Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers

[robjax]

You guys are talking about sales. This affects private ownership. Her interpretation makes anyone owning one a felon.

even cops I suppose...or they exempted from privately owning? Also, it seems she is the only one interpreting this that way as when the rest of the country was under this ban all those little things that differentiated this from the other were removed and it made them compliant. Gun manufacturers didn't make this law the law makers did. Now with 22 years of precedence she declares it wrong? I don't think so. Just another libtard twist on what she thinks her interpretation is. How long has she been in office and now all of a sudden this is an issue.

Time to repeal that ban and have her impeached or fired or whatever you can do to take an AG's job.

Time for an AR open carry at the state house?

 

[ncgbulldog]

From
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121

Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault
weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing
in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be
limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons,
of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii)
Beretta Ar70 (SC?70); (iv) Colt AR?15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M?10, M?11, M?11/9 and M?12; (vi) Steyr AUG;
(vii) INTRATEC TEC?9, TEC?DC9 and TEC?22; and (viii) revolving cylinder
shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i)
any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified
in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on
September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1,
1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or
slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently
inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a
semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured
prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic,
theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a
projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and
cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into
an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot
accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of
ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more
than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

She is could be technically right. The court at some point is going to have define a "COPY". A Smith and Wesson MP15 Sportser doesn't (or didn't last I knew) a forward assist so it is different from a colt ar15. But I does share the other parts like lower and barrel.

 

[binary]

Surely no dealers are actually going to comply with this garbage, right? I know we've got some here, any comment guys?

 

[DecOFlaherty]

This is odd, I don't remember in the second amendment where it calls says, "For Self Defense Only"

 

[crazymjb]

Surely no dealers are actually going to comply with this garbage, right? I know we've got some here, any comment guys?

They are doing a disservice to their customers then, as she clearly thinks its OK to prosecute buyers.

Mike

 

[GM-GUY]

There is no longer a reason to follow any laws. Hillary can break Federal Law and walk to the PotUS. BLM can burn cities and riot and get federal grants and a shout-out from 0bama.

Where we mind our business, follow the laws, get our paid permission slip to enjoy our Constitutional Civil Rights and then we wake up one day and find the goal post has been moved, all instant felons.

ENOUGH - ignore, bend and break the laws, grind the system to a hault.

View attachment 172526

 

[Varmint]

Surely no dealers are actually going to comply with this garbage, right? I know we've got some here, any comment guys?

Nearly all comply with the Glock 'ban' from the AG. No business likes getting sued.

Don't expect those running a business to stand up to the AG when the rest of us won't.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no longer a reason to follow any laws. Hillary can break Federal Law and walk to the PotUS. BLM can burn cities and riot and get federal grants and a shout-out from 0bama.

Where we mind our business, follow the laws, get our paid permission slip to enjoy our Constitutional Civil Rights and then we wake up one day and find the goal post has been moved, all instant felons.

ENOUGH - ignore, bend and break the laws, grind the system to a hault.

The goal of totalitarian systems is to make everyone a criminal.

 

[DarthRevan]

Unreal...
The shops need to stick together and tell her to **** off. You want to **** around with Glocks? Fine, I'm not surprised, that's typical MA AG bullshit, but now you want to go after our rifles? You're crossing quite the line.

 

[briz]

Surely no dealers are actually going to comply with this garbage, right? I know we've got some here, any comment guys?

Not sure I want dealers who are going to thumb their noses at this crap to post it in this thread. That's just inviting extra negative attention. No sense in making life easier for MH.

 

[swatgig]

"If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal."

That looks like a ban on all semi-auto rifles.

I once put a sling from an AR15 on my Mosin. I guess that makes my Mosin an assault weapon too.

 

[dans]

Post the screenshot.

Yes, please post the screnshot. The article is behind a paywall.

 

[binary]

Not sure I want dealers who are going to thumb their noses at this crap to post it in this thread. That's just inviting extra negative attention. No sense in making life easier for MH.

You're not wrong, but on the other hand keeping quiet makes it look like everyone is happily toeing the line. That angle is always a double edge sword.

 

[bill o]

Yes, please post the screnshot. The article is behind a paywall.

If you clear your browser cookies, you can get 5 more "free" articles. It's worth reading, just to see how vile this woman is.

 

[binary]

If you clear your browser cookies, you can get 5 more "free" articles. It's worth reading, just to see how vile this woman is.

Private browsing/incognito mode/whatever your browser calls it accomplishes the same effect as well.

 

[teaser452]

Damn this state. I am in the process of moving to North Carolina. I can't wait for the lady to shake the dust off of my feet from this hell hole.

As an aside, I'll be putting stuff up in the classidfieds, mostly yard sale stuff very good deals that I'd like to move quickly.

 

[Noreaster]

Surely no dealers are actually going to comply with this garbage, right? I know we've got some here, any comment guys?

I think its easy for us buyers to ask a dealer to risk their livelihood and retirement to sell us something.

I don't think its easy on the dealer, and not sure we should expect that type of support. If we need to go down the civil disobedience route, we would need to build our own.

Just saying.

 

[M1911]

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.

. For the most part, voters in MA support a ban on assault weapons. This allows the state to expand the ban but without the legislators actually having to vote on an expanded ban. So the legislators get what they want, but without a minority of their voters getting mad at them for voting for new legislation.

 

[briz]

[FONT=&amp]The loophole in the Mass. assault weapons ban[/FONT]
By Maura Healey July 20, 2016
[FONT=&amp]Orlando. Baton Rouge. Falcon Heights. Dallas. Baton Rouge again. [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Five horrific headlines in five weeks. Each story unique in its circumstances, but bound by a common thread: human lives taken by a gun.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]There are myriad issues underlying each of these tragedies: fear, racism, mistrust, hate. These are critical issues that we, as a country, have an obligation to honestly and forthrightly address. And they’re issues my office is working hard to tackle alongside our partners in the community, in law enforcement, and in government.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]But there’s one issue that can be addressed right now — the proliferation of guns, particularly assault weapons. [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Here in Massachusetts, 10,000 assault weapons were sold just in the last year — each one nearly identical to the rifle used to gun down 49 innocent people in Orlando. In the week after the Pulse nightclub massacre, sales of weapons strikingly similar to the Sig Sauer MCX used at Pulse jumped as high as 450 percent over the previous week — just in Massachusetts.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]It’s no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It’s a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It’s in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]How in Massachusetts, then, home to some of the strongest gun laws in the country, do we allow people to buy these guns?[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The gun industry has found a way to exploit our laws, a loophole of potentially horrific proportions. And it’s time we act.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon. [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]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. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers. [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]In the face of utter inaction by Congress, states have a duty to enact and enforce laws that protect people from gun violence. If Washington won’t use its power to get these guns off our streets, we will. Not only do we have the legal authority to do so, we have a moral obligation to do so.[/FONT][FONT=&amp][/FONT][FONT=&amp][/FONT]

 

[teaser452]

I think its easy for us buyers to ask a dealer to risk their livelihood and retirement to sell us something.

I don't think its easy on the dealer, and not sure we should expect that type of support. If we need to civil disobedience route, we would need to build our own.

Just saying.

It appears that any AR purchased after today is illegal to possessor build in MA. But who knows.

 

[M1911]

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.

She has the power to do it if the courts back her up on it. And given the court's decisions on the Glock case, I think they will indeed back her up.

 

[wahsben]

Another criminal violating their oath of office to uphold the COTUS.

 

[M1911]

Surely no dealers are actually going to comply with this garbage, right? I know we've got some here, any comment guys?

I bet they will. They are small businesses operating on a limited budget. They cant afford Rd to defend themselves against a lawsuit fro the AG.

 

[robjax]

From
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section121

Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault
weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational
Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing
in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be
limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons,
of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii)
Beretta Ar70 (SC?70); (iv) Colt AR?15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M?10, M?11, M?11/9 and M?12; (vi) Steyr AUG;
(vii) INTRATEC TEC?9, TEC?DC9 and TEC?22; and (viii) revolving cylinder
shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i)
any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified
in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on
September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1,
1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or
slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently
inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a
semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured
prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic,
theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a
projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and
cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into
an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot
accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of
ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more
than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

She is could be technically right. The court at some point is going to have define a "COPY". A Smith and Wesson MP15 Sportser doesn't (or didn't last I knew) a forward assist so it is different from a colt ar15. But I does share the other parts like lower and barrel.

Technically the any ban or restrictions on any firearm is unconstitutional.

 

[terraformer]

I need a copy of the letter that dealers get ASAP. PM if you have one. There is no details in the globe about what the directive says.

 

[M1911]

Technically the any ban or restrictions on any firearm is unconstitutional.

Not according to SCOTUS. Even DC v Heller said that some regulations were legal.

 

[robjax]

Not according to SCOTUS. Even DC v Heller said that some regulations were legal.

SCOTUS...another entity that tries to "read between the lines" rather than read what the lines actually say and think they know what the founding fathers intended. The intent or interpretation doesn't matter. What is written is what matters. SCOTUS changes their ruling every time a new justice is appointed. The majority of justices feel this way on Tuesday then they vote to ban. They feel another way on friday to vote to over turn. That is not law.

SCOTUS is a joke copping to public opinion and not law.

 

[binary]

I bet they will. They are small businesses operating on a limited budget. They cant afford Rd to defend themselves against a lawsuit fro the AG.

My understanding was these rifles make up a significant percentage of a typical shop's sales. And there aren't as many alternatives in comparison to glocks for example (M&P is an ok substitute for a glock, mini 14/30 isn't really an ok substitute for a AR/AK). I think they're more likely to resist the more it impacts their bottom line. Of course I don't have any actual numbers, so who knows.

 

[Noreaster]

My understanding was these rifles make up a significant percentage of a typical shop's sales. And there aren't as many alternatives in comparison to glocks for example (M&P is an ok substitute for a glock, mini 14/30 isn't really an ok substitute for a AR/AK). I think they're more likely to resist the more it impacts their bottom line. Of course I don't have any actual numbers, so who knows.

A slowdown in sales is one thing. Bad enough to go out of business sucks. However lack of revenue PLUS paying a lawyer, PLUS massive fines, PLUS -likely- loss of FFL is not a valid path forward. Its not like the AG needs to pay laywers fees.

 

[GM-GUY]

How much inventory is on the shelves at gun shops that now can't be sold?

This is the line gentlemen, put up or shut up. IGNORE - BEND - BREAK

As for me, the next time I'm in New Hampshire some freedom is coming home with me.


Remember LEOs, she is a BLM supporter, sleep well knowing she can change laws that currently shield you as well.

 

[StevieP]

I swear to God, that if this woman is successful in this undertaking, that my wife and I WILL move out of the Commonwealth.

I've never been such a single-issue voter in my fifty years on this Earth, but tyranny will drive me out.