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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS April Giveaway ***Ruger 10/22***
Guest Monadnock & NES Need your Help!!!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Alchemist17, Feb 11, 2015.
+1. The EOPS roster controls what a MA dealer can sell/transfer to you, same goes for the AG regs.
Maura knows what's good for us. I trust her.
I have nightmares of gangs of killer Glocks roaming the streets.
We need her protection.
Go buy one from an FFL. You presently can't go to NH and purchase a Modern Sporting Rifle which isn't illegal to own either. There are no magic fixes, quick cures, and no simple court relief.
Heller and McDonald have been settled by the SCOTUS for a long time. Someone should communicate that to Ms. Healy and the Ma. legislature.
I believe the courts will eventually give us relief but that is a long time off. It could take a generation or more. That won't end the fight. The antis will begin promoting an amendment to the second amendment.
Where is the relief Trump campaigned on? Even when Com2a prevailed with Caetano it wasn't enough. The opposition isn't just going to get discouraged and quit to go home and sulk.
In 1959 when I got my first handgun training I was taught the importance of the second amendment, the need for vigilance and political activity, registration means confiscation, and evil only needs good people to do nothing.
MA's compliance BS would be meaningless, the guns are not illegal to own here, outside of stuff blocked by the AWB. The act of the transfer is the regulated
thing, not ownership or possession.
Hell it's meaningless now, to anyone except dealers operating in MA.
The more important thing is it would get rid of the stupid federal blockade on that sort of thing. You could be remote somewhere (not in state of residence) and a friend could sell you a handgun while you were
away, etc. Or if you're in a pawn shop in tinbuck 4 as long as no state law is violated. obviously worthless in commie states but in 40 something states people could ACT NORMALLY, lol.
I also think that stupid federal "must be legal in both states" thing is a bunch of horseshit too, nobody ever gets prosecuted for that, because just in reading it it reeks of feces, state of residence should be wholly irrelevant
WRT exercising a right. Not to mention its just f***ed in the head- I can legally build a 60 oz "armbrace AR-15 pistol" thing with a flash suppressor on it the whole nine yards, and as long as it stays in someplace like NH ME, etc, it's 100% legal to own.
I am cautiously optimistic given that Kennedy is gone (and he f***ed up Abramski, IIRC). Abramski wasn't the same issue but it is VERY close to this one WRT the generalized absurdities contained within
federal gun law. Most gun laws are dumb but things like "you can't buy a handgun outside of your state of residence" and "you as a non prohibited person cannot pay a non prohibited person friend to buy a gun on your
behalf" those kinds of things are just mind numbing f***ing, make you want to blow your brains out, insanity.
No argument about how stupid, illogical, and frustrating all this remains but it still remains without regard to how it should be or what would make sense. It will disappear only when good thinking reasonable people address it in much larger numbers than presently seem motivated.
I agree. While the supreme court looks good for us (and I applaud the work Comm2a and others do every day, and donate to them as well) it's not going to sort everything out. The sad thing is currently we probably have like 100 million gun owners in this country (it used to be 80, but I bet theres 20M more now, if not more) and the sad thing is most of them don't give a shit. Maybe 20% do? I don't know the numbers, but it's not enough. They take their rights for granted until its too late. And the insidious thing is shitberg et al are doing the end around attack" and while we've punched that donkey in the face a few times every once in awhile he succeeds. The stuff that happened in VT is very disturbing. It tells me that we need stronger state level RKBA organizations, and also that orgs like the NRA don't do enough to promote those organizations. Every non garbage state should have an org like Comm2A or something like VCDL (virginia citizens defense league) and sadly that is often not the case.
Am I that far out of date with the laws? I've bought long guns out of state.
Can you go to NH and purchase an AR-15?
Nope, only a fightlite scr.....
As it's been said 13,365 times on this subject, you can only buy a rifle out of state that is legal for you to own in Mass. Jack.
Kinda what I was implying. While it is legal to own in Ma there are few out of state dealers willing to sell you one.
You are not out of date. You can still buy long guns out of state provided that you could legally buy it in your home state.
The issue is that FFLs may only sell longs to an out of state resident that are legal for that person to buy in their home state. It has been this way for a very long time.
This. Just cos a MA FFL can't sell you a Glock doesn't mean that it's illegal for you to own a Glock.
This needs an explanation because as written literally it is not correct.
What Rob means is that the gun must be legal for you to purchase from a MA FFL in order for the NON-MA FFL to be legal to sell it to you in that other state. ARs, AKs, and Glocks are the stand-out examples here. You can legally buy from a MA Resident with LTC, but MA FFLs are prohibited from selling them to you (pre-ban, 9/13/1994 are exceptions).
The Supreme Court Really Needs to Start Defining the Scope of the Second Amendment
Right, the scope should be defined by "Shall Not Be Infringed"
Citation? I was under the impression from my lawyer it was "legal to own" not "legal to sell".
Unfortunately it's starting to look like the fix is in and Roberts is the new Kennedy. He's even reminding me of David Souter who was the biggest mistake John Sununu Sr. ever made.
We'll have to see what the New Year brings with RBG and if Trump gets another SCOTUS pick with the larger Senate majority. Another solid conservative would hopefully negate Roberts as the "swing" vote.
Should be: As applied to all citizens of the United States
Supreme Court Should Clarify Second Amendment Test
Supreme Court Should Clarify Second Amendment Test
Challenge to ban on interstate handgun sales would be a good vehicle.
You don't think the left lost or destroyed whatever they held over his head for the ACA vote do you? Neither do I.
"Where is the relief Trump campaigned on? Even when Com2a prevailed with Caetano it wasn't enough. The opposition isn't just going to get discouraged and quit to go home and sulk."
You do realize that if the lights went out in the WH it would be the "Republican's" who would be the first ones drop one behind Trump's left ear.
Back to the main topic, Mance v. Whitaker (now Barr)
Earlier today the Office of the Solicitor General file the US's response in opposition to granting cert. Don't get too excited. This is only a merits brief, we're still at the certiorari stage and the case is not scheduled for conference.
Boy you sure know how to throw some cold water on my enthusiasm. I was day dreaming of all the stuff I could buy that Maura doesn't want me to have and all it would take is a fun road trip.
Distributed for the March 29th conference: Search - Supreme Court of the United States
We could know on April 1st if SCOTUS takes this case.
Ahhh... BUT! The question remains that I can buy a now prohibited long gun in a private sale from another inside the sate. TEHCHNICALLY that makes any prebanned dated long guns legal. Sure, we have cowardly FFLs out of state and they are generally just boycotting MA. Hell, becoming a resident with, "listed banned guns" makes them legal to sell privately. The Congressional bill requiring a NCIS check on private sales, forcibly pushes all sales to a FFL, thus eliminating the, "private sale" loophole.
Private sales are a whole different potato. At least right now.
Order List is out. Look like Mance (and Pena) are up for relist.
I do not agree with the Fifth Circuit's decision. However, the question of whether the Supreme Court should grant cert. raises an entirely separate set of considerations; the Supreme Court does not exist to right all errors below. The Solicitor General's response to the petition for cert., urging denial, is quite well written. I advise against betting the lunch money on this one.
Does relist mean they might take the case later?
We have a collective moral duty and legal interest to make the EFA-10 system as inaccurate and useless as possible.
It means the question of whether to grant or deny the cert. petition wasn't reached and will be up for consideration on the new date.
Separate names with a comma.