MA magazine limit/AWB

The cost of hiring a lawyer to defend you on a pre ban mag charge will cost you $5,000.00.

I could imagine myself paying $5,000 just to have hi cap mags.

Therefore, if the law changes and I lose the value of all my pre bans - it will be like losing $5,000.

To me that is worth it to have freedom.

In the mean time, I'll keep buying pre bans because the law may never change.

Buying???


"Potter's not selling. Potter's buying!" [rofl] [rofl]
 
I wouldn't hold my breath on anything changing anytime soon. CA and NY are already looking for ways to double down on the draconian bullshit and lord knows that if Dimples Mctunabreath gets elected as the next Gov she's going to go full-retard also. They don't care about making unconstitutional laws because they will just spend as much of your money while it tumbles around in the courts for years and years.
The level of contempt the left has displayed for the autonomy and authority of the judiciary is outrageous. They aren't going to let a little details like "the constitution" or "the law" stop them, they are going to push this shit all the way to the brink unless they get their way.
 
My apologies with my initial question stating there have been mag caps and AWBs overturned in other states, I was tired when posting 😂. I meant to say with these state laws being called into question (very big difference).

I just wanted to get a conversation going on the matter, as I didn't see a topic covering MA specifically, and these issues.
 
With all these other states overturning mag limits, and AWBs due to the supreme court ruling, do you folks think this will be addressed in the near future? Any mention from GOAL or other groups?

Edit: I was tired while posting I am aware this post was massively misleading 😂 just want to get an MA specific discussion going on these topics to hear people's opinions.
Bruh, MA is f*cking us with gun licenses again.
Do you think now is the time they will back off and stop with the AWB?

Maura will become supreme leader, she will f*ck us again and probably f*ck us with online sales.

Better get what you want now, including any frame transfers, because she has a boner and it is pointing to the 2A and with all the shootings and people freaking out like a bunch of b*tches, going after online sales to MA (which she already did but wasn't Governor) will not be hard.
 
Bruh, MA is f*cking us with gun licenses again.
Do you think now is the time they will back off and stop with the AWB?

Maura will become supreme leader, she will f*ck us again and probably f*ck us with online sales.

Better get what you want now, including any frame transfers, because she has a boner and it is pointing to the 2A and with all the shootings and people freaking out like a bunch of b*tches, going after online sales to MA (which she already did but wasn't Governor) will not be hard.
I 100% hear you on that. I guess I'm just hopeful for once that maybe this supreme court ruling could matter for the blue states. On the other hand, by now part of me feels like I should know better.
 
If the AWB falls expect a NFA style tax from the legislature to make magazines and full featured rifles as expensive as they are pre-ban now.
That is still small progress. If that was the case, I would take it hands down. That at least would mean folks wouldn't have to shell out huge sums of money for old used shit. We would only have to shell out large sums of money for brand new shit 😂
 
what i do see, and again i'm hoping, is "the list" goes away. i'm thinking that it limits lower income potential gun owners from buying a wider selection because of price point. i think we can agree it would be easier to trash that damn list than to re-write it looking at price. we all know low price = killy, which translates to unsafe at all costs to our illustrious law makers. kinda like the thing that goes up on the end.
I think FPC has a case in MA against the roster.
 
Nothing will happen at the MA level. If/when it happens, it will be the federal courts/SCOTUS that will bring down the AWB/mag limits...
I believe SCOTUS sent back to a lower courts to review the Magazine ban in CA.

'The four cases in question involve challenges to New Jersey and California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines as well as Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons and Hawaii’s “may issue” permitting process for open carry (the similar “may issue” requirement for concealed carry was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in a case called Peruta v. San Diego back in 2016). The Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits will now have to revisit their decisions upholding all of these gun laws, all of which relied on the two-part interest-balancing test explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in Bruen.

Instead, the courts will now have to determine whether these types of bans are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”, specifically at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights and in the post-Civil War period when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. It’s going to be awfully difficult to do so given that there is no historical tradition of banning entire classes of firearms or limiting their ammunition capacity.'


SCOTUS sends gun and magazine ban cases back to lower courts
 
I wouldn't hold my breath on anything changing anytime soon. CA and NY are already looking for ways to double down on the draconian bullshit and lord knows that if Dimples Mctunabreath gets elected as the next Gov she's going to go full-retard also. They don't care about making unconstitutional laws because they will just spend as much of your money while it tumbles around in the courts for years and years.
The level of contempt the left has displayed for the autonomy and authority of the judiciary is outrageous. They aren't going to let a little details like "the constitution" or "the law" stop them, they are going to push this shit all the way to the brink unless they get their way.

Bruh, MA is f*cking us with gun licenses again.
Do you think now is the time they will back off and stop with the AWB?

Maura will become supreme leader, she will f*ck us again and probably f*ck us with online sales.

Better get what you want now, including any frame transfers, because she has a boner and it is pointing to the 2A and with all the shootings and people freaking out like a bunch of b*tches, going after online sales to MA (which she already did but wasn't Governor) will not be hard.

Gentlemen. I respect your fear and hope that you use it as an inspiration to fight instead of running and/or hiding.

But this is the end for states attempting this crap. It's falling like dominos. Might it take 5 years? Yes. In mASS it might. Will it end epically ugly for them? Oh yes it will.

As much as a DB that Maura and others are, they will ultimately respect the rule of law. It may take a bit. But at some point, they'll just acquiesce. It's inevitable.

Again, as so many, myself included, if you look to hte Civil Rights era, it took years in some cases to get states (read: MASS) to follow the law. I'm actually AOK with that. Let's fight. I'm not doing this for me. I own all that I really want and I've got plenty of preban mags. To me, this is nothing. This is about securing our creator-endowed rights for the next 250 years.
 
I’m just over here thinking about what I would buy if the mag limit were struck down.

P90 SBR perhaps? 4.6mm upper for an AR?
 
Mag limits in this state are dependent on which cop stops you.

I have a retired Chief of Police friend who thinks if you have a class A you can have any mag you want, pre or post ban, and in his day would never charge anyone with an LTC-A with possession of any post ban mag.

I know others on town police who think there is no such thing as a pre ban mag and glocks are illegal.

Mag ban overturns in other states mean nothing until there is a clear law stated that everyone can understand. Until then there is always a risk of being charged and having to pay lawyers fees for nothing.
CoP’s don’t charge ppl, DA’s do. But the fact that he wouldn’t let ppl get arrested for AWB related shit is awesome. Keep prosecutors in the dark and feed em mushrooms!😂
 
That is still small progress. If that was the case, I would take it hands down. That at least would mean folks wouldn't have to shell out huge sums of money for old used shit. We would only have to shell out large sums of money for brand new shit 😂

You say that. Then you'll realize it 100% f***s free staters and you'll be stuck dealing with the AFT for a stamp.

I bought a can last June. 13 months later still waiting for the AFT to run a background check on me so I can pick it up at the store. It's not something I'd wish on anyone. It's a f***ing nightmare.
 
On July 11 the SJC decided a case called Vega v. Commonwealth. It includes this gem:

This means that if unlicensed firearm possession presents a menace of dangerousness, then including it as a predicate offense furthers the legitimate and compelling government interest of preventing extremely serious crime by arrestees. We conclude that unlicensed firearm possession is a dangerous menace.

A then Justice of this court explained in 2009 why unlicensed firearm possession is dangerous to the community:

"When a handgun or automatic weapon is involved, the purpose of the firearm is to injure or kill; there is no other reason for that weapon's existence. . . . The risks associated with the possession of any firearm quite clearly are increased when those firearms are unlicensed. It is generally understood in the Commonwealth that there are licensing requirements applicable to firearms, and that it is unlawful to violate them. That the owner or user of an inherently dangerous instrumentality subject to licensure chooses not to abide by licensing requirements suggests powerfully that that person has obtained the weapon for an unlawful purpose that involves violence or the threat thereof. This is nothing more than common sense. . . . The fact that some otherwise law-abiding individuals may possess unlicensed firearms due to neglect or mistake does not alter the basic nature of the act in most situations or reduce the danger of death or serious personal injury that accompanies the use of the great majority of firearms that have not satisfied licensing requirements. . . . [A] fair reading of the statute would reject the pretense that a firearm is some neutral piece of equipment that is harmless in and of itself, and would recognize at a minimum the deadly sequence that so often follows on the possession of an unlicensed firearm."

Young, 453 Mass. at 718-721 (Cowin, J., dissenting).
 
You say that. Then you'll realize it 100% f***s free staters and you'll be stuck dealing with the AFT for a stamp.

I bought a can last June. 13 months later still waiting for the AFT to run a background check on me so I can pick it up at the store. It's not something I'd wish on anyone. It's a f***ing nightmare.
So, their instant background check when you buy a handgun = perfectly fine.

But ... if you want to add a can they need an entire year? ... 🤔
 
The cost of hiring a lawyer to defend you on a pre ban mag charge will cost you $5,000.00.

I could imagine myself paying $5,000 just to have hi cap mags.

Therefore, if the law changes and I lose the value of all my pre bans - it will be like losing $5,000.

To me that is worth it to have freedom.

In the mean time, I'll keep buying pre bans because the law may never change.
This is where you get financial help. Some group pays your fees to take up the case. How do you think it happened in California and NJ.
 
So, their instant background check when you buy a handgun = perfectly fine.

But ... if you want to add a can they need an entire year? ... 🤔
Yes of course.

When you call NICS the FBI can somehow figure out I can own a gun based off my name and address.

When you submit for a can, the ATF can't seem to figure out who the f*** I am based off my name, address, photo, finger prints, etc.

I know I say we live in a scam world banana republic a lot. Well, yes, we do.
[rofl]
 
On July 11 the SJC decided a case called Vega v. Commonwealth. It includes this gem:

This means that if unlicensed firearm possession presents a menace of dangerousness, then including it as a predicate offense furthers the legitimate and compelling government interest of preventing extremely serious crime by arrestees. We conclude that unlicensed firearm possession is a dangerous menace.

A then Justice of this court explained in 2009 why unlicensed firearm possession is dangerous to the community:

"When a handgun or automatic weapon is involved, the purpose of the firearm is to injure or kill; there is no other reason for that weapon's existence. . . . The risks associated with the possession of any firearm quite clearly are increased when those firearms are unlicensed. It is generally understood in the Commonwealth that there are licensing requirements applicable to firearms, and that it is unlawful to violate them. That the owner or user of an inherently dangerous instrumentality subject to licensure chooses not to abide by licensing requirements suggests powerfully that that person has obtained the weapon for an unlawful purpose that involves violence or the threat thereof. This is nothing more than common sense. . . . The fact that some otherwise law-abiding individuals may possess unlicensed firearms due to neglect or mistake does not alter the basic nature of the act in most situations or reduce the danger of death or serious personal injury that accompanies the use of the great majority of firearms that have not satisfied licensing requirements. . . . [A] fair reading of the statute would reject the pretense that a firearm is some neutral piece of equipment that is harmless in and of itself, and would recognize at a minimum the deadly sequence that so often follows on the possession of an unlicensed firearm."

Young, 453 Mass. at 718-721 (Cowin, J., dissenting).
This would not stand up in Federal court.
 
It annoys me no end that the extra mags I often carry in my laptop bag are as valuable as the laptop in it.

That does hit hard, particularly when you think about mags, especially old Glock mags, there's nothing in the design or manufacturing that justifies the price. It's all about increasing scarcity and demand. But when you think about it, it's like $5 dollars worth of polymer and metal in a very low tech manufacturing process.
 
The cost of hiring a lawyer to defend you on a pre ban mag charge will cost you $5,000.00.

I could imagine myself paying $5,000 just to have hi standard cap mags.

Therefore, if the law changes and I lose the value of all my pre bans - it will be like losing $5,000.

To me that is worth it to have freedom.

In the mean time, I'll keep buying pre bans because the law may never change.
FTFY
 
On July 11 the SJC decided a case called Vega v. Commonwealth. It includes this gem:

This means that if unlicensed firearm possession presents a menace of dangerousness, then including it as a predicate offense furthers the legitimate and compelling government interest of preventing extremely serious crime by arrestees. We conclude that unlicensed firearm possession is a dangerous menace.

A then Justice of this court explained in 2009 why unlicensed firearm possession is dangerous to the community:

"When a handgun or automatic weapon is involved, the purpose of the firearm is to injure or kill; there is no other reason for that weapon's existence. . . . The risks associated with the possession of any firearm quite clearly are increased when those firearms are unlicensed. It is generally understood in the Commonwealth that there are licensing requirements applicable to firearms, and that it is unlawful to violate them. That the owner or user of an inherently dangerous instrumentality subject to licensure chooses not to abide by licensing requirements suggests powerfully that that person has obtained the weapon for an unlawful purpose that involves violence or the threat thereof. This is nothing more than common sense. . . . The fact that some otherwise law-abiding individuals may possess unlicensed firearms due to neglect or mistake does not alter the basic nature of the act in most situations or reduce the danger of death or serious personal injury that accompanies the use of the great majority of firearms that have not satisfied licensing requirements. . . . [A] fair reading of the statute would reject the pretense that a firearm is some neutral piece of equipment that is harmless in and of itself, and would recognize at a minimum the deadly sequence that so often follows on the possession of an unlicensed firearm."

Young, 453 Mass. at 718-721 (Cowin, J., dissenting).
The government cannot infringe on your right to vote but can require you to take action in registering to vote. The registration infringement satisfies a strong government interest in ensuring a valid election where only eligible citizens are allowed to vote only once.
The government does have a valid concern with limiting firearms access to only the law-abiding which has been reaffirmed each time the SC has taken a 2A case. So there is a defined legitimate government interest that intersects with one's right to self defense in public. The question is what level of historic infringement was allowed to further this particular government interest. The ones that come up most often are the surety laws requiring those who have shown themselves to be non-law abiding to post a bond if they wished to go armed in public. This could be shown to allow officers to detain and confirm non-prohibited status when an armed individual is stopped for probable cause (not simply for being armed unless the officer has personal knowledge that the person is prohibited). Courts have also confirmed the ability of the state to detain for short periods for investigative purpose. This is where licensure allows balance of the state's interest where a license holder would be assumed lawful upon presentation with no cause or ability to investigate further (presumption of lawfulness precluding investigation of the person's firearm)

Given the decades of evidence to the contrary from the vast majority of states that don't require special training for licensure or are permitless carry, I would think that training requirements for possession or carry would likely be found to be outside the narrowly tailored government interests.
 
I'm actually worried if MA would ever repeal mag limits, as I'd end up spending like a grand on just magazines.

It certainly will knock down the pricing significantly on “Pre-Healey…” (lowers) and “Pre-Ban…” magazines instead of $50+ per magazine, it may be $5 for used USGI mags when everyone can go buy cases of PMags at $10-15/Ea
 
Back
Top Bottom