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).
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
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).
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.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).
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 themLMAO 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).
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.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.
This is the part so many don't think about.There are other things we can win at an individual case level, but is we were to do so at a broader level, could be 90+% certain the legislature would quickly negate any win with a new law.
Hate to tell you this, but this DID happen.Clarity already exists. “Shall have the same meaning as” federal law makes the whole thing a very very quick slam dunk in federal court should actual legal action (vs administrative action) be taken.
This is a fairly free forum, and you are under no obligation to do things here that you hate.Hate to tell you this, but this DID happen.
I was referring to the NSSF case.This is a fairly free forum, and you are under no obligation to do things here that you hate.
Details would be welcome.
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.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.
While I don’t “like” like this, it is a good 1000 ft view.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..
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.
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.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.
Tools for persecution.... There are many.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.
just f*** with em and tell them its a postie lmaoImagine that pesky 4th amendment that gets in the way and the fruit of the poisonous tree.
TPNES enjoys seeing this thread revived. Great reading material in between prostate exams. Time to glove up...
Smart folks don't run for public office...Crackpot for public office. AG? Governor?
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.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.
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.
Would this be legal ?Not true. If you believe the attorney-general's edict at all then you must also believe the fact that she has also declared 22LR Firearms is exempt from the edict. So basically you're admitting to the class that you're selectively choosing what parts of her garbage you want to believe LMAO
Dumb but no. Its not an assault weapon so it's legalWould this be legal ?
Grizzly Defense AK 47 .22 LR AK47 GDI-22CK Conversion Kit for Stamped Receiver AK Rifles
centerfiresystems.com