if you click the link you'll have to listen to this fool of an AG talk.

What I heard...."After Orlando I thought to myself how can I stop the sale of a weapon that can't be sold in my home state from being purchased in my home state....so I figured I'll just read the laws differently and tell everybody to stop selling or purchasing any weapon that any random person who doesn't know anything about guns may think is an assault rifle. And if my ridiculous directive raises questions I'll just tell everybody to figure it out for themselves"

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

What I heard...."After Orlando I thought to myself how can I stop the sale of a weapon that can't be sold in my home state from being purchased in my home state....so I figured I'll just read the laws differently and tell everybody to stop selling or purchasing any weapon that any random person who doesn't know anything about guns may think is an assault rifle. And if my ridiculous directive raises questions I'll just tell everybody to figure it out for themselves"

Why wouldn't this surprise me?

 

[42!]

New development:

• 7/29/16 Senator Tarr's Legislation: An Act to Protect Due Process and Strengthen Public Safety Click here for summary - Click here to read actual bill

GOAL is supporting this.


I m reading this, there is a lot or protection built in for pre-7/21 folks. There is some language that states guidances cannot be given. I am not sure why we need the protection if the guidance is removed. Its like this bill is more for pre 7/21 protection but less for "i can go buy an AR tomorrow". Hopefully i am confused.

Not enough information. Without the actual text of the proposed/changed law how can we know what it means.

Never mind

 

[42!]

Just talked to a gun dealer friend of mine, he finally got a call back from the AG's office.

He asked about semi-auto rifles, mentioned the M1a and the 10/22 they said they were all good to sell same with handguns that are not already banned.

What they told him is that this only applies to AR's and AK's lookalikes. If that is the case they sure wrote it poorly. Sounds like they didn't know how to write up if it "looks like" or has one evil feature... the way I read it, it could apply to any semi.

They also said anyone who has one is legal, they are looking for sales after 7/20. He said they also claimed to have a list of dealers they are "watching" which is probably fear mongering.

On the you are legal, see Healey's comments about "for now" and "at this time" so that can change with the wind.

Useless without it being in writing.

 

[M125X]

Jim Wallace is live on WRKO AM680.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

It gives you everything you want, but it is broken down to explicitly 1) protect the pre-7/21 status quo, 2) remove AG authority to make stuff up, 3) remove 93A oversight, 4) add some higher penalties for criminals.

If I read it correctly, you should be happy with this bill.

- - - Updated - - -



And then some. It would appear to eliminate 'the list' as well as rule by executive fiat.

IMO, it's pretty well constructed. Everyone can get at least some of what they want, and if it passes, we're in at least clearly protected.

I much prefer SD2637 proposed by Senator Humason. It is direct and to the point. It also removes all of the other BS like the LCI, ten ton trigger, EOPS list.

I am sooooo very tired of the "compromises" we have been getting. We are always giving up something so "they" just get less of what "they" want. That's not much of a victory to me as we always lose something.

This is a major over-reach and is likely our best opportunity to get her to stop perverting the consumer protection laws so they can be used to write gun ban rules.

JMO,

Bob



"SECTION 1. Section 2 of Chapter 93A of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting, in line 11, after the word "chapter" the following words: provided that such rules and regulations shall not govern, limit, or otherwise relate to weapons as defined in Section 121 of Chapter 140, the manufacture of weapons or the sale of weapons. Further, that any such rule or regulations having previously being promulgated are hereby repealed."

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/SD2637

 

[Goliathan]

I much prefer SD2637 proposed by Senator Humason. It is direct and to the point. It also removes all of the other BS like the LCI, ten ton trigger, EOPS list.

I am sooooo very tired of the "compromises" we have been getting. We are always giving up something so "they" just get less of what "they" want. That's not much of a victory to me as we always lose something.

This is a major over-reach and is likely our best opportunity to get her to stop perverting the consumer protection laws so they can be used to write gun ban rules.

JMO,

Bob



"SECTION 1. Section 2 of Chapter 93A of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting, in line 11, after the word "chapter" the following words: provided that such rules and regulations shall not govern, limit, or otherwise relate to weapons as defined in Section 121 of Chapter 140, the manufacture of weapons or the sale of weapons. Further, that any such rule or regulations having previously being promulgated are hereby repealed."

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/SD2637

What are we giving up, in your opinion?

The fact is, compromise is how law gets made. Like it or not. I like Humason's bill, and I would (and did) urge my reps to support it, but the realistic fact is that it's Hail Mary of the highest order, especially with how blue this state is. This new bill gives the Dems some of what they want by focusing penalties on actual criminals. Dems can sign on to it and still claim they're tough on guns and crimes to their constituents.

 

[Coyote33]

This x 1000. There is no loophole...the law is the loophole. It was a narrowly-crafted law with detailed specifics, most likely so it would pass constitutional muster by not banning an entire class of weapons (all semis). Building a weapon without certain features in order to comply with the specifics of the law is not a loophole!

-JR

No kidding! This is the way I understood it as well. The law says "You cannot have X,Y,Z features." The manufacturers make something that does not have those features. THIS IS NOT A "COPYCAT"! This is a reduced set of what most other states just have without the BS.

So this bill accepts the AG's interpretation going forward but grandfathers pre 7/21? And goal is supporting it? WTF???

I hope this is not how it is.

So is this going to come up for a vote?

According to Baker's, DeLeo's, and Rosenberg's offices, yes. But I answered this same question for you the other place you asked it.

 

[Bob P]

No kidding! This is the way I understood it as well. The law says "You cannot have X,Y,Z features." The manufacturers make something that does not have those features. THIS IS NOT A "COPYCAT"! This is a reduced set of what most other states just have without the BS.




I hope this is not how it is.




According to Baker's, DeLeo's, and Rosenberg's offices, yes. But I answered this same question for you the other place you asked it.

No it's not. It sets the clock back to 7/19

 

[HorizontalHunter]

What are we giving up, in your opinion?

The fact is, compromise is how law gets made. Like it or not. I like Humason's bill, and I would (and did) urge my reps to support it, but the realistic fact is that it's Hail Mary of the highest order, especially with how blue this state is. This new bill gives the Dems some of what they want by focusing penalties on actual criminals. Dems can sign on to it and still claim they're tough on guns and crimes to their constituents.

When I read it I read it the same as Jar which accepts the AG's definitions going forward.

I understand that compromise is necessary. I am just tired of the compromise being that they take a bunch of stuff away and then give back 60% of what they took away and call it co promise. That's not compromise in my book.

I truly believe that this is the best opportunity we will ever have to get the AG out of the Gun Ban business. We actually have some support for, the anti crowd in the 82 signatures because of the end run around she did on the legislature.

Bob

 

[Wrench75]

So this bill accepts the AG's interpretation going forward but grandfathers pre 7/21? And goal is supporting it? WTF???

provided that such rules and regulations shall not govern, limit, or otherwise relate to weapons as defined in Section 121 of Chapter 140, the manufacture of weapons or the sale of weapons. Further, that any such rule or regulations having previously being promulgated are hereby repealed

No. No it doesn't. It specifically states that any change would have to go through the legislative process. It sure as hell sounds like the AG's list will be thrown out as well. Whether they realize it or not. Seeing as it is a "previous regulation" "governing the sale of weapons". In such a way as to "limit" which ones you can buy.

Their words not mine, hence the quotes. This could be a very big deal for you guys. Though your $900 used glocks are soon to be $350 used glocks.

 

[[email protected]]

Is it possible for any of these bills to pass prior to the end of session on the 31st? Would we need 2/3 in order for it to pass or is it strictly majority with 51%

 

[Goliathan]

Is it possible for any of these bills to pass prior to the end of session on the 31st? Would we need 2/3 in order for it to pass or is it strictly majority with 51%

https://malegislature.gov/Engage/HowIdeaBecomesLaw

 

[bigblue]

https://malegislature.gov/Engage/HowIdeaBecomesLaw

That's great but we all know this shit can be done in a day or two. That has no semblance of a timeline.

 

[Goliathan]

That's great but we all know this shit can be done in a day or two. That has no semblance of a timeline.

I know, I was halfway kidding the poster in a moment of smart-a$$ity. Don't mind me.

Sure it's possible to pass by Sunday, they've certainly done it before. A simple majority would do the trick, 2/3 makes it veto-proof. I am hopeful.

 

[dixidawg]

Does it share parts? Is the operating system substantially similar? I personally would say no to both but the AG has made it vague so only time will tell of this BS stands. I think the key word to this mess will be "substantially". The AR and M1A are both semi auto and take a mag, that's is where all the similarities stop. I would say both are not substantially similar.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Operating system is substantially similar if you pull the trigger and a bullet comes out.

 

[Goliathan]

I can make a Prius into an M1 Abrams tank just by replacing most of the parts. That doesn't mean they are the same thing to begin with.

 

[bigblue]

I can make a Prius into an M1 Abrams tank just by replacing most of the parts. That doesn't mean they are the same thing to begin with.

I know a guy with an M1 full repair package, ramps and all.... Just sayin.

 

[Coyote33]

... Sure it's possible to pass by Sunday, they've certainly done it before. A simple majority would do the trick, 2/3 makes it veto-proof. I am hopeful.

I hope they do a roll-call vote, so we know who is for and against. Any way to force that to happen ahead of time?

 

[bigblue]

I hope they do a roll-call vote, so we know who is for and against. Any way to force that to happen ahead of time?

I honestly think that we are more worried about getting it passed than accounting for who voted for it. It isn't like we have a landslide majority and can screw around with calling out moonbats who we know aren't on our side.

We don't have a shit ton of leverage.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Bass Pro and Cabela's have stopped selling all semi-automatic rifles taking them off the shelves

 

[Iram]

I'm back in Texas (finally), but I'll be praying for y'all today. Good luck at the statehouse.

 

[fshalor]

No. MA law doesn't allow recalls

Not technically true. It mentions it, but does not provide the mechanism which could result in a recall. I believe it would require the legislature to provide the mechanism first before it could be used.

Sent from my LG-K371 using Tapatalk

As another said. This would have to go through the AGs office on the way up. Horrific! Accountability! What fun!

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

In the Boston Herald today there is an article quoting Healy office saying "those who purchased assault rifles last Wednesday won't be prosecuted because many people apparently acted in the belief that they had until the end of the day Wednesday to buy these weapons" it was not a mistaken belief that's what they were telling the dealers and that's what they were telling anybody who called. At least the herald is still keeping it front and center

 

[amm5061]

We were just on Fox 25 news. They reported on Tarr's bill to remove Healey's power to regulate guns, and then followed with a brief segment on how gun sales are surging and that women are the largest growing market for gun sales.

I would call this a fairly neutral report. No real slant either way. No real details on the rally other than the movement was on today. No mention of time or location.

 

[Roy Rogers]

E-mail just in from NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action), https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160729/massachusetts-officials-question-ag-gun-ban:

Massachusetts Officials Question AG Gun Ban

Friday, July 29, 2016

More

As we reported last week, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey unilaterally banned many common firearms via executive action. AG Healey’s “enforcement notice” has now come under attack by officials within the Massachusetts government, including many from her own party.

In a letter to AG Healey, Democratic State Representative Harold P. Naughton Jr. noted that “this recent directive, concerning so called ‘copies and duplicates’ of banned weapons in the current law is not only confusing, but the vagueness of the guidance has raised significant questions over which firearms are now banned or could be banned in the future.” Signaling his belief that Healey had overstepped her authority, Rep. Naughton cautioned “I strongly believe that any such review of our gun control laws should be a legislative matter to be considered by both the House and Senate along with public input.”

Naughton was not alone in his criticisms. 58 of his colleagues in the legislature signed another letter calling in to question the constitutionality of AG Healey’s action where they wrote:
View Related Articles For the last 18 years, the law has been implemented and enforced consistently, both by your office and your predecessors. Your new directive, which has been presented by your office as nothing more than a closing of ‘loopholes’ in the current law, appears in fact to be much more than that: the enforcement of a whole new law that unfairly infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners in Massachusetts.

Possibly the harshest critique of the substance of AG Healey’s new “enforcement notice” came from Daniel Bennett, the Massachusetts Secretary of Public Safety and Security. Secretary Bennett paid particular attention to the vagueness of the two-part test articulated in the “enforcement notice.” He raised substantial concerns that the new test could be read to apply to nearly any semi-automatic firearm when he directly asked AG Healey “Does your enforcement notice mean that your office considers any weapon, even a pistol like the M1911 that has these characteristics to be an assault weapon?”

Supporting the concerns raised by Secretary Bennett, Governor Charles D. Baker further noted that “ambiguities in [the] notice require clarification for responsible gun owners who simply want to follow the rules and for thousands of gun owners who were told they were following the rules for eighteen years.”

While this widespread government opposition to the action of a sitting attorney general may seem surprising, it is indicative of the clearly unlawful nature and vagueness of the “enforcement notice.” NRA continues to pursue all legal and legislative remedies to reverse this unilateral executive gun ban.

 

[amm5061]

Yeah, about 2-4 days after the fact. That's about right for the NRA. Would be nice if they actually gave a shit and tried to do something.

 

[MAJoe]

Yeah, about 2-4 days after the fact. That's about right for the NRA. Would be nice if they actually gave a shit and tried to do something.

No kidding. Disappointing.

 

[rlee]

NRA continues to pursue all legal and legislative remedies ...

That's funny right there.

 

[mbullism]

We don't have a shit ton of leverage.

We have enough to have gotten this far... as long as we don't let it go away. Those that have already signed on would have a difficult time reversing and bailing at this point, and none of them want to listen to this through the fall (november)... they all thought they put this pig to sleep in 2014