Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers

Status
Not open for further replies.
The best bet here, aside from court action, is to get the legislators fired up about her attempt to usurp their power and authority.

I'll be interested to hear what Comm2a and others in the know have to say about this.
 
I don't know why you guys are focusing on today, the letter 'clarifies' a law that was enacted in 1994. She could go after all of us, especially if we get picked up on something else - it's a nice pile-on charge.
 
GM-GUY said:
I don't know why you guys are focusing on today, the letter 'clarifies' a law that was enacted in 1994. She could go after all of us, especially if we get picked up on something else - it's a nice pile-on charge.
Click to expand...

I'd say it changes the law. The office had already clarified it as far as they could, but it apparently wasn't enough.

- - - Updated - - -

CTpatriot said:
It looks like somebody explain to her that it doesn't matter if things go up and down or can be unscrewed from the end of a barrel.
Click to expand...

Was that MFS?
 
CAR said:
She has the precedent of the loaded chamber indicator that tells her she can make the rules about acceptable firearm features. I don't think it's that big of a reach for her and is taking us down a very dangerous path.
Click to expand...

It's different I think, she's basically saying all semiautos are equivalent and violate the AWB, so how can you charge someone with a felony for possessing some assault weapons but not others?
 
A Surefire is an AR accessory. Are revolvers and shotguns with rails also illegal now?
 
I wrote all my legislators. Played up the "whether or not you agree with her end goal, this is an insult to your office" card. Which, frankly, it is. Even someone who likes this should be concerned about what she's doing. Especially because the legislature specifically shot this down.

Mike
 
Wow...
That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts.
Click to expand...

My first impression is that this is designed to serve two objectives: 1) AG Healey's political objectives, 2) intimidate as many dealers as possible into not selling semi auto rifles. Whether the AG intends to follow this up with prosecutions is another story. Unfortunately, have Draper v. Healey, the AG is embolded with a "it is what I say it is" perspective on firearms regulation.

This is interesting:

We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so this directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday. In the dozen years since the federal assault weapons ban lapsed, only seven states have instituted their own assault weapons ban. Many of those bans have been challenged (unsuccessfully) by the gun industry, and we anticipate our directive may be too. But our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe. This directive does both.
Click to expand...
Will this mean we all have to prove that our ARs were purchased prior to today?

Here in Massachusetts, 10,000 assault weapons were sold just in the last year —
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where this number is coming from, but I'm willing to bet that after this, the number will jump to 15,000 this year.
 
Holy Cow... I guess we don't need a tax free weekend to stimulate the local economy... she just created a huge run on the local gun stores.
 
She is also writing law by defining something that isn't written into MGL: 20 July 2016. She simply does not have the power to do that. If she were to only change the interpretation of "copy/duplicate" and keep the existing date structure then she would have more solid footing.

This needs NRA attention: A dress rehearsal for Hitlery's first term.
 
This is simply the semiauto version of the Glock 'ban'.

I would think the legislature would not like the AG making them irrelevant by creating laws - their pride may outweigh their support for the AWB.
 
bigblue said:
She is also writing law by defining something that isn't written into MGL: 20 July 2016. She simply does not have the power to do that. If she were to only change the interpretation of "copy/duplicate" and keep the existing date structure then she would have more solid footing.

This needs NRA attention: A dress rehearsal for Hitlery's first term.
Click to expand...

She's done that with handguns already, she knows she can get away with it. This is more serious though, since the wording says all semiautos we own are illegal, but we won't charge you (yet) - the Glock 'ban' doesn't have that language.
 
Have to enjoy the irony.

She admits the laws on the books do nothing.
She admits we sell "10,000 assault rifles a year" legally.

And the attention grabbing picture is from a tragedy taking place that has much less restrictive gun laws than us.
 
You guys are talking about sales. This affects private ownership. Her interpretation makes anyone owning one a felon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Biden Closing "Gun show loophole"
2
Replies
30
Views
881
zboys
zboys
Thousands more gun dealers must run background checks on buyers as Biden administration moves to close 'doggone dangerous' loophole
Replies
4
Views
194
AJK129
AJK129
ATF Report Undermines Left’s Hysteria Over So-Called ‘Gun Show Loophole’
Replies
0
Views
163
Reptile
Reptile
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
570
Zappa
Zappa
Local Dealers who Sell on Consignment Through GunBroker?
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
alan226
alan226
Back
Top Bottom