Pre Healey

Buying a new AR15 lower and building it up as a 5.56 AR.

Regarding the LAW, it IS the law to eFA10 an AR15 lower after it is capable of firing a shot.

Do you suggest suggest we do this?

If so, and the AG calls me up to ask about who sold that lower (a letter to my attorney of course, as I don't speak to law enforcement) - what am I suppose to do?

If I my attorney compels me to answer - I'd be a rat to give up my source.

I am no rat.

"It's the on the dealer." they say on NES.

Who is going to pay the $10,000+ attorney fees while I fight this in court in an effort to protect my dealer.

Pullman Arms(?) spent a fortune defending a fixed mag AR in an effort to defend one of HIS customers who got jammed up with a fixed mag AR (If I recall).

The AG would me much more inclined to attack a person who build up an actual new AR instead of a crippled gun.

I would be glad to donate $200 to a legitimate defense (Comm2a) for anyone who gets charged under Healey for a new AR lower being built up.

If some patriot wants to get Comm2a on retainer and flaunt this bogus Healey law - I'd like to contribute.

United we stand, divided we fall.
 
What Fixxah said... people are buying into healys edict bullshit emotionally just because some gun shops are doing so. This has caused a trickle down effect of mindless obedience to law which doesn't exist.
Does Healey's AG office have the statutory legal authority to prosecute and/or shut down a MA FFL who refuses to kowtow to her edicts?
 
I've peed in a bathroom. I've peed in an outhouse. I've peed in teh woods. I've peed in the ocean. I've never peed in my dark blue suit.


As far as the rest - Reptile did a good job. Legal? No. Do I wanna get a slamma-jamma from Maura??? Nope. Best to just advertise as pre-Healey and let the minions move on to the next FS ad as they plan a prosecution.
 
Does Healey's AG office have the statutory legal authority to prosecute and/or shut down a MA FFL who refuses to kowtow to her edicts?
Unsure if they have the legal authority to prosecute a Mass business, but they would have to CITE a MGL and I don't think a memo and video of a press conference should suffice.

The AGO can certainly exert pressure on EOPS/FRB to revoke the MA Dealer's License however.
 
Pullman Arms(?) spent a fortune defending a fixed mag AR in an effort to defend one of HIS customers who got jammed up with a fixed mag AR (If I recall).

That was a bogus charge based on the original, REAL AWB.... (guy was charged on original AWB violation for AR pistol over 50 oz) the only part the edict came in was the
defense actually used the edict as a chunk of evidence that the dude's gun wasn't illegal, because the AG said so via the edict.... [rofl]

I would be glad to donate $200 to a legitimate defense (Comm2a) for anyone who gets charged under Healey for a new AR lower being built up.

If some patriot wants to get Comm2a on retainer and flaunt this bogus Healey law - I'd like to contribute.

Not necessary, considering there were over 2000 people that already did (probably double or triple that now, nobody really knows) and nothing happened. This happened in the window when the edict was issued and the days afterwards. AGs office was pissed (and they whined at dealers about this, but even then, nothing happened, outside of another warning letter). People are FA-10ing new builds, and nothing has happened. (of course from an FA-10, there's no way for even the AGs office to determine whether or not something is compliant with her bullshit, so that's probably a huge part of it.

The only reason her edict has teeth at all is because dealers in this state are especially vulnerable due to the redundant layers of state licensing, etc, and the risks to their business are elevated, because there's more than one way the AG or EOPS can cause problems for these businesses that don't necessarily involve court. And even a bogus threatening letter in the mail costs a dealer time, money with attorney, etc. It's just stuff they don't want to deal with because it interferes with their ability to run a business. I don't blame them, contrary to popular belief they're in business to make money first, not pet gun rights or advance the cause.

-Mike
 
Back
Top Bottom