I need some specifics about the MA AWB

[Boris]

Not to put too fine of a point on it but Finger F'ing the mechanical details of the rifles is completely secondary to the fact that she does not have the authority to unilaterally create new laws, period.
When you " Reinterpret " an law to mean something it has never ment before, you are creating a new law.
Not to mention the constitutional violation of Ex Post Facto.
This is a very dangerous road they are allowing her to go down just to screw over gun owners.
The assumption that guns would be where she'd stop if she gets away with it is foolish and very risky.

yup, just wait until she reinterprets abortion laws or the next AG start reinterpreting RICO and unions. If AG can do it and no one can do anything about it, well, it's just a matter of time before that swings against Ds ... that should scare that D shitless.

 

[Dadstoys]

yup, just wait until she reinterprets abortion laws or the next AG start reinterpreting RICO and unions. If AG can do it and no one can do anything about it, well, it's just a matter of time before that swings against Ds ... that should scare that D shitless.

They are already finding out that screwing with the law has consequences.
Now all their little shitty bag of tricks are in Republican hands.
Don't like Trumps cabinet picks?
Aww too bad.
Simple majority baby, you passed it.

 

[Horrible]

They are already fining out that screwing with the law has consequences.
Now all their little shitty bag of tricks are in Republican hands.
Don't like trumps cabinet picks?
Aww too bad.
Simple majority baby, you passed it.

THIS. But reality is that these arrogant pricks just don't think that they will ever be out of power.

This is the real reason why they are scared of Trump. They thought that they had pumped in enough illegals so that they wouldn't have to worry about losing power and went FR with the Exec actions and crap.

 

[jkelly1229]

AFAIK there were cases during the 94-04 AWB that essentially addressed this question. there were also ATF guidances/statesments issued on it. personally i would try to stick to the precedence and focus less on the actually details of the rifle. while you and I are rifle nerds, the average fool out there is clueless so legal precedence is probably the strongest argument.

Yeah essentially from what I've read is they've changed a few holes in the reciever so pins from an actual colt AR wont fit. But honestly unless your rep is a nerd he won't give two poops about it.

 

[RKG]

The winning argument is not about mechanics or design; that is a debate that does not have a clear, undebatable answer, in which case the AG wins.

Rather the winning argument is this:

1) The AWB was enacted in 1998, based on a federal enactent dating from 1994. (Double check I have the dates correct.)

2) From the inception, the AWB was interpreted as not applying to AR-15 "clones" that did not include too many of the enumerated design features, rifles that became widely known as "Massachusetts Compliant ARs."

3) This consistent interpretation continued for 18 years after the Massachusetts General Court [ed. note: "General Court" is the technical name of the Massachusetts legislature] enacted the 1998 law. Millions of Massachusetts Compliant ARs were manufactured and sold to Massachusetts residents, and each and every one of these sales was (as required by law) registered with the Executive Office of Public Safety. [Double check that EOPS is the recipient of FA-10 forms.]

4) At no time did any executive official claim that the 1998 enactment was being incorrectly interpreted or applied. More importantly, at no time did the General Court enact legislation "correcting" the interpretation or application of its 1998 enactment.

5) It is well settled that long-standing consistent interpretation of legislative enactments that do not generate legislative correction usually become a part of the law itself. This is known as the "Doctrine of Legislative Acquiescence." E.g.,, Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469 (1940). Where a long-standing interpretation is held to reflect the legislature's intent, it may not be amended by late-coming executive changes of mind, but only by duly enacted legislative action.

6) The foregoing is the legal reason why the AG is wrong.

7) Quite separately, as a political matter, when the legislature enacts a statute and for 18 years the executive interprets and applies it in a consistent way, and during that time the citizens rely on that consistent interpretation and application, it is fundamentally unfair for the executive, in the absence of legislative action, to reverse the interpretation in a way that makes those citizens unindicted (but plainly indictable) felons. (Yes, the AG says that her new interpretation will only be applied prospectively -- that is to say, she has said that such will be the case for a while, while reserving her "right" to change her mind -- the fact that the AG purports to decree a new, prospective-only rule demonstrates that she is really engaged in unconstitutional legislation, since prospective rule-making is a hallmark of an exercise in the legislative power.)

8) At this point, only the legislature can clean up the mess that the AG has created. It can -- and must -- do so by enacting legislation that (a) explicitly restores the 18-year long interpretation of the 1998 law, and (b), if the legislature deems it appropriate, sets forth with clarity what the rule should be going forward.

 

[Len-2A Training]

RKG,

Great legal analysis, thanks.

1. Dates are correct.

3. FA-10s go to FRB, which is part of CJIS, which reports to EOPS.

8. Sadly I've been told privately by 3 high ranking legislators that the legislature has no intention of touching this with a 10' pole. They do not want to deal with any firearms issues at all, neither pro or anti.

 

[42!]

Yeah essentially from what I've read is they've changed a few holes in the reciever so pins from an actual colt AR wont fit. But honestly unless your rep is a nerd he won't give two poops about it.

I wouldn't call him a nerd but he is smart and a gun owner. Past conversations brought up differences so being able to point out that there were actual design changes made, and not just a name change, is relevant.

Can someone confirm that they also changed the receiver so that full-auto internal parts could not just be swapped in? I thought I saw something about a change in the way the lower receiver was machined.

Colt stopped selling the "Colt AR-15" just before the '94 AWB, and started selling the "Colt AR-15 Sportster" and "Colt AR-15 HBAR" and some other variations that were different in more than name, specifically because the "Colt AR-15" was banned, but other Colt AR-15 style rifles weren't.

I might have the specific names of the models wrong, but the gist is the same.

And the more difference I know about the better.

Not to put too fine of a point on it but Finger F'ing the mechanical details of the rifles is completely secondary to the fact that she does not have the authority to unilaterally create new laws, period.
When you " Reinterpret " an law to mean something it has never ment before, you are creating a new law.
Not to mention the constitutional violation of Ex Post Facto.
This is a very dangerous road they are allowing her to go down just to screw over gun owners.
The assumption that guns would be where she'd stop if she gets away with it is foolish and very risky.

What he won't support is totally throwing out the AWB, although I will point out how useless it is. And I don't want to see the confusion caused by the AG "fixed" by the legislature by simply writing her interpretation into the law. So the argument needs to be multi-layered. The over reach by the AG along with what it's done to legal gun owners and the slap-in-the-face to the legislature (this actually seems to hit home). Then there is the clear difference between what really is called an AW in the law and what is being sold. And finally a way to fix the problem.

I know many here won't like this but I think the best that can be done is get it back to the way it was pre 7/20. And the easiest way to do this is to define "copy or duplicate" in the law as "completely and exactly identical." Just a few words, but with a big impact.

 

[MisterHappy]

The real problem is the mutability of the language used.

What is "substantially"? Or "Similar"?

Remember, the laws in the PRM prohibit "Keeping a disorderly house." This meant, originally, a house of prostitution.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/DisorderlyHouse.aspx

Now, you have:

https://www.urbelislaw.com/keeping-a-disorderly-house.html

I know it's the 11th hour, but since you're speaking with a legislator, and not a firearms tech nerd that will care about twist rates and differences in BCG design, pointing out that the AG has taken the established work of his peers and predecessors and using arrogated authority, has twisted the Law to fit her political purpose.

One reason that legislators are uncomfortable with changing an existing law, is that it implies that their predecessors were .....wrong. And therefore, they can be, too.

Break a leg.

 

[Wickedcoolname]

You wouldnt think something like this would be possible in a state with a hardcore conservative republican governor like old blood and guts Charlie Baker.

 

[MisterHappy]

I'm no huge fan of Baker.....but he's as much of a (R) as we're likely to get....remember, to get elected in the PRM, you have to have dems voting for you, 'cause the Rs are outnumbered.

 

[MetalgodZ]

The winning argument is not about mechanics or design; that is a debate that does not have a clear, undebatable answer, in which case the AG wins.

Rather the winning argument is this:

1) The AWB was enacted in 1998, based on a federal enactent dating from 1994. (Double check I have the dates correct.)

2) From the inception, the AWB was interpreted as not applying to AR-15 "clones" that did not include too many of the enumerated design features, rifles that became widely known as "Massachusetts Compliant ARs."

3) This consistent interpretation continued for 18 years after the Massachusetts General Court [ed. note: "General Court" is the technical name of the Massachusetts legislature] enacted the 1998 law. Millions of Massachusetts Compliant ARs were manufactured and sold to Massachusetts residents, and each and every one of these sales was (as required by law) registered with the Executive Office of Public Safety. [Double check that EOPS is the recipient of FA-10 forms.]

4) At no time did any executive official claim that the 1998 enactment was being incorrectly interpreted or applied. More importantly, at no time did the General Court enact legislation "correcting" the interpretation or application of its 1998 enactment.

5) It is well settled that long-standing consistent interpretation of legislative enactments that do not generate legislative correction usually become a part of the law itself. This is known as the "Doctrine of Legislative Acquiescence." E.g.,, Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469 (1940). Where a long-standing interpretation is held to reflect the legislature's intent, it may not be amended by late-coming executive changes of mind, but only by duly enacted legislative action.

6) The foregoing is the legal reason why the AG is wrong.

7) Quite separately, as a political matter, when the legislature enacts a statute and for 18 years the executive interprets and applies it in a consistent way, and during that time the citizens rely on that consistent interpretation and application, it is fundamentally unfair for the executive, in the absence of legislative action, to reverse the interpretation in a way that makes those citizens unindicted (but plainly indictable) felons. (Yes, the AG says that her new interpretation will only be applied prospectively -- that is to say, she has said that such will be the case for a while, while reserving her "right" to change her mind -- the fact that the AG purports to decree a new, prospective-only rule demonstrates that she is really engaged in unconstitutional legislation, since prospective rule-making is a hallmark of an exercise in the legislative power.)

8) At this point, only the legislature can clean up the mess that the AG has created. It can -- and must -- do so by enacting legislation that (a) explicitly restores the 18-year long interpretation of the 1998 law, and (b), if the legislature deems it appropriate, sets forth with clarity what the rule should be going forward.

Exellent summary.

One thing that I've read here (but now cannot find) and heard elsewhere (from someone who I can no longer speak with) was either a court case or rulemaking or some other sort of legal clarification done at the federal level. The federal ban was passed with a "copy" clause, and essentially there was some debate as to what a "copy" was. The answer that was provided was that the firearm was not a "copy" if even one piece was changed. But I'll be damned if I'm able to find the documentation.

 

[jkelly1229]

I wouldn't call him a nerd but he is smart and a gun owner. Past conversations brought up differences so being able to point out that there were actual design changes made, and not just a name change, is relevant.

Can someone confirm that they also changed the receiver so that full-auto internal parts could not just be swapped in? I thought I saw something about a change in the way the lower receiver was machined.



And the more difference I know about the better.



What he won't support is totally throwing out the AWB, although I will point out how useless it is. And I don't want to see the confusion caused by the AG "fixed" by the legislature by simply writing her interpretation into the law. So the argument needs to be multi-layered. The over reach by the AG along with what it's done to legal gun owners and the slap-in-the-face to the legislature (this actually seems to hit home). Then there is the clear difference between what really is called an AW in the law and what is being sold. And finally a way to fix the problem.

I know many here won't like this but I think the best that can be done is get it back to the way it was pre 7/20. And the easiest way to do this is to define "copy or duplicate" in the law as "completely and exactly identical." Just a few words, but with a big impact.

Yes only 2 companies make receivers that can accomplish full auto with no killing but that is in compliance with the federal law then don't give a flying f about mass or any other ban state for that matter

 

[JoseyWales]

Loose lips sink ships?

Seems like there"s good info in this thread.

 

[Horrible]

The winning argument is not about mechanics or design; that is a debate that does not have a clear, undebatable answer, in which case the AG wins.

Rather the winning argument is this:

1) The AWB was enacted in 1998, based on a federal enactent dating from 1994. (Double check I have the dates correct.)

2) From the inception, the AWB was interpreted as not applying to AR-15 "clones" that did not include too many of the enumerated design features, rifles that became widely known as "Massachusetts Compliant ARs."

3) This consistent interpretation continued for 18 years after the Massachusetts General Court [ed. note: "General Court" is the technical name of the Massachusetts legislature] enacted the 1998 law. Millions of Massachusetts Compliant ARs were manufactured and sold to Massachusetts residents, and each and every one of these sales was (as required by law) registered with the Executive Office of Public Safety. [Double check that EOPS is the recipient of FA-10 forms.]

4) At no time did any executive official claim that the 1998 enactment was being incorrectly interpreted or applied. More importantly, at no time did the General Court enact legislation "correcting" the interpretation or application of its 1998 enactment.

5) It is well settled that long-standing consistent interpretation of legislative enactments that do not generate legislative correction usually become a part of the law itself. This is known as the "Doctrine of Legislative Acquiescence." E.g.,, Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469 (1940). Where a long-standing interpretation is held to reflect the legislature's intent, it may not be amended by late-coming executive changes of mind, but only by duly enacted legislative action.

6) The foregoing is the legal reason why the AG is wrong.

7) Quite separately, as a political matter, when the legislature enacts a statute and for 18 years the executive interprets and applies it in a consistent way, and during that time the citizens rely on that consistent interpretation and application, it is fundamentally unfair for the executive, in the absence of legislative action, to reverse the interpretation in a way that makes those citizens unindicted (but plainly indictable) felons. (Yes, the AG says that her new interpretation will only be applied prospectively -- that is to say, she has said that such will be the case for a while, while reserving her "right" to change her mind -- the fact that the AG purports to decree a new, prospective-only rule demonstrates that she is really engaged in unconstitutional legislation, since prospective rule-making is a hallmark of an exercise in the legislative power.)

8) At this point, only the legislature can clean up the mess that the AG has created. It can -- and must -- do so by enacting legislation that (a) explicitly restores the 18-year long interpretation of the 1998 law, and (b), if the legislature deems it appropriate, sets forth with clarity what the rule should be going forward.

Unfortunately, one scumbag decides what proposed legislation gets voted on. Guess what side HE is on?

This will end up being decided by the courts.

 

[amm5061]

Who's your rep? Is it the new guy just elected to represent Ashland & Framingham? If so, let me know how it goes, please? I haven't reached out to him yet, but Sannicandro was useless last summer. He was on his way out and didn't give a shit about anything.

 

[hv55maxx]

The winning argument is not about mechanics or design; that is a debate that does not have a clear, undebatable answer, in which case the AG wins.

Rather the winning argument is this:

1) The AWB was enacted in 1998, based on a federal enactent dating from 1994. (Double check I have the dates correct.)

2) From the inception, the AWB was interpreted as not applying to AR-15 "clones" that did not include too many of the enumerated design features, rifles that became widely known as "Massachusetts Compliant ARs."

3) This consistent interpretation continued for 18 years after the Massachusetts General Court [ed. note: "General Court" is the technical name of the Massachusetts legislature] enacted the 1998 law. Millions of Massachusetts Compliant ARs were manufactured and sold to Massachusetts residents, and each and every one of these sales was (as required by law) registered with the Executive Office of Public Safety. [Double check that EOPS is the recipient of FA-10 forms.]

4) At no time did any executive official claim that the 1998 enactment was being incorrectly interpreted or applied. More importantly, at no time did the General Court enact legislation "correcting" the interpretation or application of its 1998 enactment.

5) It is well settled that long-standing consistent interpretation of legislative enactments that do not generate legislative correction usually become a part of the law itself. This is known as the "Doctrine of Legislative Acquiescence." E.g.,, Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469 (1940). Where a long-standing interpretation is held to reflect the legislature's intent, it may not be amended by late-coming executive changes of mind, but only by duly enacted legislative action.

6) The foregoing is the legal reason why the AG is wrong.

7) Quite separately, as a political matter, when the legislature enacts a statute and for 18 years the executive interprets and applies it in a consistent way, and during that time the citizens rely on that consistent interpretation and application, it is fundamentally unfair for the executive, in the absence of legislative action, to reverse the interpretation in a way that makes those citizens unindicted (but plainly indictable) felons. (Yes, the AG says that her new interpretation will only be applied prospectively -- that is to say, she has said that such will be the case for a while, while reserving her "right" to change her mind -- the fact that the AG purports to decree a new, prospective-only rule demonstrates that she is really engaged in unconstitutional legislation, since prospective rule-making is a hallmark of an exercise in the legislative power.)

8) At this point, only the legislature can clean up the mess that the AG has created. It can -- and must -- do so by enacting legislation that (a) explicitly restores the 18-year long interpretation of the 1998 law, and (b), if the legislature deems it appropriate, sets forth with clarity what the rule should be going forward.

excellent, excellent summary. but reading it closely, any moonbat legiscritter would see this as an invitation to just "fix" this with legislation

 

[Len-2A Training]

Unfortunately, one scumbag decides what proposed legislation gets voted on. Guess what side HE is on?

This will end up being decided by the courts.

excellent, excellent summary. but reading it closely, any moonbat legiscritter would see this as an invitation to just "fix" this with legislation

I've had 1-on-1 discussions with 3 high ranking legislators (2 are chairs of various committees, unsure about the third but he's a fellow member of MF&G), and all three have told me privately that the legislature absolutely will not address this at all. Yes they could but they won't and they will let the courts sort this out. I don't have any confidence in the courts either, see how they mis-handled the Glock case . . . they never gave a chance for testimony, just took the AG at her word that she's right because she said so. We are screwed with FUD forever in MA!

 

[LuvDog]

Who's your rep? Is it the new guy just elected to represent Ashland & Framingham? If so, let me know how it goes, please? I haven't reached out to him yet, but Sannicandro was useless last summer. He was on his way out and didn't give a shit about anything.

If you're referring to Jack Lewis, he is not a friend of the 2A

 

[42!]

If you're referring to Jack Lewis, he is not a friend of the 2A

I'm not posting his name because I don't want a google search of his name to find this thread. But it isn't Jack Lewis.

I wouldn't call my rep pro or anti 2a. He's reasonable and willing to discus the issues, including changes favorable to the pro side. I do think any changes/actions he might support are going to need an explanation that will be acceptable to most of his constituants. So a focus on gov over reach and what libs might see as "unfair" is key. Libs think of themselves as "fair", who knows, maybe some are.

 

[Mike S]

OP, give this a read, it might help.

http://blog.goal.org/copycat-assault-cars/

 

[Rider]

I've had 1-on-1 discussions with 3 high ranking legislators (2 are chairs of various committees, unsure about the third but he's a fellow member of MF&G), and all three have told me privately that the legislature absolutely will not address this at all. Yes they could but they won't and they will let the courts sort this out. I don't have any confidence in the courts either, see how they mis-handled the Glock case . . . they never gave a chance for testimony, just took the AG at her word that she's right because she said so. We are screwed with FUD forever in MA!

You are correct. There is simply no reason for most legislators to waste time or political capital on an issue that at best they don't understand or care about, and that at worst they and (they think) most of their constituents are against(that is, protecting 2A).

As has been hashed out many times before, the progressive playbook is to stuff executive orders and rule changes through, and then laugh while it takes several years for the courts to address it, all while your steaming pile of statism becomes 'precedent'.

 

[Mike S]

I've had 1-on-1 discussions with 3 high ranking legislators (2 are chairs of various committees, unsure about the third but he's a fellow member of MF&G), and all three have told me privately that the legislature absolutely will not address this at all. Yes they could but they won't and they will let the courts sort this out. I don't have any confidence in the courts either, see how they mis-handled the Glock case . . . they never gave a chance for testimony, just took the AG at her word that she's right because she said so. We are screwed with FUD forever in MA!

It's not unusual for #MALeg to not take things up if they are being fought in court. However, there is also a strong contingent of them who are not happy with Healey's actions and will work to bring this to the floor. We will need to motivate them to do so when the time comes.

 

[MetalgodZ]

9

OP, give this a read, it might help.

http://blog.goal.org/copycat-assault-cars/

With respect, Mike, this is only really helpful for people who aren't anti already, and who are not knowledgeable and who are unwilling to become knowledgeable before developing a position and pushing for it. Car analogies are also unhelpful because too many people are passingly familiar (they think) with cars in the same way they are with guns and gun laws - in other words, they have an easy time simplifying the issue into something they think of as "reasonable" and that supports their existing position on an issue.

It's not unusual for #MALeg to not take things up if they are being fought in court. However, there is also a strong contingent of them who are not happy with Healey's actions and will work to bring this to the floor. We will need to motivate them to do so when the time comes.

I agree, although I am not particularly convinced that Len's pessimism doesn't reflect how this is going to go.

I don't want to be down on GOAL - I'm aware of your (lack of) resources and the position you are all in - but it's been a while since we saw anything new and novel. I'm trying to free up the schedule for the breakfast day, and I'm really hoping that you (organization) are going to have something that combines the good I see in GOAL (organizational knowledge, Wallace's speaking ability) with the good bits from elsewhere (Comm2A's lawsuits, MAGR's support for and explanation of the strategy for running primary opponents against anti legislators).

 

[Len-2A Training]

It's not unusual for #MALeg to not take things up if they are being fought in court. However, there is also a strong contingent of them who are not happy with Healey's actions and will work to bring this to the floor. We will need to motivate them to do so when the time comes.

I'm a realist, not an idealist. So I'm telling it as I see it (with input from others involved).

I fully support GOAL's attempts to get this on the floor, in no way do I advocate giving up. Our biggest obstacle is that Healey did a great job making it sound like we all were skirting the law and people are dying because of it. The average person has no clue that a bolt action or semi-auto deer rifle is actually more deadly than an AR-15, so they hear the sound bites and go "she's right, we need to stop this carnage"! Since these low information (and brain washed by MSM) people are voters, legislators who stand up against Healey are at high risk of unemployment . . . so they do what is safe for them.

I agree, although I am not particularly convinced that Len's pessimism doesn't reflect how this is going to go.

I don't want to be down on GOAL - I'm aware of your (lack of) resources and the position you are all in - but it's been a while since we saw anything new and novel. I'm trying to free up the schedule for the breakfast day, and I'm really hoping that you (organization) are going to have something that combines the good I see in GOAL (organizational knowledge, Wallace's speaking ability) with the good bits from elsewhere (Comm2A's lawsuits, MAGR's support for and explanation of the strategy for running primary opponents against anti legislators).

See above.

If NSSF suit ever gets a FAIR day in court, Atty Michael Sullivan will make mince-meat of this BS. So Healey knows that she has to throw out all her dirty tricks to prevent a fair hearing in court.

 

[Mike S]

9
With respect, Mike, this is only really helpful for people who aren't anti already, and who are not knowledgeable and who are unwilling to become knowledgeable before developing a position and pushing for it. Car analogies are also unhelpful because too many people are passingly familiar (they think) with cars in the same way they are with guns and gun laws - in other words, they have an easy time simplifying the issue into something they think of as "reasonable" and that supports their existing position on an issue.


I agree, although I am not particularly convinced that Len's pessimism doesn't reflect how this is going to go.

I don't want to be down on GOAL - I'm aware of your (lack of) resources and the position you are all in - but it's been a while since we saw anything new and novel. I'm trying to free up the schedule for the breakfast day, and I'm really hoping that you (organization) are going to have something that combines the good I see in GOAL (organizational knowledge, Wallace's speaking ability) with the good bits from elsewhere (Comm2A's lawsuits, MAGR's support for and explanation of the strategy for running primary opponents against anti legislators).

Thanks, regarding the bolded bit, there is a HUGE problem right now in that there are very few good candidates coming forward to run in opposition.

 

[42!]

Had my meeting. As usual there was some good discussion. He confirmed what others have said, that the Legislature is more than reluctant to take up an issue when there is a pending court case. Contrary to what some have said, he is interested in possible mechanical differences that could be used to identify what is or isn't an AW. Before you all over react, lets look at the situation a little deeper.

For the sake or discussion lets focus on the AR-15. Working from my poor memory and some 2nd and 3rd hand information, there are some design differences between the original "Colt AR-15" as it existed in 1994 and the current AR platform. And that the original "Colt AR-15" could be converted to full-auto (M16) by simply installing the M-16 parts (no machining or drilling required). And that it was this ease of conversion that got the "Colt AR-15" on the list of AWs. Assuming this is correct, is there anyone out there that has, or can find, any gov documents (i.e. Congressional discussion, ATF, FBI, etc.) that back up this as the reason it was specifically named?

This would also apply to the other specifically named firearms, but my focus for now is the "Colt AR-15"

What I'm trying to establish is that the specifically named guns were put on the list because, at that time (1994), they were either; only manufactured as full-auto/select-fire, or that they could be converted to full-auto/select-fire using parts manufactured for a different firearm without the need to alter any of the parts by machining or drilling.

It doesn't matter what may or may not be possible today, all that matters is what the situation was in 1994. And being able to show that it was something other than being "scary black" that got them on the list.

 

[Dadstoys]

I've had 1-on-1 discussions with 3 high ranking legislators (2 are chairs of various committees, unsure about the third but he's a fellow member of MF&G), and all three have told me privately that the legislature absolutely will not address this at all. Yes they could but they won't and they will let the courts sort this out. I don't have any confidence in the courts either, see how they mis-handled the Glock case . . . they never gave a chance for testimony, just took the AG at her word that she's right because she said so. We are screwed with FUD forever in MA!

I hope you let them know that you Could vote for them again but Won't.

 

[Len-2A Training]

I hope you let them know that you Could vote for them again but Won't.

2 of the 3 don't represent my district.

You don't understand how things work in the state house. None were saying they didn't want it to be reversed, but I asked a candid question of whether or not they would change it. Keep in mind the Senate President AND/OR Speaker of the House can kill any bill they don't want discussed . . . and this was the most likely reason that all of us are getting the same answer. Leadership won't permit it to be debated and voted on, period.

 

[Dadstoys]

2 of the 3 don't represent my district.

You don't understand how things work in the state house. None were saying they didn't want it to be reversed, but I asked a candid question of whether or not they would change it. Keep in mind the Senate President AND/OR Speaker of the House can kill any bill they don't want discussed . . . and this was the most likely reason that all of us are getting the same answer. Leadership won't permit it to be debated and voted on, period.

I do have some idea.
They just admitted to being as useless as tits on a bull.
Whether or not they could get the bill up for a vote is one thing.
Raising hell about what she did is another.
58 lawmakers signed on to it on both sides.
If that's not enough to at least raise a stink then f*ck it , just throw the keys to Bobby on the way out because there's no point in even showing up.

 

[MetalgodZ]

Had my meeting. [...]

It doesn't matter what may or may not be possible today, all that matters is what the situation was in 1994. And being able to show that it was something other than being "scary black" that got them on the list.

But...That IS what got them on the list.