• 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.

Key points for an article about the AG ban?

Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
587
Likes
58
Feedback: 59 / 0 / 0
I've read hundreds of pages, and I've seen several very strong arguments offered. I can't keep up with all the threads and posts, though. I've been asked to help a friend write an article about the AG ban. He feels like there's a story that isn't being told by the press.

If you had list the key arguments against the ban, what would they be?

I'm not looking for Healey bashing, that's the easy part. I want actual reasons that can be argued in a way that might sway the public's opinion.
 
a single individual (i.e. the AG) has, with the stroke of a pen "reinterpreted" law that has been, in the understanding of both the people, and the State (having accepted all the FA-10s for all the transfers over the years), making all of the guns, and transactions, unlawful.

That's not how the .gov is supposed to work.

It sets a precedent for the current AG, and her successors to say, "This is how it is." on other subjects in the future.

"If they can do it to us, they can do it to you."
 
Historically ex post facto "laws" declaring prior actions illegal were not acceptable to the legal system.

BATFE vetted those "loophole" modifications back during the Clinton Ban and documented same from their Tech Branch. Nothing has really changed since 1994 wrt what mfrs are building and selling in MA.

Fuzziness of edict - is it only certain guns that "copies" are banned or is it really all semi-autos?

Fuzziness of edict - if you bought a lower before 7/20 what can you legally do with it? Will registering a gun you constructed or purchased this week leave you open to investigation and prosecution?
 
just off the top of my head:

  • contradict the AGs talking points. "closing the loophole", "cracking down" is Newspeak for the sheep of this state
  • it was NOT a loophole being exploited
  • the term "assault weapon" is clearly defined by MA law...and there is a list of evil features that make one in the eyes of the state, if they didn't ban back then what they meant to ban, tough crap.
  • The gun manufacturers made firearms to be sold in MA as specified by MASS law. There was no "skirting" the law.
  • the MA AW ban was the same as the nationwide ban that expired in 04 for the rest of the country. If the law has been "misinterpreted", it was "misinterpreted" NATIONWIDE for a decade. and here for 22 years prior to the election of this clam.
 
Last edited:
Out of 750+ homicides in MA in the past 5 years, rifles had only be used in a few of them (if I remember correctly just two)

So this is all for show.... it's easier to go after law abiding citizens than to go after gangs (who account for most of MA's homicides)
Plus using the term 'weapons of war' gives more attention than talking about the real problems.

Another point that could be made...if these were 'weapons of war' and the police is exempt from the ban - who is the police at war with? When would the police need to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time? (which was Healey's description of assault rifles)
 
I saw a few posts here that said the "copy/duplicate" clause was meant so that Colt couldn't just rename the AR15 and just magically make it legal.
 
Historically ex post facto "laws" declaring prior actions illegal were not acceptable to the legal system.

BATFE vetted those "loophole" modifications back during the Clinton Ban and documented same from their Tech Branch. Nothing has really changed since 1994 wrt what mfrs are building and selling in MA.

Fuzziness of edict - is it only certain guns that "copies" are banned or is it really all semi-autos?

Fuzziness of edict - if you bought a lower before 7/20 what can you legally do with it? Will registering a gun you constructed or purchased this week leave you open to investigation and prosecution?

Not to mention that "ex post facto laws" are expressly applied against the states under the US Constitution's Article 1, Section 10.

Article 1, Section 10.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
 
Historically ex post facto "laws" declaring prior actions illegal were not acceptable to the legal system.

BATFE vetted those "loophole" modifications back during the Clinton Ban and documented same from their Tech Branch. Nothing has really changed since 1994 wrt what mfrs are building and selling in MA.

Fuzziness of edict - is it only certain guns that "copies" are banned or is it really all semi-autos?

Fuzziness of edict - if you bought a lower before 7/20 what can you legally do with it? Will registering a gun you constructed or purchased this week leave you open to investigation and prosecution?


I wonder if it's worth giving them all this information to go back to their caves and recraft the directive. Isn't it better to let some poor sap sort of take one for the team? Build up a rifle in his basement, marvels at the contraption he just made and then the jack booted thugs kick down his door to grab it. Then there is a serious case to be made about the constitutionality of it all.
 
Here is my letter to Maura. Feel free to use any of it.

Dear Ms Healey,

On January 21, 2015, you took the oath of office to become the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. You said, among other pledges, and I quote, “I, Maura Healey, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” A generation earlier, my father swore a similar oath. In his case, however, he meant it, and lived by it. In your case, you seem to have treated your oath as a suggestion, subject to the fickle winds of politics, and to be interpreted in whatever way may best support your political ambitions. My dad would never have suggested that you didn’t have the right to choose whom to marry, or what political positions you could support, regardless of his personal beliefs. He laid his life on the line for your freedom to make those decisions.
On July 20[SUP]th[/SUP], you used the power of your office to try to solve a problem that does not exist and declared tens of thousands of your fellow Massachusetts citizens to be unindicted felons, while making it clear that you reserve the right to make them indicted felons at your whim.
I know that you are an educated woman, so I assume that you are familiar with the concept of tyranny of the majority that was well discussed by Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, and of course in Federalist 10. Because you think that you have majority support, you have decided that your position allows you to redefine by fiat laws that have been in common definition for many years, which of course suggests that you have the right, in the future, to redefine any Massachusetts general law.
Two hundred and forty-one years ago our forebears confronted similar tyranny—it began with a little tea, a little tar, and a few feathers and resulted in the greatest experiment in freedom that this planet has ever seen. The concept that was self-evident to them seems to have been lost on today’s politicians—you work for the people, not the other way around. Jefferson said, “That government is best which governs least.” Today it seems that our elected officials think that we are sheep to be herded rather than that we are the sheepdogs herding them.
This isn’t about “assault weapons”; we all know that fewer than one person a year is killed by any kind of rifle in Massachusetts. This is about political power and to whom it belongs. If you reread the Constitution and rethink your oath, the answer is clear.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if it's worth giving them all this information to go back to their caves and recraft the directive. Isn't it better to let some poor sap sort of take one for the team? Build up a rifle in his basement, marvels at the contraption he just made and then the jack booted thugs kick down his door to grab it. Then there is a serious case to be made about the constitutionality of it all.


You have in your past posts impressed me with your intellect and insight,
but I don't think having another Nathan hale is the way to go.

He was just a 21 year old kid , who on his first mission got caught and hung. Sad sacrifice.
 
I wonder if it's worth giving them all this information to go back to their caves and recraft the directive. Isn't it better to let some poor sap sort of take one for the team? Build up a rifle in his basement, marvels at the contraption he just made and then the jack booted thugs kick down his door to grab it. Then there is a serious case to be made about the constitutionality of it all.

I definitely agree with your line of thinking here. That's why I posted this thread. I want to keep this as narrow as possible to the issue at hand. I'll need to provide some background that might include other things, but his needs to be about the current overreach.

I approached him a few months ago to see if he wanted me to write a gun column for his paper. It's definitely a liberal publication. I think his stance on the legalization of marijuana has opened his mind to other things falsely regulated by the government.

Part of me wants to propose a series of articles on the vagaries of MA firearms law, but like you said, I don't want to point out things for them to tighten up. I'm not naive enough to believe they would examine the logic gaps, they'd simply tighten the legal gaps.
 
Here is my letter to Maura. Feel free to use any of it.

Dear Ms Healey,

On January 21, 2015, you took the oath of office to become the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. You said, among other pledges, and I quote, “I, Maura Healey, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.” A generation earlier, my father swore a similar oath. In his case, however, he meant it, and lived by it. In your case, you seem to have treated your oath as a suggestion, subject to the fickle winds of politics, and to be interpreted in whatever way may best support your political ambitions. My dad would never have suggested that you didn’t have the right to choose whom to marry, or what political positions you could support, regardless of his personal beliefs. He laid his life on the line for your freedom to make those decisions.
On July 20[SUP]th[/SUP], you used the power of your office to try to solve a problem that does not exist and declared tens of thousands of your fellow Massachusetts citizens to be unindicted felons, while making it clear that you reserve the right to make them indicted felons at your whim.
I know that you are an educated woman, so I assume that you are familiar with the concept of tyranny of the majority that was well discussed by Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, and of course in Federalist 10. Because you think that you have majority support, you have decided that your position allows you to redefine by fiat laws that have been in common definition for many years, which of course suggests that you have the right, in the future, to redefine any Massachusetts general law.
Two hundred and forty-one years ago our forebears confronted similar tyranny—it began with a little tea, a little tar, and a few feathers and resulted in the greatest experiment in freedom that this planet has ever seen. The concept that was self-evident to them seems to have been lost on today’s politicians—you work for the people, not the other way around. Jefferson said, “That government is best which governs least.” Today it seems that our elected officials think that we are sheep to be herded rather than that we are the sheepdogs herding them.
This isn’t about “assault weapons”; we all know that fewer than one person a year is killed by any kind of rifle in Massachusetts. This is about political power and to whom it belongs. If you reread the Constitution and rethink your oath, the answer is clear.

I read your letter yesterday and I think it's great. It will be part of what I give to them.
 
You have in your past posts impressed me with your intellect and insight,
but I don't think having another Nathan hale is the way to go.

He was just a 21 year old kid , who on his first mission got caught and hung. Sad sacrifice.

First, he was hanged, not hung (though who knows?). Second, it was not a sad sacrifice, it was a noble one, regardless of what he may have said in his final moments.
 
Thanks to all that posted so far.

I think I'll start with the 94 ban language and build from there, to now. I'll need to track down the Clinton ban text. I want to see the guns banned by name and go from there. The similarity of action and interchangibility of parts will probably be the largest sticking point that they could reasonably understand. Couple that with the AG's desire to create another list defining "assault weapons" and you have the potential for expansion far beyond "copies."

I read somewhere, in the last few days, that the only reason she has this much supposed lattitude concerning guns is because Harshbarger classifed them as a consumer product. Is that true? How do I track info down on that?
 
Historically ex post facto "laws" declaring prior actions illegal were not acceptable to the legal system.

BATFE vetted those "loophole" modifications back during the Clinton Ban and documented same from their Tech Branch. Nothing has really changed since 1994 wrt what mfrs are building and selling in MA.

Fuzziness of edict - is it only certain guns that "copies" are banned or is it really all semi-autos?

Fuzziness of edict - if you bought a lower before 7/20 what can you legally do with it? Will registering a gun you constructed or purchased this week leave you open to investigation and prosecution?

Excellent post. I suspect the Feds view of "loopholes" will come back to haunt the AG. The "experts" already settled this issue a number of years ago.
 
First, he was hanged, not hung (though who knows?). Second, it was not a sad sacrifice, it was a noble one, regardless of what he may have said in his final moments.

These guys would eat up the Nathan Hale reference. They could probably appreciate, on several levels, the fact that some poor guy/girl will likely need to be falsely arrested and financially ruined to have a purely political maneuver reversed.
 
The whole "loophole" thing bugs me. The law specifically spelled out what features constituted what they call an "assault rifle". Manufacturers made changes to bring their product into compliance. They complied with the law.

If the speed limit is 60mph and Im driving 55, am I complying with the law or am I exploiting a loophole?
 
I think another important point to get across in an article would be this is exactly why people don't want more gun laws. We don't oppose laws because we're foaming-at-the-mouth gun nuts. We know how antigun people operate and if given an inch, they take a mile.
 
Massachusetts is one of the places that the muslim terrorists have already attacked.
Why is the AG aggressively disarming the targets and victims of terrorism.
Is the goal to make it easier for the terrorists and murderers of women and children the next time?
 
Historically ex post facto "laws" declaring prior actions illegal were not acceptable to the legal system.

BATFE vetted those "loophole" modifications back during the Clinton Ban and documented same from their Tech Branch. Nothing has really changed since 1994 wrt what mfrs are building and selling in MA.

Fuzziness of edict - is it only certain guns that "copies" are banned or is it really all semi-autos?

Fuzziness of edict - if you bought a lower before 7/20 what can you legally do with it? Will registering a gun you constructed or purchased this week leave you open to investigation and prosecution?

I had to google ex post facto...glad I did.
 
Some verifiable documentation of this would be enormously helpful. Healey claims gun manufacturers just made up their own rules. This would prove that false.

Google should find them, some should be in the archives of AR15.com. Sadly Bardwell's website which seemed to have every one of them is no longer existent (or perhaps moved, if so I know not where).
 
The MA supreme court will absolutely side with her if it gets that far. That same court has previously ruled that the US Constitution only protects technology available and in common use in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
The court made this ruling in the taser case.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
 
You have in your past posts impressed me with your intellect and insight,
but I don't think having another Nathan hale is the way to go.

He was just a 21 year old kid , who on his first mission got caught and hung. Sad sacrifice.

I wasn't referring to someone doing something illegal. But the reality is what percentage of MA LTC's are represented here? .001% maybe? There is probably some guy out there now building an AR in his basement quietly, happily, peacefully, enjoying his 2A freedom to do this. Some guy who wouldn't even harm a fly. This guy doesn't belong to NES and is possibly oblivious to the whirlwind outside his door. Maybe he doesn't read the news or even care for that matter. So he builds a rifle and goes to legally enter a rifle when he's done, and then poof, he's tossed into a jail cell unable to comprehend what he did wrong. I'm sure that there is going to be some junior level state lackey who spends his/her day looking at transactions on the portal looking for the 'lawbreaker' and along comes Johnny Oblivious. That's all I'm saying.
 
Back
Top Bottom