My guess is that you didn't read what I stated earlier in the thread.
It is so poorly worded that I do believe that the EOPS position will hold in court.
-
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.
How will the new gun laws effect LEO's if passed??
- Thread starter mtsfitness
- Start date
My guess is that you didn't read what I stated earlier in the thread.
It is so poorly worded that I do believe that the EOPS position will hold in court.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 443
- Likes
- 49
I will have to read the law again. It didn't seem that convoluted ( for MA anyway)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also please read what I posted, where the EOPS attorney pointed out the deficiencies of how the law is written to me and why they interpreted it the way that they do.
![[rockon]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/020.gif "Rockon [rockon]")
Under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, this law is blatently unconstitutional.
The question is, if you as a non leo/retired leo get busted, do you have enough money to fight it all the way to the supreme court?
IANAL, but this law should make the MA AWB null and void.
As a Constitutionalist, it should be null and void regardless.
And on further thought, this could law could also run afoul of Article 1, Section 9 clause 8 forbidding the granting of titles and nobility. While the law doesn't specifically grant a title of nobility, it does convey rights and privileges that could be construed as a title of nobility.
Again, IANAL, I'm just pissed.
One quick rant also:
I am tired of having to write IANAL. Prior to the establishment of the lawyers guild in the late 1800's, anyone could hang a shingle out offering to represent someone in a legal proceeding. It required nothing. Let the buyer beware. If you wanted to be a lawyer, you went to the library and read all the laws! You learned to make arguments n a court. Nowadays, you need to go to an "accredited" Bullshit school to get a law degree before you can take the bar exam which is totally immoral and unethical as it establishes a guild run by the individual states. No better than the AMA, to be quite candid.
/end rant- probably should have started a new thread for this. I never want to have to write or read IANAL again.
Last edited:
It is stupid, annoying, and bogus. In NH at least, you don't have to be a BAR accredited attorney to act as one. You just must be someone of "good character".
RSA 311:1 said:
![[devil2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/017.gif "Devil2 [devil2]")
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2015
- Messages
- 82
- Likes
- 21
I saw that Lens posted in another thread that LEOs still can't own high capacity magazines, despite the August 2014 amendment. So, I went digging. I found this notice to firearms retailers from EOPSS:
"3. Law enforcement officers are now exempt from the assault weapon and large capacity feeding device ban.
Active law enforcement officers may now purchase assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices. Firearms sold must still appear on the Approved Firearms Roster, and officers must present proof of employment."
The document is here: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/eops/notice-to-dealers-gun-law-changes-08-2014.pdf
What on earth am I missing? A plain reading of this and the signed version of House Bill 4376 seems very simple to comprehend: LEOs can have AWs and High Cap magazines, REGARDLESS of birth date of those items.
"3. Law enforcement officers are now exempt from the assault weapon and large capacity feeding device ban.
Active law enforcement officers may now purchase assault weapons and large capacity feeding devices. Firearms sold must still appear on the Approved Firearms Roster, and officers must present proof of employment."
The document is here: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/eops/notice-to-dealers-gun-law-changes-08-2014.pdf
What on earth am I missing? A plain reading of this and the signed version of House Bill 4376 seems very simple to comprehend: LEOs can have AWs and High Cap magazines, REGARDLESS of birth date of those items.
Tom, several sources disagree with that, sadly.
A personal conversation with an EOPS attorney (no, not the one I hate that just left EOPS) and Michaela Dunne about this topic.
Additionally I read the same info from other LE sources.
I'm pretty sure I discussed it here before as well.
They merely removed a few words, and didn't reword it, leading to the (I think mis-) interpretations I'm referring to.
That section of law says they can "possess" . . . EOPS points out that nowhere does it say that they can buy or sell (true statement).
The part that is about retirees still basically states (and is interpreted as) that the department has to GIFT the items to the retiree. Problem with that is although this was done for eons, the Ethics Commission has ruled this illegal as it is theft/conversion of gov't property and it would have to be offered for sale at market value to the highest bidder at auction to be legal, something they just don't do wrt firearms.
In a meeting I had with a high ranking gov't official, this is something I pointed out as needing a "technical correction" to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish by proper wording.
A personal conversation with an EOPS attorney (no, not the one I hate that just left EOPS) and Michaela Dunne about this topic.
Additionally I read the same info from other LE sources.
I'm pretty sure I discussed it here before as well.
They merely removed a few words, and didn't reword it, leading to the (I think mis-) interpretations I'm referring to.
That section of law says they can "possess" . . . EOPS points out that nowhere does it say that they can buy or sell (true statement).
The part that is about retirees still basically states (and is interpreted as) that the department has to GIFT the items to the retiree. Problem with that is although this was done for eons, the Ethics Commission has ruled this illegal as it is theft/conversion of gov't property and it would have to be offered for sale at market value to the highest bidder at auction to be legal, something they just don't do wrt firearms.
In a meeting I had with a high ranking gov't official, this is something I pointed out as needing a "technical correction" to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish by proper wording.
The part about buying or selling... good luck enforcing that. Also good luck enforcing that on a LEO who buys an LCAFD in NH and brings it back into MA... the "offense" didn't occur within MA.
The on the ground reality is that LE is functionally immune from AWB crap assuming their badge is otherwise intact. It was this way before the law changed and won't be any different now.
-Mike
The on the ground reality is that LE is functionally immune from AWB crap assuming their badge is otherwise intact. It was this way before the law changed and won't be any different now.
-Mike
I agree that the wallhack is to buy it outside MA and even avoid the sales tax as well. Likely problem is that many non-MA dealers won't sell anything that looks like AW (even pre-ban) to MA residents for "fear" and the FUD factor from that unsigned/undated memo (which I'm certain was the intent of said memo).
Yep!
What does the letter of the law matter if it won't (and it won't in this regard) be enforced?
A couple of cops were prosecuted. If you fall into disfavor in a department the thin blue line fades instantly and you'll be jacked up. It certainly does happen.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Yes, it is known that they eat there own.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2015
- Messages
- 82
- Likes
- 21
I think you may be referring to prosecutions that were before the August of 2014 change to the AWB.
Also, the EOPSS notice to firearms retailers (that I linked above) that Active LEOs can purchase regardless of the AWB is in direct contradiction to what you say you've been told by EOPSS.
True on date of prosecutions.
Are you surprised that different parts of EOPS would send different messages?? I'm not . . . sadly.
While I agree that the law only seems to apply to possession, the Deputy General Council of EOPSS Elisabeth Ryan stated in a LE email distribution that "Dealers will no longer face a potential felony charge if they sell these otherwise banned weapons and magazines directly to law enforcement officers rather than to the department itself. The intent of the officer for its use is now irrelevant." So it would appear that the official stance of EOPSS is that purchase by LE is allowed.
It only proves that different attorneys within EOPS and others within that system give out conflicting info!
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
As for Ryan, I wouldn't trust a damn thing she says. She's the one that I've crossed swords with . . . she stating that I didn't know what I was talking about and insisting that the words "in Massachusetts" are in the MA AWB and thus any pre-ban AW or mag that was not IN MA ON (not before) 9/13/1994 is not a MA legal pre-ban and is illegal to possess/buy/sell. And I have that in writing from her from a LE Email list where she attacked me for stating that as long as the DOB was on/before 9/13/1994 it was a legal pre-ban.
Last edited:
Under what circumstances? Were the still "in" when they were prosecuted? Were there other attendant charges at the same time? If these guys were already going down the river, there's your answer. If that is the case then as samples they're sort of invalid.
-Mike
Returning property after 209A was voided. Yes he was still active PO . . . at least until they charged him with illegal possession of AW and mags. No other charges at the time they decided his possession was illegal.
In God We Trust
NES Member
That guy must have been a complete @hole for them to turn on him like that. Probably banged someone's wife or some such.
It only proves that different attorneys within EOPS and others within that system give out conflicting info!
As for Ryan, I wouldn't trust a damn thing she says. She's the one that I've crossed swords with . . . she stating that I didn't know what I was talking about and insisting that the words "in Massachusetts" are in the MA AWB and thus any pre-ban AW or mag that was not IN MA ON (not before) 9/13/1994 is not a MA legal pre-ban and is illegal to possess/buy/sell. And I have that in writing from her from a LE Email list where she attacked me for stating that as long as the DOB was on/before 9/13/1994 it was a legal pre-ban.
Good to know thanks
I have updated info on the 2014 law and AWB wrt LEOs. See this thread.
https://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/302151-LEOs-AWB-amp-2014-Law-Change
https://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/302151-LEOs-AWB-amp-2014-Law-Change
