• 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.

PSA: iS It pRe HEaLY?

drgrant said:
LMAO nobody is looking at a 4473 without a trace request and even then, only with the ATFs blessing. Well, unless of course a dealer is stupid and signs a consent decree enema and just gives up the data (which the ATF frowns upon, btw).
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • 596D6C4A-467F-4499-A157-4AD7B9684BCE.png
    596D6C4A-467F-4499-A157-4AD7B9684BCE.png
    42.4 KB · Views: 53
drgrant said:
LMAO nobody is looking at a 4473 without a trace request and even then, only with the ATFs blessing. Well, unless of course a dealer is stupid and signs a consent decree enema and just gives up the data (which the ATF frowns upon, btw).
Click to expand...
A very recent example comes to mind. Local PD asks for some 4473s to support an investigation. "Sorry, I cannot do that. They are property of the US Government. Get a federal warrant (State court has no jurisdiction) or get the ATF to come by and ask". A couple days later ATF enforcement branch agent stops by for copies of some 4473s. Condition of the FFL is you must give the ATF what is theirs when requested. Done.

But no, local PD and local courts are not getting access to bound book or 4473s.
 
drgrant said:
LMAO nobody is looking at a 4473 without a trace request and even then, only with the ATFs blessing. Well, unless of course a dealer is stupid and signs a consent decree enema and just gives up the data (which the ATF frowns upon, btw).
Click to expand...
My point was the only people that would be looking for that information would be law enforcement and they are capable of getting access to them
 
MAGAArms said:
I'm sure Heller, McDonald, and Worman had similar concerns. If you don't stand up for something you will fall for everything. Cowardice is comforting though. Ironically the Molon Labe crowd is the last to want their name on case law. You'd think a case like that would be well funded by the "2A community" which is so far nothing but every person for their own from what I've seen.
Click to expand...
Actually, not. These folks did not commit a crime and then use their criminal trial as the vehicle to effect a change in public policy nor did they personally fund the legal action. They were civil rights cases, not civil disobedience followed by a criminal trial. I have not found people to be resistant to being on case law, especially when the action is funded and they are in no legal peril.

People who know the game think strategy, and that includes knowing which battles to fight when. We know what to expect from the MA courts and the first circuit, and bringing a Healy case can move a situation from "not illegal but the AG thinks it is" to "clearly illegal as established by case law". The deck is more stacked in the case of the Healiban if a case is brought by someone claiming denied rights vs. a criminal defendant who the state must prove violated the law. A direct challenge would be a gift the Healy.

If you doubt that, read the Draper v. Healy decision on the Glocks, or the decision that Bonded Warehouses are free to set any terms and fees they wish.

On the other hand, it was clear that the flawed reasoning in considering the Logan list (Vote, hold public office, serve on a jury) to be an exhaustive enumeration of all rights that are "civil" and the groundwork to a federal challenge against refusing to recognize FLRB relief is turning out to be pretty solid, so strategy dictates run with that.

There are other things we can win at the individual case level, but if we were to do so at a broader level, we could be 90+% certain the legislature would quickly negate any win with a new law.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
Actually, not. These folks did not commit a crime and then use their criminal trial as the vehicle to effect a change in public policy nor did they personally fund the legal action. They were civil rights cases, not civil disobedience followed by a criminal trial. I have not found people to be resistant to being on case law, especially when the action is funded and they are in no legal peril.

People who know the game think strategy, and that includes knowing which battles to fight when. We know what to expect from the MA courts and the first circuit, and bringing a Healy case can move a situation from "not illegal but the AG thinks it is" to "clearly illegal as established by case law". The deck is more stacked in the case of the Healiban if a case is brought by someone claiming denied rights vs. a criminal defendant who the state must prove violated the law. A direct challenge would be a gift the Healy.

If you doubt that, read the Draper v. Healy decision on the Glocks, or the decision that Bonded Warehouses are free to set any terms and fees they wish.

On the other hand, it was clear that the flawed reasoning in considering the Logan list (Vote, hold public office, serve on a jury) to be an exhaustive enumeration of all rights that are "civil" and the groundwork to a federal challenge against refusing to recognize FLRB relief is turning out to be pretty solid, so strategy dictates run with that.

There are other things we can win at the individual case level, but if we were to do so at a broader level, we could be 90+% certain the legislature would quickly negate any win with a new law.
Click to expand...
For now I think the firearm laws in MA have reached a kind of sick equilibrium. Most gun grabbers are happy that they have enough laws on the books to make life difficult for the gun enthusiasts and most of the true gun enthusiast have gotten very adept at working around and over the poorly written anti-gun laws. If you'er willing to put a little effort into it, with an LTC and a Green Card you can pretty much own anything you want in MA (except for a silencer). The Approved Firearms Roster is a joke that anyone with half a brain knows how to circumvent. The mag limits are a pain, but my SHTF goto guns (Beretta 92FS and pre 1994 Colt AR15) have grandfathered standard cap mags. The AWB can be dealt with in several ways from going with a pre 1994 gun, to a Mini-14. to an IWI Tavor, to building your own from an 80% lower.

With patience, ingenuity and help from some truly great FFLs, I’ve been able to obtain every gun I ever wanted. The thing about MA is the most onerous anti-gun laws are directed at FFLs, not individuals. The AWB and the standard cap mag ban are really the only two that directly impact what guns/mags you can own as a Commonwealth subject. And if you don’t know how to circumvent them you are not a true enthusiast.

In both cases (gun grabber and gun enthusiast) it seems better to leave things as they are rather than rock the boat and (for the gun grabbers) ending up with a SCOTUS decision that tears the whole thing down or (for the gun enthusiasts) ending up with even more restrictive laws that the MA Supreme Court will always support and cases that SCOTUS may or may not take..
 
cathouse01 said:
For now I think the firearm laws in MA have reached a kind of sick equilibrium. Most gun grabbers are happy that they have enough laws on the books to make life difficult for the gun enthusiasts and most of the true gun enthusiast have gotten very adept at working around and over the poorly written anti-gun laws. If you'er willing to put a little effort into it, with an LTC and a Green Card you can pretty much own anything you want in MA (except for a silencer). The Approved Firearms Roster is a joke that anyone with half a brain knows how to circumvent. The mag limits are a pain, but my SHTF goto guns (Beretta 92FS and pre 1994 Colt AR15) have grandfathered standard cap mags. The AWB can be dealt with in several ways from going with a pre 1994 gun, to a Mini-14. to an IWI Tavor, to building your own from an 80% lower.

With patience, ingenuity and help from some truly great FFLs, I’ve been able to obtain every gun I ever wanted. The thing about MA is the most onerous anti-gun laws are directed at FFLs, not individuals. The AWB and the standard cap mag ban are really the only two that directly impact what guns/mags you can own as a Commonwealth subject. And if you don’t know how to circumvent them you are not a true enthusiast.

In both cases (gun grabber and gun enthusiast) it seems better to leave things as they are rather than rock the boat and (for the gun grabbers) ending up with a SCOTUS decision that tears the whole thing down or (for the gun enthusiasts) ending up with even more restrictive laws that the MA Supreme Court will always support and cases that SCOTUS may or may not take..
Click to expand...
While I don’t “like” like this, it is a good 1000 ft view.
 
cathouse01 said:
For now I think the firearm laws in MA have reached a kind of sick equilibrium. Most gun grabbers are happy that they have enough laws on the books to make life difficult for the gun enthusiasts and most of the true gun enthusiast have gotten very adept at working around and over the poorly written anti-gun laws.
Click to expand...

I think you're overcomplicating it, I think the reality is that the people who really want stuff ( like many of us here) just drive around it because the prospect of anything changing is unrealistic.
Everyone else whines but they are silly pant shitters, whatever. Some of those people I'm surprised they even bothered to get an LTC.

And the bulk of the gun shops will do nothing because there is no incentive for them. Deli Ticket Emporium and a whole bunch of others will still get people to empty their
wallets regardless. Honestly I wouldnt expect most shops to REALLY step up unless there was something like a handgun ban or one gun a month proposed, etc, something that would
actually cut into bulk revenue.
 
drgrant said:
I think you're overcomplicating it, I think the reality is that the people who really want stuff ( like many of us here) just drive around it because the prospect of anything changing is unrealistic.
Everyone else whines but they are silly pant shitters, whatever. Some of those people I'm surprised they even bothered to get an LTC.

And the bulk of the gun shops will do nothing because there is no incentive for them. Deli Ticket Emporium and a whole bunch of others will still get people to empty their
wallets regardless. Honestly I wouldnt expect most shops to REALLY step up unless there was something like a handgun ban or one gun a month proposed, etc, something that would
actually cut into bulk revenue.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I disagree with you at all. My point was the gun enthusiast (including gun stores) don’t really “need” anything to change since they’re getting what they want and the stores (in normal times) are able to turn a profit. They don’t want to raise too much of a stink for fear of “waking the sleeping giant” and getting even more restrictive laws.

Everyone who just whines about the laws and then goes about acting like a Fudd and doesn’t take any steps to improve their own situation isn’t a true enthusiast in my book.

As far as the gun grabbers, it goes the other way. They know if they did something like a hand gun ban there would be no choice but for the gun stores and gun owners to rise up and try to get it before SCOTUS where, given its current members, that law and all their 2A infringements stand a pretty good chance of being overturned.
 
The sort of law that is widely ignored or treated with discretion can and sometimes is used to suppress dissident behavior.

Loot stores? No problem as long as those in power approve of your protest.

Walk though an open door as part of a protest without verifying that the door was not opened without authorization? No problem if you are occupying a building demanding the owner woke up. Do it to the capital and the outcome is a national dragnet for such misdemeanors as "unauthorized entry" and "disorderly conduct". When have you ever before heard of a national roundup of misdemeanons?

Having felonies on the books nearly anyone can be charged with give the state a powerful tool for suppressing dissident behavior.
 
Last edited:
Rob Boudrie said:
The sort of law that is widely ignored or treated with discretion can and sometimes is used to suppress dissident behavior.

Loot stores? No problem as long as those in power approve of your protest?

Walk though an open door as part of a protest without verifying that the door was not opened without authorization? No problem is you are occupying a building demanding the owner woke up. Do it to the capital and the outcome is a national dragnet for such misdemeanors as "unauthorized entry" and "disorderly conduct". When have you ever before heard of a national roundup of misdemeanons?

Having felonies on the books nearly anyone can be charged with give the state a powerful tool for suppressing dissident behavior.
Click to expand...
Tools for persecution.... There are many.
 
cathouse01 said:
I don’t think I disagree with you at all. My point was the gun enthusiast (including gun stores) don’t really “need” anything to change since they’re getting what they want and the stores (in normal times) are able to turn a profit. They don’t want to raise too much of a stink for fear of “waking the sleeping giant” and getting even more restrictive laws.

Everyone who just whines about the laws and then goes about acting like a Fudd and doesn’t take any steps to improve their own situation isn’t a true enthusiast in my book.

As far as the gun grabbers, it goes the other way. They know if they did something like a hand gun ban there would be no choice but for the gun stores and gun owners to rise up and try to get it before SCOTUS where, given its current members, that law and all their 2A infringements stand a pretty good chance of being overturned.
Click to expand...
What I think - if federal forces will indeed decide to disarm the population and confiscate all assault like looking weapons - it will not matter if it was pre1994, pinned or not, AR or tavor- as it will not be driven by any rational law, it will be a campaign supported by a heck lot of military enforcement. We are not quite there yet.
 
paul73 said:
What I think - if federal forces will indeed decide to disarm the population and confiscate all assault like looking weapons - it will not matter if it was pre1994, pinned or not, AR or tavor- as it will not be driven by any rational law, it will be a campaign supported by a heck lot of military enforcement. We are not quite there yet.
Click to expand...

Not happening, not enough resources for something of that magnitude, not without setting off a bunch of pissed off people part way through it.

The numbers alone make it a logistical nightmare for the government to execute nationally.

People need to stop jerking off over these "black government vans with a stack of guys in it" phantasms and focus on shit they can actually pass that's actually destructive in smaller ways.

The anti fags odds of winning on another full out "ban' are not very high. Not to mention its proven as politically expensive. On the other hand they can get retard voters to suck for stuff like ERPO or UBC. The odds of a political sell on UBC are much greater because its difficult to formulate arguments against it that fit within a small sound bite, something that would get AverageFag gun owners to pay attention to it. Ask 1000 gun owners if they think that "backround checks are good" and most of them will fag out and say yes. Hell we even have a bunch of those people right here on the forum. "eyme all foar backwound chewks if it stops a bawd peeple from gittin a gun!, says elmah fudd. "

Think more along the lines of "death by 1000 cuts" vs anything dramatic and sweeping. Dramatic and sweeping actually gives us an edge because it would mobilize and piss off millions of
people. Whereas stupid shit like UBC or ERPO will piss many of us off, but will be ignored by the bulk of the public because they have no clue how dangerous to liberty both things
are.
 

Similar threads

Why is it called a talo edition
2
Replies
37
Views
807
dcmdon
dcmdon
Is it sacrilegious to bubba an early model Winchester 12?
Replies
28
Views
591
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Admit it, which one of you is this?
Replies
4
Views
315
Drix
Drix
The First Amendment Is Getting In The Way Of Government Removing Posts It Doesn't Agree With
Replies
20
Views
397
Uzi2
U
Facebook is insane.
2
Replies
43
Views
944
HARRYM
H
Back
Top Bottom