xero2099
NES Member
is it possible to get a stay on the entire AWB because she made the law even more vague?
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Her directive was so confusing and poorly written nobody on these boards really knew what it meant. Plus since when is a Globe article and press conference proper notice? This woman is not very smart.So I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, but if anyone hasn't seen this article in the Commonwealth, it seems to change things with respect to this past Wednesday's sales.
http://commonwealthmagazine.org/guns/healey-triggers-gun-buying-frenzy/
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
Mind if I use as an outline to send to my libtard anti gun representatives? I like how she describes the AG's overreach as setting a dangerous precedent as the main focus of the letter.
My wife wrote this one:
Governor Baker,
I am very concerned about your lack of action regarding Attorney General Maura Healey’s efforts to repress citizens’ rights. You know better than I do that an AG’s role is to serve as the protector of citizens’ legal rights and advise the legislative branch – not to rewrite laws without public input. The AG’s rewriting of Massachusetts’s gun law over steps the office’s role. Any changes to Massachusetts’s laws follow a procedure that involves public input. The AG ignored the state process and back doored her personal agenda into Massachusetts’s laws. A power grab such as this is dangerous to all citizens of Massachusetts. You even acknowledge that overnight she made thousands of law abiding citizens open to criminal charges. Again, the AG is supposed to protect citizen’s rights, not make us criminals – especially in such a sneaky, middle of the night, backdoor way.
I respectfully ask that you rebuke the AG’s power grab and demand the AG to change laws in accordance with the Massachusetts legislative process. If one, whether it be you, the AG, or a regular citizen feels the gun law, as written, is subjected to loose interpretation, then follow the appropriate process – one that demands public knowledge and input. All of us are in a vulnerable position when one branch of the government is not held in check.
go ahead - please do
FIFY
The Answer is Yes, Maura Healy just did that. It will take a Federal Court to rule her interpretation of the existing law as BS, or the Mass Legislature can somehow take up the matter and fix it.......We'll just have to wait and see.
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.
Yep, she's basically adding a bunch of new features that aren't in the law and calling them legal tests. This goes way beyond "interpretation."
By their own definition it's not an " Assault Weapon " or a copy. It doesn't have the ability to attach a flash hider considering a muzzle device is pinned and welded on. It doesn't have a telescoping stock seeing it's pinned. It doesn't have a bayonet lug , or the ability to attach a grenade launcher. By their own definition it's not a copy.
existing law! said:Definition of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon.
(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;
``(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
``(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol
outside of the pistol grip;
``(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel
extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
``(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or
completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter
to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being
burned;
``(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the
pistol is unloaded; and
``(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
``(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that 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 fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds;
and ``(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.''.
The legislature will fail us. the courts will fail us. the ONLY way to win here is MASS NONCOMPLIANCE. We need dealers with balls to make that happen and we need PATRIOTS with balls to defend them.
is it possible to get a stay on the entire AWB because she made the law even more vague?
Great--if you sent, I think, $50 or more to comm2A they will send you a cool challenge coin.
The thing is, while dealers may have standing to challenge her "directive" (but we all saw how well that went with the LCI), as it relates to gun owners, it requires someone charged, and convicted, based upon her "interpretation". I put that in quotes because it is not an interpretation, but a creation. She states
That is not an interpretation at all. She made that up all on her own, something she has no authority to do. Of course it is also meaningless to a gun owner (as opposed to dealer or someone wishing to sell or transfer one), because if you don't get charged and convicted, does it matter what she thinks? It's catch 22.
Exactly and exactly!
She created what I quoted above all on her own. And considering the law already includes what is esentially an outline of what makes a firearm a copy
That is detailed and specific. She summarily ignored that. Not just ignored, but actually called part of the provisions "small tweaks that do nothing". Well, nothing besides determine if something is or isn't an "assault weapon", but of course she didn't say that, because it would DIRECTLY contradict her "interpretation".
I think they will have to order more.
Is it me or does she resemble a Dr. Suess character?
I think they will have to order more.
Is it me or does she resemble a Dr. Suess character?
Here is an updated list.
We should push for an outright repeal of the law. Plain and simple. If this law allows for another tyrant to pull this crap again, then it needs IMMEDIATE repeal!
https://www.northeastshooters.com/v...-insider-interpretation-quot-of-AG-s-decision
Here is the response I got from Representative Paul Heroux (consolidated from multiple emails, I added the bold):
"The AG seems to be enforcing law that was not previously enforced. Now, there is legitimate debate about if she is interpreting the law correctly. I don't know.
Here is how I think this is going to play out. The legislature won't take any action on this. IF we gave the AG the authority to do what she is doing, I don't think undoing it would ever pass out of the Senate or even be put up for a vote in the House. So there is no relief there.
The courts are where this is likely to play out. I think that the NRA, GOAL and gun manufacturers are going to have their lawyers look this over at length. IF they feel that the AG has over stepped, they will seek relief in the state supreme court, and if not get it there, take it to the US Supreme Court.
That is how I see this in folding.
Aside from that, her intention is to decrease gun homicides. I don't think that this move will do anything. Even if these guns have been used in gun crimes in MA, it is so rare that gun homicide rates won't be affected. Also, criminals will just switch to another type of gun. So I don't think this is going to do anything much to enhance public safety.
Even if this comes up for a vote in the House, it won't be until at least Feb and it won't pass the Senate. The best hope for changing this is to win in the courts."
MA article 7 and 8.
Article VIII. In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.
somebody good with the petition sites should set one up calling for the Governor to begin proceedings for the removal of the AG under article 8 for bypassing legislature, taking on their authority, and unjustifiably threatening criminal prosecution where no illegal act has occurred.
THIS IF ****ING INFURIATING AND TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!!
In my view everyone needs to step back and realize the reality here. Her actions likely won't hold up, but it will take time. Mass is not going to repeal its AWB, but there might be a window (given dissatisfaction on the part of legislators with the AG power grab) to modify it to some advantage, and at least to push back on her interpretation. It will take time. Obviously this is not something anyone wants to accept, but it is the cost of living in a place like Mass where every component of government and the the vast majority of the people are extremely anti-gun. It sucks, but to expect otherwise is to invite misery and frustration.
https://www.northeastshooters.com/v...-insider-interpretation-quot-of-AG-s-decision
Here is the response I got from Representative Paul Heroux (consolidated from multiple emails, I added the bold):
"The AG seems to be enforcing law that was not previously enforced. Now, there is legitimate debate about if she is interpreting the law correctly. I don't know.
Here is how I think this is going to play out. The legislature won't take any action on this. IF we gave the AG the authority to do what she is doing, I don't think undoing it would ever pass out of the Senate or even be put up for a vote in the House. So there is no relief there.
The courts are where this is likely to play out. I think that the NRA, GOAL and gun manufacturers are going to have their lawyers look this over at length. IF they feel that the AG has over stepped, they will seek relief in the state supreme court, and if not get it there, take it to the US Supreme Court.
That is how I see this in folding.
Aside from that, her intention is to decrease gun homicides. I don't think that this move will do anything. Even if these guns have been used in gun crimes in MA, it is so rare that gun homicide rates won't be affected. Also, criminals will just switch to another type of gun. So I don't think this is going to do anything much to enhance public safety.
Even if this comes up for a vote in the House, it won't be until at least Feb and it won't pass the Senate. The best hope for changing this is to win in the courts."
The Court of Appeals also erred in finding that the program failed the "effectiveness" part of the Brown test. This balancing factor -- which Brown actually describes as "the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest" -- was not meant to transfer from politically accountable officials to the courts the choice as to which among reasonable alternative law enforcement techniques should be employed to deal with a serious public danger. Moreover, the court mistakenly relied on Martinez-Fuerte, supra, and Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, to provide a basis for its "effectiveness" review. Unlike Delaware v. Prouse, this case involves neither random stops nor a complete absence of empirical data indicating that the stops would be an effective means of promoting roadway safety. And there is no justification for a different conclusion here than in Martinez-Fuerte, where the ratio of illegal aliens detected to vehicles stopped was approximately .5 percent, as compared with the approximately 1.5 percent detection ratio in the one checkpoint conducted by Michigan and with the 1 percent ratio demonstrated by other States' experience.
So I'm not sure if this has been covered yet, but if anyone hasn't seen this article in the Commonwealth, it seems to change things with respect to this past Wednesday's sales.
http://commonwealthmagazine.org/guns/healey-triggers-gun-buying-frenzy/
somebody good with the petition sites should set one up calling for the Governor to begin proceedings for the removal of the AG under article 8 for bypassing legislature, taking on their authority, and unjustifiably threatening criminal prosecution where no illegal act has occurred...
My response to Baker's boilerplate response:
Thank you for your pablum robo-response to my my inquiry. I voted for Governor Baker because I thought that he would actually live up to his oath to support the Constitution. If I wanted a Democrat in the office I would have voted for Martha. The AG has just declared that I (along with tens of thousands of others) am an unidicted felon, although I have faithfully followed the laws of the Commonwealth as they were interpreted at the the time. Please tell the governor to grow a backbone and denounce the AG's unprecedented usurpation of legislative authority immediately. I will weigh my vote carefully in the future.
-----Original Message-----
From: Webmail, Gov (GOV) (GOV) <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thu, Jul 21, 2016 11:13 am
Subject: Governor Baker responding to your message
Dear David,
On behalf of Governor Charlie Baker, thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the ban assault weapons ban. We understand your concern about this issue, and we are grateful to have your voice as part of the discussion.
Please feel free to contact our office in the future with any further questions or concerns; your comments are always welcome in this administration.
Sincerely,
Constituent Services Aide
Office of Governor Charlie Baker
(617) 725-4005
www.mass.gov/governor/contact
Too late. I am already miserable and frustrated on a regular basis. BUT THIS IS EXTREMELY INFURIATING. So, I am a felon until we run this to the Supreme Court!? BULLSHIT!