Is there a consensus on transferring pre 94's?

Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
77
Likes
2
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Sorry if this has been answered already but there's a while lot of big threads with a lot of info to absorb. I've got a pre 94 rifle I'd like to sell but I'm scared of Healey putting me in the big PMITA house if I do. What's the deal on transferring scary salt rifles that were here before the AWB?
 
IANAL, but thats' the only one you can be reasonably certain won't land you in PMITA Prison.

I wouldn't go that far considering we have an AG that just makes s*** up as she goes. She could declare tomorrow that those are illegal too. We know she's neutered the legislature and the Governor. So she is free to trample on any and all rights she deems necessary to meet her political agenda. There's no one to stop her, she owns DeLeo's balls. Baker's too.
 
Last edited:
In the Healey thread one of the posters said that he had called the AG's office and they said the new ban applies to pre-ban '94's as well

You pays your money and you takes your chance
 
She could, but what statute exactly would you be charged under?

At this point she'll just make something up. She's thrown the rule of law under the bus and she knows DeLeo and Baker will cower in a corner. She free to run rough shod over whomever she wants to.

You see the pathetic thing about this is that the Legislature and the Governor have abdicated their power. In doing so they are no longer of any consequence in this matter. The entire structure of our law has been dissolved. We now have a single person that makes law and the very people that suppose to be our law makers have abdicated to them. The AG is now Governor and Legislature. We no longer have a State, we have a tyranny.

What surprises me is that Baker and Deleo would lay down so readily. I expected some fight from them. Unfortunately they were nothing more than paper tigers.
 
Last edited:
Sorry if this has been answered already but there's a while lot of big threads with a lot of info to absorb. I've got a pre 94 rifle I'd like to sell but I'm scared of Healey putting me in the big PMITA house if I do. What's the deal on transferring scary salt rifles that were here before the AWB?


...consensus, that is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At this point she'll just make something up. She's thrown the rule of law under the bus and she knows DeLeo and Baker will cower in a corner. She free to run rough shod over whomever she wants to.

But she has no statute to charge you under. Her whole plan of attack is about 121 being vague. But 131M is very explicit about grandfathering pre-94 guns. She's not going to try such an obviously weak case and have her house of cards fall down around her. If she's going to try a case, it's going to be one she has a chance of holding up in court.

I have no crystal ball, but there's no way a pre-ban gun is going to be her test case.
 
But she has no statute to charge you under. Her whole plan of attack is about 121 being vague. But 131M is very explicit about grandfathering pre-94 guns. She's not going to try such an obviously weak case and have her house of cards fall down around her. If she's going to try a case, it's going to be one she has a chance of holding up in court.

I have no crystal ball, but there's no way a pre-ban gun is going to be her test case.

OH I agree that she won't take on a pre 94 firearm and expect to win. But she may make a case that it is also illegal. It cost her nothing to challenge. She knows that Baker and DeLeo are silent now and that she's running things. Why wouldn't she drag a person into court and bankrupt them. She has nothing to loose.

She has neutered Baker and Deleo, she has their balls in a sack she wears on her belt now, she has NO financial exposure in this matter, she's pushing an agenda. What does she have to loose?

After July 20th I no longer have belief in the rule of law. The law is what she says it is now. Baker and Deleo are her toads. She says JUMP! they say HOW HIGH?
 
Last edited:
With a Mass DA, Mass judge, Mass jury, and charged with a gun crime, I would guess the chance of getting convicted, regardless of any relevant law, is non-trivial. That means the plea offer will look great by comparison. That means the law doesn't matter. The DA threatens, the commoner pleas it out, and its another win for Mass and its vast majority of anti-gun residents. In the current environment I see no compelling reason to stick your neck out to be the test case unless you have tons of disposable cash on hand and a firm commitment to take any charges all the way to trial with the understanding that all of the money and the best lawyers still present a non-trivial chance of losing with big jail time as a result. Also, factor in the chance of being held with no bail for months or years because all gun owners are dangerous according to just about any Mass DA.
 
Last edited:
But she may make a case that it is also illegal.

She basically already has, by omitting the obvious exclusion for them she would have in her guidance if she was actually trying to clarify the law. But I just see zero case on the pre-ban guns. You gotta do what you're comfortable with, as we all have our own personal risk levels, but I'm entirely comfortable with a pre-ban gun.
 
She basically already has, by omitting the obvious exclusion for them she would have in her guidance if she was actually trying to clarify the law. But I just see zero case on the pre-ban guns. You gotta do what you're comfortable with, as we all have our own personal risk levels, but I'm entirely comfortable with a pre-ban gun.

The act of omission on her part is easily dealt with the "I reserve the right to..." clause. You see we have no recourse to deal with this. The "laws" can change at her whim. Baker and DeLeo are out of the picture because they have either acknowledged her action as right and just or have said "it for the courts to decide". Both have abdicated. The AG owns then. They are neutered, pathetic examples of public servants. They are the ultimate cucks.
 
But she has no statute to charge you under. Her whole plan of attack is about 121 being vague. But 131M is very explicit about grandfathering pre-94 guns. She's not going to try such an obviously weak case and have her house of cards fall down around her. If she's going to try a case, it's going to be one she has a chance of holding up in court.

I have no crystal ball, but there's no way a pre-ban gun is going to be her test case.

This. Pre-94s are fine.
 
Sorry if this has been answered already but there's a while lot of big threads with a lot of info to absorb. I've got a pre 94 rifle I'd like to sell but I'm scared of Healey putting me in the big PMITA house if I do. What's the deal on transferring scary salt rifles that were here before the AWB?

They've always been legal, this has not changed...

http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html (under the Questions & Answers tab)



  • There are many rifles on the market that are not semiautomatic or which don’t take a detachable magazine. These are not Assault weapons under Massachusetts law.
  • Under Massachusetts law, any weapons listed in Appendix A to 18 U.S.C. § 922, as appearing on September 13, 1994, are not considered Assault weapons and are not covered by the Enforcement Notice.
 
I might add...

Charlie start looking for a new job, The AG will be our new Governor. Mr. DeLeo get use to bending over as the new Governor "pegs" you.
Petition the legislature to go home. They don't make the laws anymore, at least they can save you some money.
 
She could, but what statute exactly would you be charged under?

But she has no statute to charge you under. Her whole plan of attack is about 121 being vague. But 131M is very explicit about grandfathering pre-94 guns. She's not going to try such an obviously weak case and have her house of cards fall down around her. If she's going to try a case, it's going to be one she has a chance of holding up in court.

I have no crystal ball, but there's no way a pre-ban gun is going to be her test case.

She basically already has, by omitting the obvious exclusion for them she would have in her guidance if she was actually trying to clarify the law. But I just see zero case on the pre-ban guns. You gotta do what you're comfortable with, as we all have our own personal risk levels, but I'm entirely comfortable with a pre-ban gun.
There you go again thinking that the actual (written/enacted) laws of the Commonwealth matter to our loony anti-gun AG. We have already seen that she couldn't care less what the laws actually say. Remember, she may not win in the end, but she can bankrupt practically anybody and make their life pretty damn miserable long before a court decision would ever be reached.

But you are 100% correct on one point though: There's no way on earth that her initial test case (if it ever happens) will involve a pre-'94 gun. Loony and bold as she is, she's not that stupid.
 
Back
Top Bottom