-
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.
NEW (8/19) guidance: Get angry my friends
- Thread starter Drix
- Start date
Sorry Maura, the law is absolutely 100% clear on this: you are wrong.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131M
Let's go look at section 122 shall we?
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section122
So, someone with a MA gun dealer/gunsmith license is "licensed under the provisions of section 122". That means that an FFL with a MA dealer's license is EXEMPT from the provisions of Section 131M, and thus can legally possess "assault weapons".
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131M
Let's go look at section 122 shall we?
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section122
So, someone with a MA gun dealer/gunsmith license is "licensed under the provisions of section 122". That means that an FFL with a MA dealer's license is EXEMPT from the provisions of Section 131M, and thus can legally possess "assault weapons".
Still trying to figure out what I'm supposed to be angry about.![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
The only thing I'm angry about is a Left-wing Statist Tyrant making criminals out of previously law abiding business people and citizens by FAQ.
the_shootist
Banned
The problem is, at this point, she's not bluffing. She has the power to have any of these guys arrested and charged regardless of what the actual law states. That's money to defend themselves with councel, money lost in revenue and harm to their reputation. This is what tyranny looks like in real life
LR308_GNR
NES Member
LEO should have to follow all laws that civilians must follow, they are not a special class citizen, yet they fully expect to be treated as gods gift to society.
Sorry girls in blue... wake up and realize you're just like the rest of us!
Sorry girls in blue... wake up and realize you're just like the rest of us!
the_shootist
Banned
Beats me but you know she'd create something like she's been creating this whole $hitstorm on the fly
Shark_Cage
NES Member
That would get swatted down at the Fed level. She will allow you to purchase a .22 bolt gun with micro stamped pin to be stored at your range.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce (C. 93A § 2(a)). It's her vague 'go to' statute for dealers. She even mentions it in the 'guidance'. It's a trick she learned from Harshbarger.
Last edited:
lol
Wait, so what we're saying here is that a cop can privately order, purchase, and OWN an AR-15 just by virtue of the fact that he happens to be employed as an LEO? They can have one at home, play at the range, hunt, compete, whatever just cause they're a cop?
Isn't that creating a different class of citizens?
BTW I'm not being sarcastic, I'm seriously trying to get my head wrapped around this.
Isn't that creating a different class of citizens?
BTW I'm not being sarcastic, I'm seriously trying to get my head wrapped around this.
It's pretty clear she is targeting FFL holders and is going to push, and change the Guidance, until she finds the right victim to charge. I'm sympathetic to all the dealers who choose to err on the side of caution in order to protect themselves, their business, and especially their families. Unfortunately its looking like all the AG will do is continue to ramp up her attack until someone, who she feels will be an easy win for her, gets jammed up.
The NSSF has promised a legal challenge, I think it likely Comm2a is also prepping for something, maybe this.
Just like controlling the narrative is crucial in politics, I think controlling the situation in this kind of court battle is key. The best way to accomplish this is for those leading the legal battle to create the situation. Find a willing dealer, maybe one that is being forced out of business because of this already, find a high profile buyer, invite the press to the purchase, use a traditionally MA legal rifle, and openly call out the AG. Be ready to go all the way if the AG charges. If the AG doesn't charge then she's shown that even she does not believe what she has done is legal.
I think we are going to end up with a dealer charged one way or the other. It only remains to be seen who will control the situation.
The NSSF has promised a legal challenge, I think it likely Comm2a is also prepping for something, maybe this.
Just like controlling the narrative is crucial in politics, I think controlling the situation in this kind of court battle is key. The best way to accomplish this is for those leading the legal battle to create the situation. Find a willing dealer, maybe one that is being forced out of business because of this already, find a high profile buyer, invite the press to the purchase, use a traditionally MA legal rifle, and openly call out the AG. Be ready to go all the way if the AG charges. If the AG doesn't charge then she's shown that even she does not believe what she has done is legal.
I think we are going to end up with a dealer charged one way or the other. It only remains to be seen who will control the situation.
I disagree, I think there will be a lot of "administrative ****ery" before one of these cases actually ends up in criminal side of the court system. It's pretty apparent that the AGs office is using lots of bloviation and hyperbole to generate fear. Otherwise they would be picking low hanging fruit and pushing prosecutions- not just issuing veiled threats like they did with the dealers that sold stuff on 7/20.
-Mike
-Mike
E
esamjj
IMOP - not going to get resolved with going to court or the legislature making the change.
1) I would think this would protect anyone at least prior to July 21.
Article XXIV. Laws made to punish for actions done before the existence of such laws, and which have not been declared crimes by preceding laws, are unjust, oppressive, and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of a free government.
2) Since this is a "guidance" and not a LAW, then this should be active.
Article XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for. [See Amendments, Arts. XLVIII, I, Definition and LXXXIX.]
1) I would think this would protect anyone at least prior to July 21.
Article XXIV. Laws made to punish for actions done before the existence of such laws, and which have not been declared crimes by preceding laws, are unjust, oppressive, and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of a free government.
2) Since this is a "guidance" and not a LAW, then this should be active.
Article XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for. [See Amendments, Arts. XLVIII, I, Definition and LXXXIX.]
The problem for the AGs office, though, is that they're pushing it to the point now where it's ridiculous. People are going to start simply ignoring her rather than fearing her if she takes it any much farther. Especially if somebody finally steps up and calls her bluff. With this 'dealers can't have anything in stock' silliness, there's no jail time involved, so it may be easier for somebody to push back, especially for a shop that's failing anyway.
I feel that ultimately this is what should have been done out of the gate, and the whole thing would be over. If every dealer (and distributor) had called her on her bullshit on day 1, I don't think any of this would have happened. If the dealers collectively said "No, that's pure bullshit, your re-interpretation is not based in law" she would have been called out on her bullshit right then and there. Much like the stupid EOPS memo a few years ago that issued a similar edict. EVERYONE summarily ignored that edict... and surprise surprise, it wasn't a problem and was quickly forgotten about.
-Mike
This is ALL WRONG
The basis of this thread as well as the AG's FAQ are wrong. Dealers cannot - and never could, legally transfer post-ban "assault weapons" to LEOs. The 2014 statutory revision ONLY addressed the issue of possession of "assault weapons" by current and former LEOs. The prohibition on transferring them was not altered.
Just because past and current LEOs can possess an 'AW' does not, in a legal sense, imply that the prohibition on transfers doesn't apply. Any person to gun shop that transfers an 'AW' to a police officer is breaking the law, despite the AG's FAQ.
In its entirety, sec 131M reads:
ETA, sec 123 "Conditions of [dealer] licenses" reads:
I'd be delighted if someone could tell me why I'm wrong about this.
The basis of this thread as well as the AG's FAQ are wrong. Dealers cannot - and never could, legally transfer post-ban "assault weapons" to LEOs. The 2014 statutory revision ONLY addressed the issue of possession of "assault weapons" by current and former LEOs. The prohibition on transferring them was not altered.
Just because past and current LEOs can possess an 'AW' does not, in a legal sense, imply that the prohibition on transfers doesn't apply. Any person to gun shop that transfers an 'AW' to a police officer is breaking the law, despite the AG's FAQ.
In its entirety, sec 131M reads:
ETA, sec 123 "Conditions of [dealer] licenses" reads:
I'd be delighted if someone could tell me why I'm wrong about this.
Last edited:
Easy to say when you're not the one setting yourself up for massive fines and jail time. Nobody wants to break the law and become a prohibited person.
As for the Leo exemption, I've always interpreted it as a LEO needs a compliant rifle and can make it noncompliant without fear, so now that loophole seems to no longer exist.
As for the Leo exemption, I've always interpreted it as a LEO needs a compliant rifle and can make it noncompliant without fear, so now that loophole seems to no longer exist.
Last edited:
If civilians are no longer allowed to buy, then stop selling to cops, as well. Do what Barrett did when Ca banned civilians from owning a .50BMG: they left, and told the cops they were no longer getting support from Barrett. The cops whined something terrible (as they are prone to when told to follow the same rules as civilians). Barrett hasn't looked back.
All gun dealers: If you stop selling and servicing LE, they'll make a stink, and if enough of them are DIRECTLY affected, this may force Healy's hand. Cops regularly whine about "we're civilians, too"....well, guess what? You should be treated that way: no more scary black rifles for you!
All gun dealers: If you stop selling and servicing LE, they'll make a stink, and if enough of them are DIRECTLY affected, this may force Healy's hand. Cops regularly whine about "we're civilians, too"....well, guess what? You should be treated that way: no more scary black rifles for you!
