NSSF filed vs AGO!

[JRLB]

There were a couple instances in this thread where people were saying she made up the "copies and duplicates" language. I believe SPT is just pointing out that the language is in the law. She didn't make that part up. She is just making up a new definition for it. She knows full well what the language meant. She is counting on the general public's ignorance of what it has meant for that past 18+yrs.

 

[esamjj]

if i modified a copy of my passport (change to photo) is it still a copy?

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[EJFudd]

Your observation is almost 100% correct but you are missing spt_1955's point.

Everyone needs to look at this objectively and realize Healey is not an idiot.

I can't post what I really think about Maura Healey or I'm sure I'd get banned (yes, even on NES!)... or, at a minimum, I'd be called a racist and a bigot and a dozen or more other creative leftist insults. We must always be polite and respectful toward Maura and her "protected class" status... yes?

The wording in the law and how the law has been interpreted and enforced to date are two different things.

Again, the precise legal meaning of "copies and duplicates", as it appears in the Federal AWB and the subsequent MA AWB, was defined and clarified 20+ years ago and has been universally understood ever since... right up until Maura decided to redefine it on 7/20/2016. It can't mean anything you want it to mean. The law doesn't work that way (or at least it isn't supposed to work that way).

The law briefly says:

(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates...

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--... (The evil features etc )

Section A doesn't actually say copies or duplicates "as defined in section B". Instead Section B is just a separate section defining an AW and it doesn't matter whether there is an "and" or "or" between these two sections in the law. This is the crux of Healey's argument.

It wasn't moi who said anything about the relationship (or lack thereof) between the enumerated firearms (plus copies and duplicates) and the separate evil features test.

 

[EJFudd]

There were a couple instances in this thread where people were saying she made up the "copies and duplicates" language. I believe SPT is just pointing out that the language is in the law. She didn't make that part up. She is just making up a new definition for it. She knows full well what the language meant. She is counting on the general public's ignorance of what it has meant for that past 18+yrs.

I prefer her new made-up legal term "copycat"... made up by her specifically to avoid direct comparison to the the longstanding legal definition of "copies and duplicates" in the Federal and MA AWBs.

 

[Maui5150]

But here is where the crux is as well. Definition of "duplicate"

exactly like something else, especially through having been copied.

Maura wants to change the definition to "similar" and then wants to make her definition be the action. I don't see action really defined in this piece, and the framers of the legislation given that they then enumerated features appear to be clarifying .

 

[Rob Boudrie]

It is interesting that Healy even claims that a non-gun (under MGL) is a prohibited copycat.

 

[szaino]

It is interesting that Healy even claims that a non-gun (under MGL) is a prohibited copycat.

Isn't it amazing how she backdoored the closing of that "loophole" also! She killed 2 birds with one stone !

 

[Glockster30]

Your observation is almost 100% correct but you are missing spt_1955's point.

Everyone needs to look at this objectively and realize Healey is not an idiot. The wording in the law and how the law has been interpreted and enforced to date are two different things.

The law briefly says:

(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates...

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--... (The evil features etc )

Section A doesn't actually say copies or duplicates "as defined in section B". Instead Section B is just a separate section defining an AW and it doesn't matter whether there is an "and" or "or" between these two sections in the law. This is the crux of Healey's argument.

I still fail to follow your logic. In her own Guidance of 7/20/16, she states:

"Under Section 121, the Features Test in the former 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) remains an independent basis for qualification as an Assault weapon.

If a weapon, as manufactured or originally assembled, is a Copy or Duplicate under one or both of the applicable tests, it remains a prohibited Assault weapon even if it is altered by the seller. Therefore, a Copy or Duplicate will be treated as an Assault weapon even if it is altered, for example, by pinning the folding or telescoping stock in a fixed position, by removing the pistol grip, by removing a bayonet mount or flash suppressor, or by preventing the weapon from accepting a detachable magazine."

The bold wording in the above paragraph is no where to be found in the original 1994 AWB that was subsequently adopted word for word into the MA AWB by the legislators. Therefore, is this or is this not a reinterpretation of the law by the AG?

 

[426wedge]

My 2 cents. A copy is exact. You would not want an important document to be copied that was not an exact duplicate. When you copy, you want an exact copy. Period. The rifles I have purchased in the past few years were not exact or perfect copies or duplicates, therefore they are not copy's or duplicates. Yes they are similar, but not exact. I rest my case your Honor.....

IANAL

 

[Mass-diver]

I still fail to follow your logic. In her own Guidance of 7/20/16, she states:

"Under Section 121, the Features Test in the former 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) remains an independent basis for qualification as an Assault weapon.

If a weapon, as manufactured or originally assembled, is a Copy or Duplicate under one or both of the applicable tests, it remains a prohibited Assault weapon even if it is altered by the seller. Therefore, a Copy or Duplicate will be treated as an Assault weapon even if it is altered, for example, by pinning the folding or telescoping stock in a fixed position, by removing the pistol grip, by removing a bayonet mount or flash suppressor, or by preventing the weapon from accepting a detachable magazine."

The bold wording in the above paragraph is no where to be found in the original 1994 AWB that was subsequently adopted word for word into the MA AWB by the legislators. Therefore, is this or is this not a reinterpretation of the law by the AG?

That's her made up guidance/interpretation, not MA law.

 

[Glockster30]

That's her made up guidance/interpretation, not MA law.

That's exactly what I am trying to get across to some other posters stating that the AG interpreted Section 121 correctly.

 

[Mass-diver]

That's exactly what I am trying to get across to some other posters stating that the AG interpreted Section 121 correctly.

Yup

 

[42!]

"If a weapon, as manufactured or originally assembled, is a Copy or Duplicate under one or both of the applicable tests, it remains a prohibited Assault weapon even if it is altered by the seller. Therefore, a Copy or Duplicate will be treated as an Assault weapon even if it is altered,"

Let me see if I understand this. If you are manufacturing a copy of an M16 and you change it so it is not a copy, it is still a copy. For example, you redesign the upper and lower so it is no longer a copy...but it is still a copy. How can any court look at this and not say WTF.

Actually, now that I think about it, she seems to be distinguishing between the manufacture and the seller. So this would only apply to guns that were copies when they left the manufacturer and were later modified to be compliant by the seller (dealer). Consequently, a gun that is manufactured as compliant, not a duplicate of a banned gun, is gtg.

I can see why no one will be charged on this, even a highly anti jury is going to be shaking their heads wondering what it means.

 

[1903Collector]

So if we all buy piston ARs problem solved

 

[Rob Boudrie]

So if we all buy piston ARs problem solved

Not unless there is a different lower design as those have been declared copycats.

 

[MAJoe]

"If a weapon, as manufactured or originally assembled, is a Copy or Duplicate under one or both of the applicable tests, it remains a prohibited Assault weapon even if it is altered by the seller. Therefore, a Copy or Duplicate will be treated as an Assault weapon even if it is altered,"

Let me see if I understand this. If you are manufacturing a copy of an M16 and you change it so it is not a copy, it is still a copy. For example, you redesign the upper and lower so it is no longer a copy...but it is still a copy. How can any court look at this and not say WTF.

Actually, now that I think about it, she seems to be distinguishing between the manufacture and the seller. So this would only apply to guns that were copies when they left the manufacturer and were later modified to be compliant by the seller (dealer). Consequently, a gun that is manufactured as compliant, not a duplicate of a banned gun, is gtg.

I can see why no one will be charged on this, even a highly anti jury is going to be shaking their heads wondering what it means.

Heh, who knows. It's gun. If it's black and looks scary then the anti mind is made up that it's evil. All that's needed are some twisted arguments that let someone feel okay in saying they should go away.

 

[BobR51]

Not unless there is a different lower design as those have been declared copycats.

Because it's interchangeable of by it's design?
I think the Sig piston Ar upper or lower is not interchangeable with other AR platform rifles with DI.

 

[MAJoe]

Because it's interchangeable of by it's design?
I think the Sig piston Ar upper or lower is not interchangeable with other AR platform rifles with DI. Different spacing between the pins and punting dimension.

Check her guidance. If the parts interchange (which includes the magazine) then it's a copy.

Also, if it truly doesn't fit her guidance, then I would remove any details on it. She'll amend the guidance to include it.

 

[firestorm]

Check her guidance. If the parts interchange (which includes the magazine) then it's a copy.

Also, if it truly doesn't fit her guidance, then I would remove any details on it. She'll amend the guidance to include it.

Doesn't matter anyway, some dealers are so scared they won't transfer an M1A. She has them on the run and not going anywhere near even legal stuff, much less grey areas.

 

[Individualist]

What has bothered me from the beginning is arguing her interpretation instead of arguing her claimed authority under MA Ch 93A Sec 2.

It seems to me that her authority under this portion of the law as it relates to firearms is very specific and restricted. From what I read it seems that it's intent and that of the underlying Fed 15 USC 45(1)(a) is to protect consumers against unethical methods of business. Nowhere does it say the AG can reclassify, create additional tests, reinterpret, or otherwise deny sales of certain commonly sold firearms and parts under this authority.

I would love to hear a legal opinion on this. In private is fine if doing so publicly is unwise.


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.

 

[Mass-diver]

Doesn't matter anyway, some dealers are so scared they won't transfer an M1A. She has them on the run and not going anywhere near even legal stuff, much less grey areas.

BCM won't ship a hat to MA

 

[rblank]

So without having to read 30 pages, what is the latest on the original lawsuit?

 

[MachineHead]

So without having to read 30 pages, what is the latest on the original lawsuit?

Here's the pdf of the AG's motion to dismiss.

.

 

[JJ4]

So without having to read 30 pages, what is the latest on the original lawsuit?

She claims that the "or" between the words "copies or duplicates" means that the two words MUST be interpreted differently so as to give meaning to every single word in the law. If the words were interpreted the same, then one of the words would be meaning less, so that cannot be allowed. Duplicates are exact replicas, but in her world a "copy" means "similar".

Therefore, I will be submiting a "copy" of my tax return to the IRS, a "copy" of my photo on my next passport application, and a "copy" of receipts to every rebate that I can find. I expect the AG to back me up if any of those are not similar enough. Also, a Mustang is a "copy" of a Corvette, and a donkey is a "copy" of a horse.

 

[M1911]

So without having to read 30 pages, what is the latest on the original lawsuit?

It will be a long time before this lawsuit is decided.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MAJoe]

She claims that the "or" between the words "copies or duplicates" means that the two words MUST be interpreted differently so as to give meaning to every single word in the law. If the words were interpreted the same, then one of the words would be meaning less, so that cannot be allowed. Duplicates are exact replicas, but in her world a "copy" means "similar".

Therefore, I will be submiting a "copy" of my tax return to the IRS, a "copy" of my photo on my next passport application, and a "copy" of receipts to every rebate that I can find. I expect the AG to back me up if any of those are not similar enough. Also, a Mustang is a "copy" of a Corvette, and a donkey is a "copy" of a horse.

Good idea. I think a 14.5" barrel is a copy of a 16" barrel (same chamber, profile, twist) and therefore shouldn't need anything special with the ATF. Thanks MA AG!

 

[rblank]

Thanks everyone for catching me up.

 

[Billsail]

Thanks everyone for catching me up.

They must be reading all 30 pages so they don't miss any details, before they post. You should have a summary shortly.

 

[Mach]

"If a weapon, as manufactured or originally assembled, is a Copy or Duplicate under one or both of the applicable tests, it remains a prohibited Assault weapon even if it is altered by the seller. Therefore, a Copy or Duplicate will be treated as an Assault weapon even if it is altered,"

Let me see if I understand this. If you are manufacturing a copy of an M16 and you change it so it is not a copy, it is still a copy. For example, you redesign the upper and lower so it is no longer a copy...but it is still a copy. How can any court look at this and not say WTF.

Actually, now that I think about it, she seems to be distinguishing between the manufacture and the seller. So this would only apply to guns that were copies when they left the manufacturer and were later modified to be compliant by the seller (dealer). Consequently, a gun that is manufactured as compliant, not a duplicate of a banned gun, is gtg.

I can see why no one will be charged on this, even a highly anti jury is going to be shaking their heads wondering what it means.

Exactly right.

Next year I am going to make a copy of my tax return and then change it to no income made and leave the amount of tax I paid. It is a legal copy and that way I will get back all my tax money.

It is genius.

 

[TheTrueQuaid]

Exactly right.

Next year I am going to make a copy of my tax return and then change it to no income made and leave the amount of tax I paid. It is a legal copy and that way I will get back all my tax money.

It is genius.