• 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.

MA Action Needed: Request for Hearing(s) on the AG’s Firearm Enforcement Notice

Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
2,468
Likes
496
Location
Far Beyond Driven, TN
Feedback: 8 / 0 / 0
Just posting this in its own thread so it doesn't get lost in the busier mega-threads.

From my State Representative, Kevin Kuros,

Yesterday, I joined with my Republican caucus colleagues in requesting that the Chairs of the Public Safety Committee and / or the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee convene an oversight hearing to review the July 20th firearm enforcement directive issued by the Attorney General.

Please consider contacting the chairs’ offices to encourage them to convene a hearing.


The letter appears in the link below.

http://kevinkuros.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/GunDirectiveOversightHearingRequestLetter.pdf

I know Kevin said "please", but seriously urge them to get a hearing going.

Harold P. Naughton, Jr.
House Chair
Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
617-722-2230
Email: [email protected]

James E. Timilty
Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security
Room 507
Boston, MA 02133
617 722-1222
Email: [email protected]

John V. Fernandes
House Chair
Joint Committee on the Judiciary
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
617-722-2396
Email: [email protected]

William Brownsberger
Senate Chair
Joint Committee on the Judiciary
Room 504
Boston, MA 02133
617-722-1280
Email: [email protected]
 
Last edited:
Done, see my letter for an example

Gentlemen, as one of your constituents, and a person potentially affected by the Attorney General's recent overreach, I implore you to convene oversight hearings to look at this topic. I am an honest, law abiding citizen that has never had any negative contacts with law enforcement. In fact, I am related to several police officers, and entertained joining the force myself. Life got in the way, and I chose a different career path. Now, as of July 20th, I am, according the Maura Healey, a person who is in great jeopardy of becoming a felon. For over 20 years, the rifles that have now been banned were legally obtained, upwards of 10,000 a year it is estimated. Now, due to the AG attempting to make a name for herself, she has made potential felons (her words) of all those once legal rifle owners.
Unfortunately, to this date a straight answer cannot be obtained from the AG's office as far as what is legal now and what is not. Repeated questioning from owners, gun shops, and others yield no viable results or answers from her office.

Please see the attached hearing request letter, and act accordingly. You are my legislative representatives in the Commonwealth, and I am asking for to please step forward and look into this egregious overreach. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts in this matter.

Sincerely, XXXX XXXXXX - a concerned citizen
 
Responses
[h=3]Brownsberger, William (SEN) <[email protected]>[/h]
3:07 PM (2 hours ago)
cleardot.gif


cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif

to me, Harold, James, John, willbrownsberg.
cleardot.gif







I’m open to this if others with to do it, but I actually think the proper oversight vehicle is the courts – there will be a lawsuit and that is where it will get settled.

[h=3]Fernandes, John - Rep. (HOU) <[email protected]>[/h]
4:06 PM (1 hour ago)
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif
to me, Harold, James, William
cleardot.gif







Paul
Thanks for your email. Hard for me to understand how you have a copy of a letter addressed to me that I have not received yet but that's a question for the authors I suspect.

That said, I have written a very specific letter to the Attorney General joined by over 80 of my colleagues asking very specific questions about the directive that should, if answered throughly, assist all of us in understanding the legal basis for her actions, the weapons involved, and the status of private ownership of weapons now banned. If you have not seen that letter, then I can provide you a copy.

With that clarification, I will be able to determine if further legislative action is needed.
Thank you
John

Sent from my iPhone





My response

Mr. Brownsberger, first off thank you for your reply.


Mr. Fernandes, thank you as well. I appreciate that you gentlemen took the time out of your day to respond.


There are several issues with "letting the courts decide". Let me play out for you a few scenario's that highlight the issues with this course of action:


Scenario #1 - Comm2A, Gun Shops, Gun Owners, or manufacturers file suit. 2-5 years later it finally goes to court. Meanwhile gun shop owners in this state are struggling to keep their doors open and their employees paid. Upwards of 25% of their business revolves around the rifles that are now banned. Families will be hurting during this time frame, with no recourse. Meanwhile, Scenario 2 may be playing out in conjunction.


Scenario #2 - Some lawful gun owner on the way home from the range gets pulled over by a police officer. This officer happens to see the gun case in the back of the vehicle. Because these guns are considered felonious by the AG, the officer is within his right to do a search of the vehicle with probable cause (seeing a potentially illegal - depending on how you understand the convoluted interpretation from the AG that even her own office staff cannot comprehend fully). The Officer decides to charge the once lawful gun owner with a felony (punishable of up to 10 years). The local DA, who is NOT under the purview of the AG, and very anti-gun, decides to prosecute. That gun owner is now subject to fines and imprisonment. He is in limbo waiting for his trial which could take many years. He will become a Prohibited Person, unable to keep his guns or obtain a License for them. He incurs thousands of dollars worth of court costs fighting it, and may lose more than just money (job, family, etc.) Again, Scenario 1 is still occurring while Scenario 2 is playing out.


Scenario #3 - Gun owners adversely affected by this interpretation sue the state for illegally taking away their property ex-post-facto, costing them AND the taxpayers sever hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs due to court fees, and should the gun owners win, then even more money for lost value to their property. If you are not aware, these rifles go for anywhere from $700 to $5000 each. At 10,000 of them sold per year for the last 20 years, if you averaged a cost of only $1000 per rifle, then it could cost the state 20 million dollars in recovered loss. Again, Scenario #1 and #2 are STILL capable of occurring in conjunction with this final scenario. And the gun owners will win this case, since purchase of these guns were approved by many official agencies for many years.


I do not foresee a court case scenario where it will not cause significant injury to the livelihoods of many of your constituents and the taxpayers of this state. That can be a long and painful road, that can be easily avoided, through the proper review and legislation. This was a legislative problem to begin with. Her interpretation did not derive from the courts, but by decree, for lack of a better term. It should not be solved there. This was simply her overreach, attempting to make a name for herself prior to the DNC. She has obviated your ability to legislate and create law by in essence, doing it for you.


Respectfully yours, XXXXXXXXXX


 
[h=3]Timilty, James (SEN) via chl-mta-001.state.ma.us[/h]
5:22 PM (21 minutes ago)
cleardot.gif


cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif

to me
cleardot.gif







Hello –

Thank you for taking the time to contact me via email. Please know that I welcome your input and personally read all of my correspondence. Due to the large volume of e-mails I receive daily, responses do take some time.
Additionally, if you did not include your name, postal address and telephone number, please resend your message with that information so that I may get back to you regarding your concerns in a timely manner.

If you are in need of immediate assistance, please contact any member of my staff at 617-722-1222.

Thank you again for contacting me; it is a pleasure to serve you in the State Senate.

With every good wish,

Senator Jim Timilty
 
My response

Mr. Brownsberger, first off thank you for your reply.


Mr. Fernandes, thank you as well. I appreciate that you gentlemen took the time out of your day to respond.


There are several issues with "letting the courts decide". Let me play out for you a few scenario's that highlight the issues with this course of action:


Scenario #1 - Comm2A, Gun Shops, Gun Owners, or manufacturers file suit. 2-5 years later it finally goes to court. Meanwhile gun shop owners in this state are struggling to keep their doors open and their employees paid. Upwards of 25% of their business revolves around the rifles that are now banned. Families will be hurting during this time frame, with no recourse. Meanwhile, Scenario 2 may be playing out in conjunction.


Scenario #2 - Some lawful gun owner on the way home from the range gets pulled over by a police officer. This officer happens to see the gun case in the back of the vehicle. Because these guns are considered felonious by the AG, the officer is within his right to do a search of the vehicle with probable cause (seeing a potentially illegal - depending on how you understand the convoluted interpretation from the AG that even her own office staff cannot comprehend fully). The Officer decides to charge the once lawful gun owner with a felony (punishable of up to 10 years). The local DA, who is NOT under the purview of the AG, and very anti-gun, decides to prosecute. That gun owner is now subject to fines and imprisonment. He is in limbo waiting for his trial which could take many years. He will become a Prohibited Person, unable to keep his guns or obtain a License for them. He incurs thousands of dollars worth of court costs fighting it, and may lose more than just money (job, family, etc.) Again, Scenario 1 is still occurring while Scenario 2 is playing out.


Scenario #3 - Gun owners adversely affected by this interpretation sue the state for illegally taking away their property ex-post-facto, costing them AND the taxpayers sever hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs due to court fees, and should the gun owners win, then even more money for lost value to their property. If you are not aware, these rifles go for anywhere from $700 to $5000 each. At 10,000 of them sold per year for the last 20 years, if you averaged a cost of only $1000 per rifle, then it could cost the state 20 million dollars in recovered loss. Again, Scenario #1 and #2 are STILL capable of occurring in conjunction with this final scenario. And the gun owners will win this case, since purchase of these guns were approved by many official agencies for many years.


I do not foresee a court case scenario where it will not cause significant injury to the livelihoods of many of your constituents and the taxpayers of this state. That can be a long and painful road, that can be easily avoided, through the proper review and legislation. This was a legislative problem to begin with. Her interpretation did not derive from the courts, but by decree, for lack of a better term. It should not be solved there. This was simply her overreach, attempting to make a name for herself prior to the DNC. She has obviated your ability to legislate and create law by in essence, doing it for you.


Respectfully yours, XXXXXXXXXX



Keep us updated on the counter-response.
 
Responses
Brownsberger, William (SEN) <[email protected]>
3:07 PM (2 hours ago)
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif
to me, Harold, James, John, willbrownsberg.
cleardot.gif






I’m open to this if others with to do it, but I actually think the proper oversight vehicle is the courts – there will be a lawsuit and that is where it will get settled.

Fernandes, John - Rep. (HOU) <[email protected]>
4:06 PM (1 hour ago)
cleardot.gif
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif
to me, Harold, James, William
cleardot.gif






Paul
Thanks for your email. Hard for me to understand how you have a copy of a letter addressed to me that I have not received yet but that's a question for the authors I suspect.

That said, I have written a very specific letter to the Attorney General joined by over 80 of my colleagues asking very specific questions about the directive that should, if answered throughly, assist all of us in understanding the legal basis for her actions, the weapons involved, and the status of private ownership of weapons now banned. If you have not seen that letter, then I can provide you a copy.

With that clarification, I will be able to determine if further legislative action is needed.
Thank you
John

Sent from my iPhone





My response

Mr. Brownsberger, first off thank you for your reply.


Mr. Fernandes, thank you as well. I appreciate that you gentlemen took the time out of your day to respond.


There are several issues with "letting the courts decide". Let me play out for you a few scenario's that highlight the issues with this course of action:


Scenario #1 - Comm2A, Gun Shops, Gun Owners, or manufacturers file suit. 2-5 years later it finally goes to court. Meanwhile gun shop owners in this state are struggling to keep their doors open and their employees paid. Upwards of 25% of their business revolves around the rifles that are now banned. Families will be hurting during this time frame, with no recourse. Meanwhile, Scenario 2 may be playing out in conjunction.


Scenario #2 - Some lawful gun owner on the way home from the range gets pulled over by a police officer. This officer happens to see the gun case in the back of the vehicle. Because these guns are considered felonious by the AG, the officer is within his right to do a search of the vehicle with probable cause (seeing a potentially illegal - depending on how you understand the convoluted interpretation from the AG that even her own office staff cannot comprehend fully). The Officer decides to charge the once lawful gun owner with a felony (punishable of up to 10 years). The local DA, who is NOT under the purview of the AG, and very anti-gun, decides to prosecute. That gun owner is now subject to fines and imprisonment. He is in limbo waiting for his trial which could take many years. He will become a Prohibited Person, unable to keep his guns or obtain a License for them. He incurs thousands of dollars worth of court costs fighting it, and may lose more than just money (job, family, etc.) Again, Scenario 1 is still occurring while Scenario 2 is playing out.


Scenario #3 - Gun owners adversely affected by this interpretation sue the state for illegally taking away their property ex-post-facto, costing them AND the taxpayers sever hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs due to court fees, and should the gun owners win, then even more money for lost value to their property. If you are not aware, these rifles go for anywhere from $700 to $5000 each. At 10,000 of them sold per year for the last 20 years, if you averaged a cost of only $1000 per rifle, then it could cost the state 20 million dollars in recovered loss. Again, Scenario #1 and #2 are STILL capable of occurring in conjunction with this final scenario. And the gun owners will win this case, since purchase of these guns were approved by many official agencies for many years.


I do not foresee a court case scenario where it will not cause significant injury to the livelihoods of many of your constituents and the taxpayers of this state. That can be a long and painful road, that can be easily avoided, through the proper review and legislation. This was a legislative problem to begin with. Her interpretation did not derive from the courts, but by decree, for lack of a better term. It should not be solved there. This was simply her overreach, attempting to make a name for herself prior to the DNC. She has obviated your ability to legislate and create law by in essence, doing it for you.


Respectfully yours, XXXXXXXXXX




#2 has to happen as a prerequisite to #1 starting.
 
Sounds like this might be the last chance for the legislature. Otherwise they have hung us out to dry.

Sadly no, the last chance was Sunday. All they can do is meet, discuss and perhaps (99.9999999% unlikely to happen due to leadership) address it in a bill next year or two from now.
 
Sadly no, the last chance was Sunday. All they can do is meet, discuss and perhaps (99.9999999% unlikely to happen due to leadership) address it in a bill next year or two from now.

- A legislative committee hearing on the issue would still be doing something - what that is I'm not sure.
- I was under the impression that the legislature could be called back into a special formal session. Holding my breath on that one.
 
I was under the impression that the legislature could be called back into a special formal session.

I thought that was possible also
 
I was under the impression that the legislature could be called back into a special formal session.

I thought that was possible also
LOL you guys keep forgetting where you live. Face it we're screwed and the only way to get unscrewed is to vote these people out of office. How you are going to do that when 70% of the population disagrees with you (see "where you live") is beyond me.
 
I for one will harass EVERY DAMN ONE OF THEM relentlessly with letters, phone calls and emails over, and over, and over, and over, and over again until I'm dead, or until they do SOMETHING. I'll continue to tell every gun owner who, when times were good, pretended to give a sh*t about their rights and complained about how sh*tty the gun laws in MA were BEFORE Healy dropped this latest turd on us to get off their fat asses and do something as well. I'll inform liberty-minded non-gun owners as to what she's done and illustrate to them how this overreach WILL eventually be used to unleash tyranny on all citizens of the Commonwealth - not just gun owners.

I will vote in every election, and only for those that earn my vote. I will encourage others to be sure and vote, and only for those that deserve it. I will explain to all those who care to listen what I believe is required of a politician to be deserving of support from his/her constituents.

I will continue to support GOAL, Comm2A, GOA, the NRA, my local gun club and all others who share my concern for what's left of our Commonwealth and the United States of America. Though I know some on this forum may not be particularly religious I'm going to say it anyway. I will steadfastly maintain my faith in God and my faith that through him ALL things are possible.

She WILL answer for this abuse of power. Believe it.
 
Last edited:
This one is a lost cause, his first sentence says a lot....
[h=3]Brownsberger, William (SEN) <[email protected]>[/h]
5:13 PM (41 minutes ago)
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif
to me, Harold, James, John
cleardot.gif







I've posted an answer to this online here:
http://willbrownsberger.com/ag-healeys-assault-weapon-interpretation/


William N. Brownsberger
State Senator
Second Suffolk and Middlesex District
Room 213A
State House
Boston, MA 02133
617-722-1280 (office)
617-771-8274 (cell)
Visit willbrownsberger.com for news.

Will,
I’d like to hear your opinion on this situation.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/07/gun_owners_angry_over_ag_maura.html
The AG’s move here essentially says that people who acted with every intention of being lawful are now felons (yes, I realize she says she won’t prosecute but that’s based on prosecutorial discretion). In addition, it would seem that the dealers and manufacturers who made every effort to follow the law are also now felons.
The MA AWB language, to my understanding, is a direct copy of the federal AWB that existed from 1994 to 2005 and the type of guns in question were sold nationwide with full approval of the ATF during that period. Now the AG is saying these types of guns are not, and were not, compliant. If this is truly the case, why have we gone for 18 years with these sales being completely out in the open? If these guns are truly illegal as the AG says, that would imply the previous AGs have been completely incompetent and that incompetence has turned people of no ill intent into de facto felons. If Healey is wrong, then this is massive overreach and essentially usurping the legislature.
Thank you.
[h=3]Will’s Answer:[/h]I’m a huge fan of Maura Healey — she is a great person and a great Attorney General. And I’m a strong supporter of gun control.
I do feel, based on my own initial review of the issue, that, in this case, she may well have extended the law beyond its intended use. That is an issue that is best resolved in the courts — they are the proper arbiters of disputes about interpretation of a statute. Depending on how this gets resolved by the courts, there may be a need for legislation next year.
We can’t do anything meaningful before next year. Some have proposed that the legislature hold oversight hearings. That is technically possible, but I think legislative hearings will be on soft ground without an authoritative court interpretation of the statute.





 
Ask the Committee to Make a Ruling !!!

.
Ask the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security AND the Joint Committee on the Judiciary members to convene a hearing and issue its "interpretation" of the AG's authority under Ch 93 A and make a ruling that her actions were not within the bounds of her authority. Do EXACTLY to her what she did to them (us).

Dear Senator / Representative,

Please convene a hearing regarding AG Healey's actions

I am requesting that as Chair of the Judiciary Committee your Committee issue its "interpretation" of the AG's authority under Ch 93 A and make a ruling that her actions were not within the bounds of her authority.

I was looking at MA 93A Section2, which is what Healey thinly used to make her "interpretation" to created new de facto firearms law. It also references and defines her authority based on U.S. Code § 45(a)(1). It seems to me like the overarching purpose of both is to protect consumers against unfair competition and deceptive business practices.

If so, it goes to reason that the AG's actions have nothing to do with protecting consumers against unfair competition and deception. In fact her actions had the opposite intent and material effect. She prevented consumers from obtaining long-standing legal firearms.

Looking at (n) it seems to reinforce any change to law as having to demonstrate "substantial injury to consumers". It also indicates consideration for established public policies (i.e., 18 years of the rule and enforcement of written law) as evidence.

All this clearly indicates to me that the AG acted outside the bounds of her granted authority, and should simply be "clarified" and ruled by your Committee as being so. No new bill should even be needed!

Thanks,
xxxxxxxx



MA: Chapter 93A Section 2

Section 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

(b) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing paragraph (a) of this section in actions brought under sections four, nine and eleven, the courts will be guided by the interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts to section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended.

(c) The attorney general may make rules and regulations interpreting the provisions of subsection 2(a) of this chapter. Such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts interpreting the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1) (The Federal Trade Commission Act), as from time to time amended.

U.S. Code § 45 - Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

(a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade

(1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.

(n) Standard of proof; public policy considerations
The Commission shall have no authority under this section or section 57a of this title to declare unlawful an act or practice on the grounds that such act or practice is unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition. In determining whether an act or practice is unfair, the Commission may consider established public policies as evidence to be considered with all other evidence. Such public policy considerations may not serve as a primary basis for such determination.

========================

https://malegislature.gov/Committees/Joint/J22

Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security


It shall be the duty of the committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security to consider all matters concerning laws relating to shipping or otherwise transporting energy sources, the safety of the public, including civil defense, firearms and gun control, fire laws, motor vehicle laws, motor vehicle safety belts (including school buses), the correction system including administration, prisoners’ rights, furloughs, work release, probation, rehabilitation, homeland or Commonwealth security matters, other matters related to federal affairs, including, but not limited to, the prevention of terrorist attacks, the reduction of the vulnerability to terrorism; the minimizing of the damage and recovery from possible attacks that may occur, and the coordination of homeland security related activities of the Commonwealth with those of the Federal Government, including certain confidential and guarded information and such other matters as may be referred.


Senate Members


Senate Chair
James E. Timilty

Senate Vice Chair
Michael O. Moore

Members
Sonia Chang-Diaz
Jennifer L. Flanagan
James T. Welch
Richard J. Ross


House Members

House Chair
Harold P. Naughton, Jr.

House Vice Chair
Linda Dean Campbell

Members
Bruce J. Ayers
James M. Cantwell
James J. Dwyer
Paul R. Heroux
Alan Silvia
Rady Mom
Paul Tucker
David T. Vieira
Timothy R. Whelan
 
Last edited:
I got this response from Brownsberger:

I’m a huge fan of Maura Healey — she is a great person and a great Attorney General. And I’m a strong supporter of gun control.

I do feel, based on my own initial review of the issue, that, in this case, she may well have extended the law beyond its intended use. That is an issue that is best resolved in the courts — they are the proper arbiters of disputes about interpretation of a statute. Depending on how this gets resolved by the courts, there may be a need for legislation next year.

We can’t do anything meaningful before next year. Some have proposed that the legislature hold oversight hearings. That is technically possible, but I think legislative hearings will be on soft ground without an authoritative court interpretation of the statute.
 
Gentlemen, I'm encouraged by the posts in this thread as well as the thoughtful articulate letters. I do hope you won't mind my plagerizing some of your thoughts in my own correspondance.
I have read some of the other threads here and many indicate lack of the true understanding of this tyrannical act. Further some have already given up as their comments make blatantly clear. I will not sbmit!
I'm unclear as to steps forward that will be truly impactful. I will be attending the August 15th Rally, sending emails, letters and the like but today, I don't have any indication the majority of gun owners, again even those on NES forums, are united, motivated or educated.
Thank you for your dedication and your courage.
 
Back
Top Bottom