Linsky after bump stocks AND pre ban mags !!!!!!!!!

[W.E.C]

Yo dog, we heard you got guns ,
so we are sending centurions with guns to seize your guns.

so only we have guns to force you to do our bidding at gun point.

 

[Mass-diver]

The bump stock legislation establishes the precedent that the state of MA may declare lawfully procured and owned property contraband, and require disownership with no compensation from the state.

Expanding it to other items becomes a simple implementation detail. "We can't confiscate private property without compensation" is no longer a barrier.

Is there any hope that it will challenged on those ground?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Is there any hope that it will challenged on those ground?

I will discuss it with the Comm2a team.

My personal (not Comm2a) thought is that any challenge would be doomed unless it was suing for compensation, rather than overturning the ban. We would need some people to turn in their bump stocks to the state to establish standing (sell it out of state, give it to a friend in TX, etc. and you lose any hope of standing). The turn in would have to be managed by legal counsel so the plaintiffs made it clear it was only because they were ordered to disposess the item, and not a voluntary surrender. You could count on the state to argue "the turn in was voluntary, just like at gun buybacks".

My guess is that it would be hard to find such a plaintiff. I do get out some, and have never seen one of these toys.

It may very well be that the judicial bias on this issue is likely to be so strong that all filing a case would accomplish is establish a "no compensation needed when we take your stuff" precedent that could be used in other, more sympathetic, cases. Do not expect Comm2A to make an announcement to the world detailing our conclusions and strategies on cases we do not file.

 

[Mass-diver]

I will discuss it with the Comm2a team.

My personal (not Comm2a) thought is that any challenge would be doomed unless it was suing for compensation, rather than overturning the ban. We would need some people to turn in their bump stocks to the state to establish standing (sell it out of state, give it to a friend in TX, etc. and you lose any hope of standing). The turn in would have to be managed by legal counsel so the plaintiffs made it clear it was only because they were ordered to disposess the item, and not a voluntary surrender. You could count on the state to argue "the turn in was voluntary, just like at gun buybacks".

My guess is that it would be hard to find such a plaintiff. I do get out some, and have never seen one of these toys.

It may very well be that the judicial bias on this issue is likely to be so strong that all filing a case would accomplish is establish a "no compensation needed when we take your stuff" precedent that could be used in other, more sympathetic, cases. Do not expect Comm2A to make an announcement to the world detailing our conclusions and strategies on cases we do not file.

Thanks for saying this much. I appreciate it.

Comm2A is a wonderful organization that all MA gun owners should support.

 

[Beretta92FS]

I will discuss it with the Comm2a team.

My personal (not Comm2a) thought is that any challenge would be doomed unless it was suing for compensation, rather than overturning the ban. We would need some people to turn in their bump stocks to the state to establish standing (sell it out of state, give it to a friend in TX, etc. and you lose any hope of standing). The turn in would have to be managed by legal counsel so the plaintiffs made it clear it was only because they were ordered to disposess the item, and not a voluntary surrender. You could count on the state to argue "the turn in was voluntary, just like at gun buybacks".

My guess is that it would be hard to find such a plaintiff. I do get out some, and have never seen one of these toys.

It may very well be that the judicial bias on this issue is likely to be so strong that all filing a case would accomplish is establish a "no compensation needed when we take your stuff" precedent that could be used in other, more sympathetic, cases. Do not expect Comm2A to make an announcement to the world detailing our conclusions and strategies on cases we do not file.

But the state was happy to collect sales tax on stocks sold through MA stores, right? I trust they plan to refund the sales tax since they are now declaring them unlawful?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

But the state was happy to collect sales tax on stocks sold through MA stores, right? I trust they plan to refund the sales tax since they are now declaring them unlawful?

I suspect most were ordered on-line.

 

[JayMcB]

I will discuss it with the Comm2a team.

My personal (not Comm2a) thought is that any challenge would be doomed unless it was suing for compensation, rather than overturning the ban. We would need some people to turn in their bump stocks to the state to establish standing (sell it out of state, give it to a friend in TX, etc. and you lose any hope of standing). The turn in would have to be managed by legal counsel so the plaintiffs made it clear it was only because they were ordered to disposess the item, and not a voluntary surrender. You could count on the state to argue "the turn in was voluntary, just like at gun buybacks".

My guess is that it would be hard to find such a plaintiff. I do get out some, and have never seen one of these toys.

It may very well be that the judicial bias on this issue is likely to be so strong that all filing a case would accomplish is establish a "no compensation needed when we take your stuff" precedent that could be used in other, more sympathetic, cases. Do not expect Comm2A to make an announcement to the world detailing our conclusions and strategies on cases we do not file.

I have one. I am willing to donate it to the cause.

Understand, personally IDGAF about the piece of plastic, but I give a giant Fvck about the infringement.

 

[iofneedle]

Current wording from the House per my Rep:

Amendment #1, as changed to H3951​

Automatic Weapons​

“SECTION XX: Chapter 140 of General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 131Q, as appearing in the 2016 Official Edition, the following section:-
Section 131R. Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years.
SECTION YY. Section XX shall take effect 180 days after the effective date of this act.”
SECTION ZZ. The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.

The is the first step in banning all semi-automatic firearms. This has nothing to do with bump stocks in the long run. The Secretary of Public Safety could easier use this to ban every semi I own.

 

[JayMcB]

I suspect most were ordered on-line.

....or in an NES group buy

(guilty as charged)

 

[VTski4x4]

Just got this as a reply that I sent in response to the Robo-bs I got the other day. Using previously quoted posts.

 

[Horrible]

Current wording from the House per my Rep:

Amendment #1, as changed to H3951​

Automatic Weapons​

“SECTION XX: Chapter 140 of General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 131Q, as appearing in the 2016 Official Edition, the following section:-
Section 131R. Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years.
SECTION YY. Section XX shall take effect 180 days after the effective date of this act.”
SECTION ZZ. The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.

****ing section ZZ is bullshit and needs to go!

 

[Skeeter]

The is the first step in banning all semi-automatic firearms. This has nothing to do with bump stocks in the long run. The Secretary of Public Safety could easier use this to ban every semi I own.

You may be right but I wonder if even MA politicians are so stupid that they would really push for that. If they ban semi autos and think people are going to turn in their firearms I think they would be shocked at the disobedience that would probably follow.

 

[Noreaster]

Current wording from the House per my Rep:

Amendment #1, as changed to H3951​

Automatic Weapons​

“SECTION XX: Chapter 140 of General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 131Q, as appearing in the 2016 Official Edition, the following section:-
Section 131R. Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years.
SECTION YY. Section XX shall take effect 180 days after the effective date of this act.”
SECTION ZZ. The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section.

Your rep is feeding you week old dog food.
Senate passed a different version.

House passed h.3951 with some amendments and sent to senate. This has the above wording in it, amendment 1 if I recall.

In senate it had modifications and was reported as s.2177 I think the only modification was to the amendment we are all interested in. New wording that calls out bump stocks by name and classifies as machine guns.

The senate reprinted the bill with all amendments and it’s now s.2179
2179 was passed to be engrossed by the senate and now sits in the ways and means committee in the house. If you look at this bill, there are no amendments. They are now all integrated into the bill itself. I have not seen an update or referral to a house bill for more modifications. If anyone is wondering, there is no way in hell this dies in committee, it’s just being processed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Boris]

I suspect most were ordered on-line.

what about manufactured bumpstocks for personal use? Will those be compensated?

I'm pretty positive that Fram chief is not giving me an MG license until I get C&R again.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

what about manufactured bumpstocks for personal use? Will those be compensated?

I'm pretty positive that Fram chief is not giving me an MG license until I get C&R again.

I'm pretty positive the Fram chief will not give you an MG license even if you get a C&R. The last person I know who tried received a letter stating he was declined because of the exceptional danger such weapons presented - with no mention about not qualifying as a "connector".

 

[MGnoob]

The bump stock legislation establishes the precedent that the state of MA may declare lawfully procured and owned property contraband, and require disownership with no compensation from the state.

Expanding it to other items becomes a simple implementation detail. "We can't confiscate private property without compensation" is no longer a barrier.

This is why it is a one page bill that is vague to anyone who knows anything....if you see a bill with no pork attached your getting raped..

The day they come for my property is the flash point; no im not going to go off the deep end. Im young enough to live for my day in court....after that "what difference does it make(how Americans died)",
H. Clinton

 

[42!]

what about manufactured bumpstocks for personal use? Will those be compensated?

I'm pretty positive that Fram chief is not giving me an MG license until I get C&R again.

For what it's worth, based on my info request, FPD hasn't issued an MG since before 1/1/14. I didn't request any info prior to that. There are no MG denials either but I'd bet if there were any applocation they were turned away when trying to apply.

In the same time span Sudbury issued 3.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

ere are no MG denials either but I'd bet if there were any applocation they were turned away when trying to apply.

It is possible the denials were issued based on the paperwork application, and never made it into MIRCS, thus are not showing up.

 

[Noreaster]

what about manufactured bumpstocks for personal use? Will those be compensated?

I'm pretty positive that Fram chief is not giving me an MG license until I get C&R again.

Friend of a friend got a MG license in framingham without a problem, no grief, no issue everyone was smiling.
Buys a machine gun, pays in full, dealer gets it.
Dude stops by FPD with the form 4 to be endorsed, COP says we never approve MG transfers.
LOL

That is obviously an old story at this point, different form 4 process now, and different COP.

 

[Uzi2]

Originally Posted by iofneedle The is the first step in banning all semi-automatic firearms. This has nothing to do with bump stocks in the long run. The Secretary of Public Safety could easier use this to ban every semi I own.

You may be right but I wonder if even MA politicians are so stupid that they would really push for that. If they ban semi autos and think people are going to turn in their firearms I think they would be shocked at the disobedience that would probably follow.

***************************************************************
Disobedience? That's a laugh. I'd bet on 99% compliance with anything that they shove down gun owner's throats.

MA. gun owners are scared shitless to possess a magazine that doesn't meet their "massa's" approval.

Massachusetts aka Massa chooses it, as in everything gun related and whether you can exercise your rights.

 

[Skeeter]

I'm not so sure. After the AG BS a lot of people seemed to express opinions to the tune of: "I've jumped through so many hoops to stay legal and for what? To discover I was always a felon?!" My experience is that a lot of people are indicating they're just not going to play by the "rules" anymore.

 

[Horrible]

I'm not so sure. After the AG BS a lot of people seemed to express opinions to the tune of: "I've jumped through so many hoops to stay legal and for what? To discover I was always a felon?!" My experience is that a lot of people are indicating they're just not going to play by the "rules" anymore.

This. I think that the Healy thing changed the game. Her utter lawlessness changed the minds of many that previously would have obeyed the laws. But if the laws can literally be changed overnight on the whim of one person...

 

[42!]

It is possible the denials were issued based on the paperwork application, and never made it into MIRCS, thus are not showing up.

Who knows how they interpreted my request. They initially refused it, wanting over $800 to fulfill it, then after my lawyer's nasty response, they sent records. The request was for permits applied, type, approved, restricted (Y or N), denied (statutory or suitability).

 

[goodlife30]

This. I think that the Healy thing changed the game. Her utter lawlessness changed the minds of many that previously would have obeyed the laws. But if the laws can literally be changed overnight on the whim of one person...

THats the slippery slope isn’t it? Laws that become too onerous people ignore. You dammed if you do dammned if you don’t. So screw it.

 

[42!]

I'm not so sure. After the AG BS a lot of people seemed to express opinions to the tune of: "I've jumped through so many hoops to stay legal and for what? To discover I was always a felon?!" My experience is that a lot of people are indicating they're just not going to play by the "rules" anymore.

I think you are underestimating the power of the threat of losing your physical freedom. Unless you have endless piles of cash to keep you out of jail, there is only so far you will be able to push it until they lock you up.

 

[Skeeter]

I think you are underestimating the power of the threat of losing your physical freedom. Unless you have endless piles of cash to keep you out of jail, there is only so far you will be able to push it until they lock you up.

Like everyone here I hope it doesn't come to that. NY and CT showed us many complied, but many did not. Laws akin to property confiscation are a big deal. Even the most bias politicians know that. They draw national attention. Laws pertaining to 2A property confiscation will get a lot of press fast, and lots of court challenges. Passing a law, even a crappy law is one thing. Rounding up the property (guns) is a whole other issue.

 

[GM-GUY]

Someone shows up at my house looking to take my stuff is a thief, someone who has guns with them is an armed thief. It doesn't really concern me what else they are wearing or what vehicle they arrive in. If I don't have the right to do it to someone, then neither does anyone have the right to do it to me.

Not getting into public spaces - this is my home.

 

[VTski4x4]

http://blog.goal.org/bump-stock-ban-update/

They made an oops! It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[not new guy]

Holy hell, what a bunch of ****ing morons. I'd laugh except for the fact that these windowlickers are actually running the state.

 

[rchap36]

Person on twitter has been calling out the Massachusetts Legislators for not following due process and crimes against humanity