Linsky's Amendment is back in play - Call your rep NOW!

[Dadstoys]

This Ban was only to get Linsky's name in the paper. The bigger problem was Polito

If we do it right, in 12 months she's going to be the one with a problem.
Her and that waste of space boss of hers.
Let either of them try and run in another state.
The internet's got a long reach and unless they plan on running in a moonbat state next , rotsa ruck.
Call it the Scotty Brown treatment.
Monday I plan on calling both of them and letting them know wherever they turn , we'll be there.

 

[FrugalFannie]

What good is it doing? I send money to the NRA and I get junk mail selling all kinds of crap that I don't care about. I pay for a GOAL membership and I end up getting sold down the river. I saw all kinds of opportunities with a Trump victory and now I realize that even republicans don't support gun rights. All we get is lip service. That's the truth and live with it.

You live in the wrong part of the country. The Northeast is infested.

 

[groundscrapers]

I’m not a lawyer. But, Maura’s “interpreststion” is being challenged legally. In the case of bump stocks, I would think any who owned one before the ban would have standing?

We are never going to win in the polls or with the legislators in MA. Political action is important for damage control, but our only real hope is legal action.

I hope the stun gun stuff gets shoved down their throat too- that was a huge important win and MA has openly defied it.

I hate to say it but I feel the same way. The lobbying side is feudal. They will do what they want when they want and that has already been established many times over. Goal may lessen the burn but what we end up with is still pretty bad. I like Comm2a's approach of tackling the legal side because I feel like the results, albeit longer to be realized, can be pretty substantial. I also like the idea of a PAC however those who support guns in their campaigns will sell you down the river as fast as you can blink your eye.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The test of the law I read stated that it was unlawful to purchase, sell or offer for sale a bump stock or trigger crank.

SECTION 45. Sections 12, 13 and 14 shall take effect 90 days after the effective date of this act; provided, however, that it shall be unlawful to purchase, sell or offer for sale a bump stock or trigger crank in violation of chapter 140 of the General Laws after the effective date of this act.

This raises some interesting questions:

1. Does it mean people who already own bump stocks do not have to get rid of them? [Updated: This appears to be the case, but only for holders of a Massachusetts Machine Gun License]

2. If someone buys a bump stock out of state, and brings it in, are they in violation? There is no mention of a prohibition on "acquiring" and it would seem unlikely buying out of state could be a crime in MA.

3. What is someone is gifted a bump stock? Assume a chain of custody that can substantiate the "gift" and not "purchase" or "straw purchase" - perhaps a father sending a son a bump stock on his birthday.

Could the state really have been this incompetent in writing the law? Or, did I read the wrong version? (corrections welcome if I have mis-spewed).

My guess as to how it will shake out (and just a guess) :

- Despite the limitations in the law, police will simply be taught "bump stocks are illegal" ... similar to how police are taught "guns are illegal on school property" rather than "guns carried on ones person are illegal on school property".

- When someone gets jammed up who has not purchased, sold or offered for sale a bump stock or crank, they will be charge and the charges will quietly go away or be CWOFed to avoid a clear precedent on this issue that would embolden others. [Updated: Since this would only be the case with a MGL holder, it will probably never happen]

 

[Mass-diver]

The test of the law I read stated that it was unlawful to purchase, sell or offer for sale a bump stock or trigger crank.



This raises some interesting questions:

1. Does it mean people who already own bump stocks do not have to get rid of them?

2. If someone buys a bump stock out of state, and brings it in, are they in violation? There is no mention of a prohibition on "acquiring" and it would seem unlikely buying out of state could be a crime in MA.

3. What is someone is gifted a bump stock? Assume a chain of custody that can substantiate the "gift" and not "purchase" - perhaps a father sending a son a bump stock on hit birthday.

Could the state really have been this incompetent in writing the law? Or, did I read the wrong version? (corrections welcome if I have mis-spewed).

My guess as to how it will shake out (and just a guess) :

- Despite the limitations in the law, police will simply be taught "bump stocks are illegal" ... similar to how police are taught "guns are illegal on school property" rather than "guns carried on ones person are illegal on school property".

- When someone gets jammed up who has not purchased, sold or offered for sale a bump stock or crank, they will be charge and the charges will quietly go away or be CWOFed to avoid a clear precedent on this issue that would embolden others.

I thought it included possession?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I thought it included possession?

I am looking for any update or info that suggests the version I found on line that does not include the word "possession" is not the one that passed.

I think I found the "gotcha":

SECTION 12. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “gun”, in line 100, the following words:- ; provided, however, that “machine gun” shall include bump stocks and trigger cranks.

This means that bump stocks do not have to be dispossessed if one has a MA Machine Gun License, and that the scenario of someone receiving a gift, bringing one in from out of state, or continuing to possess one appears to be true .... but only for one lucky enough to have a MGL.

 

[Mass-diver]

I am looking for any update or info that suggests the version I found on line that does not include the word "possession" is not the one that passed.

Interesting, I thought I was reading the latest and it said possession? It’s actualky better for us if it says possession in terms of legal challenges.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Interesting, I thought I was reading the latest and it said possession? It’s actualky better for us if it says possession in terms of legal challenges.

We still have that pesky redefinition of a bump stock as a machine gun, even in the absence of any other parts.

This is interesting because, until now, a non-operational part of a firearm was not a gun under MA law (except under Healy Law).

 

[Mass-diver]

We still have that pesky redefinition of a bump stock as a machine gun, even in the absence of any other parts.

This is interesting because, until now, a non-operational part of a firearm was not a gun under MA law (except under Healy Law).

That’s part of the reason this has stalled/died at the federal level. Even the Republicans that want to ban them, understand it’s going to be tricky to ban possession of piece of plastic that is clearly not a weapon itself.

 

[rogues]

We still have that pesky redefinition of a bump stock as a machine gun, even in the absence of any other parts.

This is interesting because, until now, a non-operational part of a firearm was not a gun under MA law (except under Healy Law).

I don't like where you're going with this...

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That’s part of the reason this has stalled/died at the federal level. Even the Republicans that want to ban them, understand it’s going to be tricky to ban possession of piece of plastic that is clearly not a weapon itself.

No, just make it require a license that most people cannot get.

The complication is not the fact that the item is not a weapon, but the "taking" of banning lawful private property and requiring surrender without compensation.

I don't like where you're going with this...

I am not "going anywhere with this", I am following a trail.

 

[Mass-diver]

No, just make it require a license that most people cannot get.
.

Lots of people think this is what will happen at the federal level, eventually.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Lots of people think this is what will happen at the federal level, eventually.

The original purpose of the $200 NFA tax was to make the fee so high that nobody could afford a tax stamp, but congress could avoid an "obviously unconstitutional" ban.

 

[drgrant]

That’s part of the reason this has stalled/died at the federal level. Even the Republicans that want to ban them, understand it’s going to be tricky to ban possession of piece of plastic that is clearly not a weapon itself.

The other problem is think about the way the current federal law on machine guns is written. (and all of the institutional interpretations/dogma they've applied to it over the better part of a century) They would basically have to rewrite the entire section of law just to accommodate a simple bump stock ban, and nobody really wants to get into that mess. Not to mention since this isn't like the aikins device where you can just take out a spring, There's also quite obviously a "takings" issue here at the federal level... which means that if the feds want to do this revenue neutral, they'd have to classify a bump stock as an NFA device (like a DIAS, or Lightning Link, etc) and then open an NFA amnesty, which is something they just don't want to do- because that would basically turn any AR with a bump stock on it into a transferable MG... last thing the feds want to do is create thousands of new legal machine guns, even if NFA registered. (by proxy, a bump stock would allow you to more or less throw a sear or whatever you wanted into the lower, etc. )

-Mike

 

[Mass-diver]

The other problem is think about the way the current federal law on machine guns is written. (and all of the institutional interpretations/dogma they've applied to it over the better part of a century) They would basically have to rewrite the entire section of law just to accommodate a simple bump stock ban, and nobody really wants to get into that mess. Not to mention since this isn't like the aikins device where you can just take out a spring, There's also quite obviously a "takings" issue here at the federal level... which means that if the feds want to do this revenue neutral, they'd have to classify a bump stock as an NFA device (like a DIAS, or Lightning Link, etc) and then open an NFA amnesty, which is something they just don't want to do- because that would basically turn any AR with a bump stock on it into a transferable MG... last thing the feds want to do is create thousands of new legal machine guns, even if NFA registered. (by proxy, a bump stock would allow you to more or less throw a sear or whatever you wanted into the lower, etc. )

-Mike

Yup, complex stuff for sure.

I have a couple stamps for SBRs, but, as we all know, the “real” NFA stuff is pretty intense with lots of people sitting on collections worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. The creation of thousands of new MGs would have all kinds of consequences.

 

[FrugalFannie]

GOAL just sent out alert to call Baker to veto the gun measure

WON'T DO ANY GOOD HE CAN'T WAIT TO SIGN ANTI-GUN MEASURES, he would even ban the 2nd if he could

Good luck with that. Won't happen.

 

[FrugalFannie]

Vote them out
We can only win from the inside

this is the right "cure" the problem is there is little to NO effort by the national and local groups that actually believe in freedom to organize and do this from the ground up. The dems have been working on this for decades in MA and it is all "coming to fruition" from their perspective. Look at CT and NY as well. They have a pretty strong foothold up there in that corner of the world. SO do you stay and fight or do you go to where there are friends (like NH/ME/VT) and make sure the lefties don't gain anymore ground? Triage mode. your rights and bleeding out fast in MA and the patient is going to die. but perhaps you can save them in NH/ME/VT. because let me tell you, the same *******s who have done this in MA and other places are starting to infect their northern neighbors.

- - - Updated - - -

Problem is nobody is running. Over 70% of all state legislators ran unopposed. The progressives targeted almost every legislator who is not with them - not progressive, this is most of the 30% who had opposition. They are going for 100% domination. The republicans are doing nothing in this state. The state party is run by a bunch of incompetent self serving clowns. Until that changes, nothing does.

We could use a few good men like you down here in TX when you decide that MA is a lost cause.

 

[Mass-diver]

this is the right "cure" the problem is there is little to NO effort by the national and local groups that actually believe in freedom to organize and do this from the ground up. The dems have been working on this for decades in MA and it is all "coming to fruition" from their perspective. Look at CT and NY as well. They have a pretty strong foothold up there in that corner of the world. SO do you stay and fight or do you go to where there are friends (like NH/ME/VT) and make sure the lefties don't gain anymore ground? Triage mode. your rights and bleeding out fast in MA and the patient is going to die. but perhaps you can save them in NH/ME/VT. because let me tell you, the same *******s who have done this in MA and other places are starting to infect their northern neighbors.

- - - Updated - - -



We could use a few good men like you down here in TX when you decide that MA is a lost cause.

We could easily see a federal AWB in the next 5 years, in that case, living in a 2a state doesn’t really matter, as we will all be outlaws. The idea that libs are an isolated, contained problem is absurd. Obama won 2 terms, Hilary won NH/VT/ME (most of it anyway), it’s close at the federal level

 

[Boris]

We still have that pesky redefinition of a bump stock as a machine gun, even in the absence of any other parts.

This is interesting because, until now, a non-operational part of a firearm was not a gun under MA law (except under Healy Law).

Rob, what's your take on this being a precedence for a European-type control of firearm components, especially load bearing components like barrels etc. For example in many countries over there, rifled barrels are controlled just like guns. That would definitely be the slope we don't want to go down.

 

[MachineHead]

We could easily see a federal AWB in the next 5 years, in that case, living in a 2a state doesn’t really matter, as we will all be outlaws. The idea that libs are an isolated, contained problem is absurd. Obama won 2 terms, Hilary won NH/VT/ME (most of it anyway), it’s close at the federal level

The one thing that gives me pause is we now live in a world where information is at our fingertips. The 1994 AWB came at a time when the internet wasn’t in common use like how it is today.

Word would spread like wildfire and AR owners on both sides of the aisle would kill this. Feinstein tried pulling this crap after Sandy Hook and it was dead in record time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...w-assault-weapons-ban/?utm_term=.7a51cf9d3a7d


Best comment from the article:

Cicero6
1/26/2013 11:14 AM EST
Here is my solution: (1) Define the problem, narrowly and correctly. IF we are truly concerned about kids (in school) then the rest of the wide world of gun violence is EXCLUDED from the discussion. If we are talking about gun violence (in general) then the incident at Newtown has no more significance than a lightning strike or a shark attack. It's horrible, it's tragic, and it's RARE. Make up your minds which problem you are trying to address. (2) Remove it from the realm of politics and hand it to the experts. Go through the formal risk assessment process (and God knows the government has tons of experience doing this kind of thing for itself since Oklahoma City.) Schools are already incldued in the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) so this won't be overly hard. President Obama could order this review by executive order...no politics involved. (3) Develop a national risk posture on this issue (it will be a combination of avoidance, acceptance, and deterrence). In doing this it is necessary to understand that NO zero risk, zero casualty posture is possible. No one can give you that kind of "safety." Develop measurable standards for determining the efficacy of this posture. (4) Once objective one , two, and three are achieved, THEN we can have a discussion on the best mitigation strategy...which may or may not require additional legislation. Such legislation should be based in an OPERATIONAL characteristic of the firearms, in question, AND upon a measurable impact upon one of the elements of the risk posture. The key word, here, is measurable. (5) Mandate sunset clauses and periodic reviews to ensure that any thing (law or countermeasure) implemented does what it is supposed to do by a date certain. Build in checks that prevent expansion of the laws (or countermeasures) that do not satisfy the stated criteria. No review or sunset clause should be longer than ten years.

Voila, problem solved.

The other option is to say “No, F off, we’re not giving up any guns.” and actually stick to it.

 

[oldguy68]

The other option is to say “No, F off, we’re not giving up any guns.” and actually stick to it.[/QUOTE]

Kind of like what we all did after the MA AG's false reinterpretation!

Unconstitutional laws are against everything his country was founded on!

If law enforcement is ordered to confiscate it's citizens arms then we will find out which side those in law enforcement are on.
They say they support firearm owners and the second amendment.
It will be a day where their true colors will be shown to all.

Is this what our politician's want?

The police forsaking their constitutional oath and arresting honest law abiding citizens?

During these confiscations and arrests. How many lives will it take before they come to their senses and the police rethink that oath they took to protect and serve the people and the US constitution?

How many officers will refuse such unconstitutional orders?

Is this the end game those in power seek?

Or will it be the great divide that once again weakens America to foreign adversaries while we fight among ourselves?


When will the people say we have had enough..When the train cars load up our citizens or only when they come for you?