NEW (8/19) guidance: Get angry my friends

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.

Exactly, everyone should start ignoring her ASAP, if they haven't already. This shit doesn't come close to passing the sniff test.
 
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.

I agree 100% and have had that discussion with Michaela and Jody in the past.

I've advised my LE students to go to NH and buy the guns, that way all they are doing in MA is "possessing them" which was made clearly legal in 2014. Retirees is still a very gray area however. And all this is before the AG went off her rocker.
 
I wonder if this will cause manufacturers and distributors to boycott the state. Why would they take the risk selling to FFLs when the 'guidance' changes every time Maura has a coffee break?

Wouldn't surprise me at this rate if Generalissimo Healey moves to ban 'AW' production or factory warehousing in state.
 
Last edited:
So I take it you didn't come out with us to fight and show the commonwealth we aren't taking this lying down, that Saturday at the State House ?

I was there. But I don't think protests and waving flags is going to achieve as much as causing pain to people who can actually put pressure directly on the AG's office.

Protests typically don't achieve a goddam thing.
 
I wonder if this will cause manufacturers and distributors to boycott the state. Why would they take the risk selling to FFLs when the 'guidance' changes every time Maura has a coffee break?

Wouldn't surprise me at this rate if Generalissimo Healey moves to ban 'AW' production or factory warehousing in state.

One of the only hopes we have to fix this problem is for the manufacturers AND DISTRIBUTORS - to shut this state off COMPLETELY. The means DIRECT LEO SALES too.

Sooner or later you guys are going to pull your heads out of your asses and realize that.
 
You really think you're going to fix this problem by waving snake flags and bitching in front of the State House?

You know whats NOT going to fix it? Not doing anything.

The AG updates DAILY with new "supporters of the ban". These people are doing the same exact thing we are, just from the opposite side of the table. You either stay visible to stay relevant, or you succumb to the will of the AG.
 
You are correct. There are a number of FFLs who reside in MA but will not transfer a gun to MA residents they will only send the gun to another FFL in MA who is licensed to sell in MA for the transfer and so they avoid any problems with what's legal/not legal in mASS>

At least some of those are individuals/ entities that have FFLs but do not have Mass dealer licenses. Without the Mass dealer license c. 140 s. 131M would have them up a creek, regardless, on a large cap mag or assault weapon not lawfully possessed prior to 13 sep 1994.
 
The whole making shit up as she goes is ****in infuriating!!

I get that part.

What I don't get is why I, being one of the filthy unwashed masses, should give a shit about LEOs having to now be inconvenienced(
EmoticonCrying.gif
) by having to wait a few days for something we should all be able to own.
 
You know whats NOT going to fix it? Not doing anything.

The AG updates DAILY with new "supporters of the ban". These people are doing the same exact thing we are, just from the opposite side of the table. You either stay visible to stay relevant, or you succumb to the will of the AG.


We we should use that tab to our advantage. Her vocal. Fight back on Twitter and Facebook to these groups that support her and tell them they have lost your support in their poor decision making to back a tyrant.

- - - Updated - - -

One of the only hopes we have to fix this problem is for the manufacturers AND DISTRIBUTORS - to shut this state off COMPLETELY. The means DIRECT LEO SALES too.

Sooner or later you guys are going to pull your heads out of your asses and realize that.


BCM has already done this I believe. I think we will see others too.
 
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.

Yes!!!!
 
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.
You are exactly right, but it's been a "wink,wink" , l.e. Has a special clause , even though they don't.
even the rogue AG that reads laws Clinton style, it means what I think it means even she is afraid to alienate citizens that wear the badge.

fact # 1 Ms. Healey, off duty and ex cops are not more special than vetted and licensed ma. Citizens to own any firearm .

ms. gun grab can not read or interpret the ma gun laws correctly.

eta: Len spelled it out above, he knows his laws, but even I can read and understand them.
Although no one can understand the current mess of incoherent scribble.
 
Last edited:
You are exactly right, but it's been a "wink,wink" , l.e. Has a special clause , even though they don't.
even the rogue AG that reads laws Clinton style, it means what I think it means even though she is afraid to alienate citizens that wear the badge.

fact # 1 Ms. Healey, off duty and ex cops are not more special than vetted and licensed ma. Citizens to own any firearm .

ms. gun grab can not read or interpret the ma gun laws correctly.

This should all be helping to build the lawsuit against her. Flip-flopping will not look good in a (non-rigged, non-MA) courthouse.
 
It's sort of like when they confiscated holsters as well as guns in England. They wanted to remove all traces of gun culture. I think Healey doesn't want individuals to see "LEO-only" ARs at gun shops, which would stimulate their impure desire to have one. She wants to remove all trace of black rifle culture and coolness.
And doing a horrible job at that, since according to her most recent "FAQ's" the 15-22 is okay.....
 
I've advised my LE students to go to NH and buy the guns, that way all they are doing in MA is "possessing them" which was made clearly legal in 2014. Retirees is still a very gray area however. And all this is before the AG went off her rocker.

That's certainly a cautious approach, which never hurts in this state, but I don't see where it would really be a problem for the LEO. The law being broken when a MA dealer sells an assault weapon is C.140 § 123, conditions of a dealer's license. The punishment for it is laid out in C.140 § 125, forfeiture of their dealer's license, and that forfeiture is not 'shall', it is 'may', at the discretion of the licensing authority.

So, similar to the handgun list and regulations, the sale is potentially bad for the dealer, but it shouldn't impact the buyer (as long as they're LEO or retired LEO).
 
Article VI. No man, nor corporation, or association of men, have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public; and this title being in nature neither hereditary, nor transmissible to children, or descendants, or relations by blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge, is absurd and unnatural.

To me this seems to say you don't get an assault weapon unless you are performing services to the public. That doesn't sound like off duty leo and certainly not retired.

But that's probably why I'm not on the sjc.
 
Great, now i gotta kiss LEO ass for my Glocks AND my ARs? oh well, pucker up baby!

My go-to tool if I ever find my self in that predicament. You go ahead and lick the teabag, I have a little more self-worth than grovelling to revenue generators...
The-Butt-Out-2-From-Hunters-Specialties.jpg

You really think you're going to fix this problem by waving snake flags and bitching in front of the State House?
Bingo!
 
Last edited:
BCM has already done this I believe. I think we will see others too.


Good. That's exactly what needs to happen.

The gun manufacturers - and distributors - are being stupid if they think they're going to "win" by just relying on government sales.

I'd be willing to bet that the civilian market for firearms is a lot bigger than the government market.
 
she doesnt want the stores to have a stockpile of assault weapons for the following reasons.

1. if the ban is found to be illegal and gets lifted even temporarily there will be a run on rifles in case she tries another ban.
2. if we dont see them in the store we will just forget they exist and stop asking to have them.
3. when they try to do an all out confiscation and the gun shops decide to just sell everything so the people can gear up for the next American Revolution.


STOP ASKING THIS BITCH QUESTIONS..... THE MORE YOU ASK THE MORE SHE IS SAYING NO TO EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT IN THE ACTUAL LAW.
 
Not angry one bit about this one. Eff the LEO exemptions.

Exactly. I feel there should be no special classes of citizens when it comes to this. If you have a job that requires access to restricted weaponry then pick it up at the start of your shift and turn it in at the end. When off duty or retired you should be treated the same as the average Joe.
 
Exactly. I feel there should be no special classes of citizens when it comes to this. If you have a job that requires access to restricted weaponry then pick it up at the start of your shift and turn it in at the end. When off duty or retired you should be treated the same as the average Joe.
Even though I am related to a couple of "beter animals", as the saying goes, I feel the same. And actually those relatives think the same. But they already have theirs.....
 
Back
Top Bottom