Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you're upset with the police being a protected class the best offense is to support Black Lives Matter.

Or, as one comedian said, I wasn't the guy streaking across the football field. I was the guy who talked him into doing it.

I don't know. But what I do know is that COPS in THIS state (per the press conference) are turning their backs on their most ardent supporters (US. The formerly law-abiding gun owners in MA)!!

To all the LEOs out there reading this, think about who these Politicians that you are following (Healy, Evans, etc) support (BLM). Think long and hard. Think about how Mayor DeBlasio turned his back on LE in the Eric Garner case. Do you see that going any differently in MA? Think long and hard, Gentlemen!
 
Can anyone provide some sample letters that I can share to a mailing list? I have mine and some talking points but I don't want everyone sending the same letter. FYI - I tried searching the thread but this is a Mega, mega thread and got lost.

Dear Governor Baker - I enthusiastically supported you, voted for you, and convinced many others to vote for you. I did this because I thought you stood for the people and the rule of law. I thought that at the very least you would stand against political overreach and decree by fiat that Maura Healy has just pulled with zero notice or public input. 240 years ago we were subjects .. now that seems to be the case yet again. If you choose to stand beside the AGs political grandstanding that serves only to punish law abiding citizens overnight - then I will not stand by you for any office ever again. I would like to remind you of how many rifle murders occurred in MA last year. ZERO!

Regards,
 
Two questions came up with me and some other shooting freinds....

First.. What about an INHERITED AR/AK?? One guy told me his Grandfather has a couple AR's. Will my friend ever be able to get them if his Grampa wills them to him?

Second.... Do we need to carry around our BILL OF SALE/COPY OF PAPERWORK when ever we take our PRE 7-20 AR/AK to the range? Would it be the STATES duty to prove that your AR/AK is legal or Illegal, or is it YOUR duty to prove it?

It's illegal. She is just not going to chase you down (yet).
 
Would this be considered entrapment for allowing us to buy these guns for 22 years then saying they're illegal.
 
I really do not see how this can stand. There are too many paths where what she said just does not make sense.
The courts are often inclined to apply the "but its guns" doctrine where logic and law do not matter, and obtaining the desired public policy is considered the deciding factor.
 
This week in Medford Transcript (what a coincidence!):

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Medford Transcript July 21 - 7-22-16.jpg
    Medford Transcript July 21 - 7-22-16.jpg
    252.1 KB · Views: 350
Would this be considered entrapment for allowing us to buy these guns for 22 years then saying they're illegal.


entrapment by estoppel


[It's an] affirmative defense. Such a defense is available when a government official has actively misled a defendant into a reasonable belief that his or her charged conduct is legal. United States v. Neville, 82 F.3d 750, 761 (7th Cir. 1996).
 
Can anyone provide some sample letters that I can share to a mailing list? I have mine and some talking points but I don't want everyone sending the same letter. FYI - I tried searching the thread but this is a Mega, mega thread and got lost.

I created a letter using assets from other members:
Good Afternoon Senator -------,

As I’m sure you know by now, our
Attorney General Healy has decreed that the long standing, for 22 years,
interpretation of our states “assault weapon” ban has been incorrect. She has
put forth an unconstitutional ban on the sale and transfer of any firearm that
operates in a similar manner to those which are banned. Her interpretation of
our law, is not only unconstitutional, it puts thousands of Massachusetts
residents at risk of becoming felons as almost all rifles operate in this
manner. Healey explicitly declared all gun owners in the state to be felons,
but that she simply chooses not to prosecute us right now. This is a gross
overreach on Healey's part which obviates the legislature. The previous law was
clear and consumers as well as gun manufacturers have complied, and this is not
what it says.

As a registered voter, I urge you to stand/act against this decree.


Thank you,


 
entrapment by estoppel


[It's an] affirmative defense. Such a defense is available when a government official has actively misled a defendant into a reasonable belief that his or her charged conduct is legal. United States v. Neville, 82 F.3d 750, 761 (7th Cir. 1996).


Thanks!
 
I'm late to the party here. I read the first few pages of this thread and skipped the next 90 to post my email this morning to my legislative representatives:

To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Don't allow the AG to usurp legislative authority

Dear Representative Naughton and Senator Flanagan,

I am outraged by Maura Healy's actions this week when she unitarily, in the absence of legislative action, issued an edict that, within 24 hours, effectively banned all semi-automatic rifles from purchase in Massachusetts. You need to do something about this, now.
 
Has anyone done an analytical analysis of this yet? Anybody realize that under the latest "directive" the law conflicts itself?

MGL: C. 140: S. 131M:
''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,

Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) :
‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‘(iii) a bayonet mount;
‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
‘(v) a grenade launcher;

It has been held that the second section quoted actually quantifies what the law covers. Now the AG states the law applies to all "copies or duplicates" so ergo, is the second part now moot? A logical person would deduce that "copies or duplicates" would apply to the second part quoted only, not something that isn't part of the statue.
 
In the face of utter inaction by Congress, states have a duty to enact and enforce laws that protect people from gun violence

Up until now this is a misnomer and false representation of being safe. The laws already on the books have failed, new laws just create confusion. The use of the crying mother photo is agenda fitting to say the least. Sorry late to this thread, these " There taking our gunzzzz " threads I try to avoid as its the same noise repeated year after year after year and the bad guys are still killing people DAILY...screw you and your fake laws that promise safety.
 
I am on other forums with worldwide membership and this is the sentiment outside the US. They don't get it and I don't care. Molan Labe, bitches.

My family came over from Ireland in the mid 1930s, my grandparents named my father after one of the signers of the Proclamation of the Republic. Given that their rather bloody fight for independence from England started 100 years ago, I find it odd how short their memory.
 
I'm convinced this move by Healy is a tactile one. She is smart and knows this will get turned over, but it is high profile now and when overturned the pressure on Dileo will be tremendous to come out with a legislative ban proposal. One step at a time. And we must meet each step with a vigorous counterpunch.
 
Has anyone done an analytical analysis of this yet? Anybody realize that under the latest "directive" the law conflicts itself?

MGL: C. 140: S. 131M:


Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) :


It has been held that the second section quoted actually quantifies what the law covers. Now the AG states the law applies to all "copies or duplicates" so ergo, is the second part now moot? A logical person would deduce that "copies or duplicates" would apply to the second part quoted only, not something that isn't part of the statue.

Copies and duplicates apply to named models. For example, Colt can't simply rename the Colt AR-15 to the Colt AR-16 as a workaround. This is how it was always interpreted.
 
Not suggesting anything, but be aware of the Boston Parks and Recreation rules and regulations for Boston Common and boundary roadways.

Please don't start a debate about this! Just putting that info out there. Use it as you see fit.


SECTION 2. No person shall, in any public park (including any boundary road thereof), or other public place (including any parkway) under the control of the Parks and Recreation Commission, except under the auspices of public authority:

(a) sit, stand or lie upon, or climb upon or over, any balustrade, railing, fence, wall, roof, statue, monument, fountain, bush or tree; or

(b) go under any balustrade, railing or fence, or

(c) stand or lie upon any seat; or

(d) go upon any flower bed or cultivated area; or

(e) dig up, cut, break, remove, deface, defile, or take any tree, bush, plant, turf, rock, gravel, building, structure, fence, railing, sign or other thing connected with such park of place; or

(f) disturb any bird's nest or eggs; or

(g) injure or have possession of any wild animal or bird; or

(h) set any trap or snare, or

(i) throw any stone or other missile; or

(j) drop or place and suffer to remain a lighted match, cigarette, cigar or other burning substance; or

(k) have or discharge any firecracker or fireworks; or

(l) discharge any firearm or destructive weapon; or

(m) have in any such park or place, except a boundary road or parkway on which there are dwellings, any firearm or destructive weapon or

(n) go on foot on any drive or bridle path except to go directly across from the walk to another; or
 
I'm convinced this move by Healy is a tactile one. She is smart and knows this will get turned over, but it is high profile now and when overturned the pressure on Dileo will be tremendous to come out with a legislative ban proposal. One step at a time. And we must meet each step with a vigorous counterpunch.

I speculate this will have the same fate as the stun gun laws.
 
Not suggesting anything, but be aware of the Boston Parks and Recreation rules and regulations for Boston Common and boundary roadways.

Please don't start a debate about this! Just putting that info out there. Use it as you see fit.


SECTION 2. No person shall, in any public park (including any boundary road thereof), or other public place (including any parkway) under the control of the Parks and Recreation Commission, except under the auspices of public authority:

(a) sit, stand or lie upon, or climb upon or over, any balustrade, railing, fence, wall, roof, statue, monument, fountain, bush or tree; or

(b) go under any balustrade, railing or fence, or

(c) stand or lie upon any seat; or

(d) go upon any flower bed or cultivated area; or

(e) dig up, cut, break, remove, deface, defile, or take any tree, bush, plant, turf, rock, gravel, building, structure, fence, railing, sign or other thing connected with such park of place; or

(f) disturb any bird's nest or eggs; or

(g) injure or have possession of any wild animal or bird; or

(h) set any trap or snare, or

(i) throw any stone or other missile; or

(j) drop or place and suffer to remain a lighted match, cigarette, cigar or other burning substance; or

(k) have or discharge any firecracker or fireworks; or

(l) discharge any firearm or destructive weapon; or

(m) have in any such park or place, except a boundary road or parkway on which there are dwellings, any firearm or destructive weapon or

(n) go on foot on any drive or bridle path except to go directly across from the walk to another; or

Hence my common sense telling me to not even carry tomorrow, to respond to someone questioning me. God only knows where the hell you can even stand with a firearm in Boston.
 
That article from the Medford paper above drives me nut. We use to pride ourselves in not being like the Europeans now we are suppose to follow their culture, etc.
 
Has anyone done an analytical analysis of this yet? Anybody realize that under the latest "directive" the law conflicts itself?

MGL: C. 140: S. 131M:


Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) :


It has been held that the second section quoted actually quantifies what the law covers. Now the AG states the law applies to all "copies or duplicates" so ergo, is the second part now moot? A logical person would deduce that "copies or duplicates" would apply to the second part quoted only, not something that isn't part of the statue.


Your reading is incomplete: Section 121

''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.
 
Has anyone done an analytical analysis of this yet? Anybody realize that under the latest "directive" the law conflicts itself?

MGL: C. 140: S. 131M:


Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) :


It has been held that the second section quoted actually quantifies what the law covers. Now the AG states the law applies to all "copies or duplicates" so ergo, is the second part now moot? A logical person would deduce that "copies or duplicates" would apply to the second part quoted only, not something that isn't part of the statue.

You left out the second part of the definition of "assault weapon" in MGL ch. 140, section 121, which is important in the analysis:
...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...
The new "interpretation" by Healy, in context with the full definition bans the enumerated weapons and any "copies or duplicates" of those enumerated weapons, *and* any firearm that meets the 2-feature test. I don't see anything contradictory - just fascistic and unconstitutional.
 
The clucking hens posting comments make me sick.

Ask them what they would think if the AG came out UNILATERALLY and banned abortion...RETROACTIVELY!! And made criminals of ALL law-abiding women and all everyone that worked for Planned Parenthood over the past 20+ years!!!
 
I'm late to the party here. I read the first few pages of this thread and skipped the next 90 to post my email this morning to my legislative representatives:

To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Don't allow the AG to usurp legislative authority

Dear Representative Naughton and Senator Flanagan,

I am outraged by Maura Healy's actions this week when she unitarily, in the absence of legislative action, issued an edict that, within 24 hours, effectively banned all semi-automatic rifles from purchase in Massachusetts. You need to do something about this, now.

Nice, but I think you meant "unilaterally."
 
I'm convinced this move by Healy is a tactile one. She is smart and knows this will get turned over, but it is high profile now and when overturned the pressure on Dileo will be tremendous to come out with a legislative ban proposal. One step at a time. And we must meet each step with a vigorous counterpunch.

I'm a little saddened that .gov can pull this crap and not expect a coup d'etat.
 
Talking points and example e-mails

Thanks for all the input. I too borrowed here and there. Rod-Tel had a pretty good base that I worked on. I did not write all of these, most are copied from within here or were sent to me. Thanks for everyone helping out - let me know who you are and I will give you credit.

Note - I am trying to remove "she" and "her" because I am dealing with liberal reps... I am pushing where I can the power overreach issue rather than the gun issue. If reps care about one thing, it's staying in power...


____________________________________________________

Your reps probably don't care about guns, know that. If your rep is a Democrat, know their game and beat them at it. Don't get all "huurr duurr, dey took our guns!", they are going to yup you. All they do care about their power and staying in office under the cushy golden dome sucking on the tax payer teet. As I said above, the AG isn't to change law, yet she did. By adding words to existing law, through decree, she has taken power from your reps.

Know this and use this as an angle rather than the gun angle. Say, "It is not about guns, it is about the legislative process. You are my representative and law must come from you. The AG has gone around you and usurped your power as an elected official". The ONLY thing your reps do care about is power, remember that. Say that you voted for them, lie if you must, but if they stand on the wrong side of this you will not forget come next election.

Talking points for the phone -

  • The AG set a dangerous precedent, an overreach that seeks to redefine two decades of case law and understanding of both the Mass and Federal AWB (as laid out by Calsdad earlier in the thread)
  • What is to stop another AG from closing the "Abortion is not Murder Loophole" in another state using the precedent as justification
  • The AG does not get to decide what is moral and change the interpretation of a law on a whim, no matter the justification (the ends does not justify the means under the rule of law)
  • Even if it gets overturned in court, women in the state could be denied their right to health care in the meantime
  • This is not about guns!
  • The AG is reinterpreting the established law in a a fashion that violates both the state and federal constitution.
  • The AG is over reaching the powers and responsibilities of the office.
  • The AG's actions are obviating the legislature, usurping their authority on the issue.
  • The existing law is clear and it's interpretation has been agreed upon by all parties for many years (since 1994 federally and since 1998 in MA). The AG's "revised" interpretation is in violation of 18 and 22 years of precedent.
  • The AG explicitly declared that all gun owners in the state are currently committing felonies, and that we are not being brought up on charges en-mass on the basis of her "prosecutorial discretion". She also mad a point of the fact that she reserves the right to change her stance on this fact (or any part of the directive for that matter) in the future.


Example letters. Tweak them as you want.

______________________________________________
Dear (rep's name, gov baker)

I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding the overreach of the Attorney General, Maura Healey, regarding the re-interpretation of the Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban. This re-interpretation has unilaterally banned firearms that have been legally sold and possessed by law-abiding citizens for over 20 years. Even more disturbing is that the AG has circumvented the Legislature and the legislative process entirely. This may be guns today but could be assembly and speech tomorrow.



The Attorney General’s is reinterpreting existing law and inserting language that does not exist. In particular, the words copy & duplicate as they appear in the definition of an Assault Weapon under Massachusetts General Law - Chapter 140 Section 121. This definition, in part, states “and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons [emphasis added], of any caliber, known as…” The Attorney General has unilaterally taken it upon herself to redefine the words copy & duplicate and has invented a “Similarity Test” as quoted below:



“Similarity Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if its internal functional components are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an Enumerated Weapon. Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons.”



Nowhere in Massachusetts General Law is there a “Similarity Test”. This is an invented idea by the Attorney General which became edict on 07/20/16. This was done in the dark, the Legislators were not consulted, and there was no legislative process to add this “Similarity Test”. If the Legislature wanted a “Similarity Test” included in the law they would have included it when it was written. The circumvention of the legislative process by the Attorney General is alarming as it removes the power from you and your office and displaces trust in the legislative process.



This is a slippery slope and must be stopped immediately. The Attorney General is threatening criminal enforcement based on this re-interpretation. The threat to charge otherwise law-abiding citizens and/or business owners with felonies is looming. If this unconstitutional act is not reversed and the Attorney General punished, others will follow suit and one day we may not be able to write letters such as this, worship the god we choose, or assemble peaceably.



This move by the Attorney General is a clear over-reach of her authority. The Attorney General is attempting to re-write a statute. This circumvents the legislative process, makes our Legislators insignificant and will not stand constitutional muster. I urge you to oppose this illegal action by Maura Healey and remind her that the law-making authority falls to the Massachusetts Legislature, not to the Attorney General.

Respectfully,
john Doe
__________________________________________________________

Dear Governor Baker,

I supported you, voted for you, and convinced many others to vote for you. I did this because I thought you stood for the people and the rule of law. I was shocked to see your support of the Attorney Generals overreach and obviation of power from the Legislature. This is not a gun issue, this is a law issue. This political stunt is unconstitutional usurps the authority of the legislature. Some 240 years ago we were subjects .. now that seems to be the case yet again.

I call upon you to reconsider you position on the Attorney General's fiat law change. It is your duty, your oath to defend the constitution, to stand beside your law abiding citizens and call for an immediate stay on this illegal action by Attorney General Healey. If you do not stand with your constituents, we will not stand with you. I hope that you are on the right side of this, if not we will remember during the 2018 Gubernatorial election.


Respectfully,
john Doe

__________________________________________

Dear (rep's name, gov baker)

Attorney General Healey has decreed that the 22 year interpretation of our states “assault weapon” ban has been incorrect. She has put forth an unconstitutional ban on the sale and transfer of any firearm that operates in a similar manner to those which are banned. Her interpretation of our law, is not only unconstitutional, it puts thousands of Massachusetts residents at risk of becoming felons as almost all rifles operate in this manner. Healey explicitly declared all gun owners in the state to be felons, but that she simply chooses not to prosecute us right now. This is a gross overreach on the Attorney General's part which obviates the legislature. The previous law was clear and consumers as well as gun manufacturers have complied, and this is not what it says.

As a registered voter, I urge you to stand/act against this decree.

Respectfully,
john Doe
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom