Round Table with State Reps Re: AG Healey's Gun Control

[jyanis]

Morning all!

Last night I secured a date and location for a Round Table Discussion with State Representatives Joe McKenna and Kevin Kuros (Southern Worcester County area). It will be in regards to Attorney General Maura Healey's reinterpretation that we are all enraged about, and will be at the Blackstone Valley Beagle Club in Douglas, on Saturday, October 29, at 9:30AM.

I will be filming it for my YouTube Channel for those who can't be there as well. (Our clubhouse is not very large)

With all that is happening here since Healey's reinterpretation, I was hoping that I could ask fellow members here for some well thought out questions they would like addressed by our State Reps. (These gentlemen are on our side and have been at our GOAL rallies and fund raisers).

I thank you in advance!!! I don't get to check this board as often as I like, so if you need an immediate response, please feel free to email me at [email protected].

THANK YOU!
-Jared

 

[Drix]

Oh man, soo many questions, so little attention span.

1. How is a "fluid interpretation" of law, (as quoted by the AGO) by a single individual different than having an elected ruler who creates law unilaterally?

2. How has the new interpretation of the AWB been reviewed by the officials who we have elected to debate and enact our laws?

3. The AGO came out on Friday and stated that she is doing what gun activists want and enforcing laws o the books- how do you feel that the first law the AG's office has decided to enforce effects up to 500,000 law prior law abiding citizens in the state of Massachusetts as opposed to going after career criminals, straw purchasers, and other dangerous felons? As an example, the guy who gave tsarniev the gun that killed Sean Collier only got a 3 year scentance (maybe 6) for his support in a trial that opened with "he's guilty but..." And the gentleman who shot up the (Forest hills) t-station and should by law have had a (30?) year minimum scentance walked away with less than 10.

4. The AGO has stated she makes no laws with her awb interpretation and yet her guidance has information that is strictly contrary to MA firearms law, how do you reconsile this?

5. Cetano(? Right name) v Healey- This was an embarrassment and yet at the same time nothing has changed. Have you read the Supreme courts decision and looked at ways that state law might be amended as to not interfere with civil rights?

6. Given the US Supreme court decision against Healey regarding the second amendment and its applicability It is clear the AGO has no idea about firearms other than what is fed to her by media as evidenced by the AWB interpretation: Comical mistakes include the .22 cal exemption and the I distance that a sling adapter is a bayonet lug. Do you think there should be a firearms enthusiast within the AGO office to give the office credibility?

6. Why do we have an executive office of public safety that evaluates firearms for safety when the AGO can squash anything they want by the CMR? This seems like a big waste of tax dollars. A gun that meets the approved handgun roster in MA may not in fact be legal for transfer, which makes little sense.

 

[JayMcB]

Bring an unpinned adjustable stock and hand it to them.

Ask them how it makes a rifle an assault rifle on .223, but is fine on .22, which per Fuhrer Healey cannot be an assault rifle.

Ask them if all of the expert testimony provided by Chief Wiggins (sp?) in criminal cases now needs to have every case re-tried, since he isn't even enough of an expert to know what an assault rifle is - in the book that has been used as a cornerstone in firearms law in MA for 20+ years

 

[amm5061]

Bring an unpinned adjustable stock and hand it to them.

Ask them how it makes a rifle an assault rifle on .223, but is fine on .22, which per Fuhrer Healey cannot be an assault rifle.

Ask them if all of the expert testimony provided by Chief Wiggins (sp?) in criminal cases now needs to have every case re-tried, since he isn't even enough of an expert to know what an assault rifle is - in the book that has been used as a cornerstone in firearms law in MA for 20+ years

Pretty sure you still can't have that stock on a .22 rimfire per the actual law, regardless of what her stupidass FAQ says.

 

[MisterHappy]

Does not the tacit / overt approval of all the "unlawful" transfers of Mass-compliant rifles via FA-10 prove that they are, in fact, in compliance with the law?

 

[Drix]

Pretty sure you still can't have that stock on a .22 rimfire per the actual law, regardless of what her stupidass FAQ says.

The only mention of caliber in the original awb states "all calibers" so you are correct which ties into the question about making new laws. The guidance follows the same rules a NES- be very leery of taking legal advice from the internet.

 

[garandman]

I can make 3D printed parts if that will help. I've made half scale Lowers before.

 

[Coyote33]

OK, there was a law saying you can have a,b,c; but not x,y,z. So manufacturers had to change their product so it only had a,b,c and not x,y,z. Things worked that way for 20 years. All of a sudden, the product with a,b,c and not with x,y,z is NOT legal because why again? They SPECIFICALLY changed their product to comply with the law, yet they claim the law did not change. What happened?

Did I get this right?

 

[Whutmeworry]

Oh man, soo many questions, so little attention span.

1. How is a "fluid interpretation" of law, (as quoted by the AGO) by a single individual different than having an elected ruler who creates law unilaterally?

2. How has the new interpretation of the AWB been reviewed by the officials who we have elected to debate and enact our laws?

3. The AGO came out on Friday and stated that she is doing what gun activists want and enforcing laws o the books- how do you feel that the first law the AG's office has decided to enforce effects up to 500,000 law prior law abiding citizens in the state of Massachusetts as opposed to going after career criminals, straw purchasers, and other dangerous felons? As an example, the guy who gave tsarniev the gun that killed Sean Collier only got a 3 year scentance (maybe 6) for his support in a trial that opened with "he's guilty but..." And the gentleman who shot up the (Forest hills) t-station and should by law have had a (30?) year minimum scentance walked away with less than 10.

4. The AGO has stated she makes no laws with her awb interpretation and yet her guidance has information that is strictly contrary to MA firearms law, how do you reconsile this?

5. Cetano(? Right name) v Healey- This was an embarrassment and yet at the same time nothing has changed. Have you read the Supreme courts decision and looked at ways that state law might be amended as to not interfere with civil rights?

6. Given the US Supreme court decision against Healey regarding the second amendment and its applicability It is clear the AGO has no idea about firearms other than what is fed to her by media as evidenced by the AWB interpretation: Comical mistakes include the .22 cal exemption and the I distance that a sling adapter is a bayonet lug. Do you think there should be a firearms enthusiast within the AGO office to give the office credibility?

6. Why do we have an executive office of public safety that evaluates firearms for safety when the AGO can squash anything they want by the CMR? This seems like a big waste of tax dollars. A gun that meets the approved handgun roster in MA may not in fact be legal for transfer, which makes little sense.

7. (or 8?) Why is our current MA AG not calling for action against, or at least repudiating the last four attorneys general who - according to her - were obviously MISinterpreting the law for the last 20 years???

 

[gerrycaruso]

Why do we have a state approved firearms roster yet we can't buy what's on the list because the AG says so.

 

[PaulGee]

I'd like someone to ask Healy how firearms now according to her considered illegal to buy or own, able to have been sold openly and in large numbers in Massachusetts gun shops and online through FFL's for years, and not a word from authorities. Especially after the required paperwork was properly filled out, sent through proper channels, and a thorough background check performed and passed, and again, not a peep from authorities. In this scenario, wouldn't you consider no law has been broken? Now, with the stroke of a pen, many thousands of buyers who bought these firearms in good faith, and with no intention to break the law, are now liable for prosecution if you so choose. How do you reconcile this action after 18 years of silence?

 

[Mountain]

Bring an unpinned adjustable stock and hand it to them.

Ask them how it makes a rifle an assault rifle on .223, but is fine on .22, ...

No, don't do that.

A certain firearms school and gun shop tried a similar approach and it did not work out so well for us. Good intentions, poorly planned.

 

[rivet_42]

7. (or 8?) Why is our current MA AG not calling for action against, or at least repudiating the last four attorneys general who - according to her - were obviously MISinterpreting the law for the last 20 years???

9. "The will of the people" was pretty clearly expressed with the changes to gun laws that were passed during the 2014 legislative session and which took effect on 1/1/2015. That is what the legislative process is for. Why has the AG chosen to circumvent the legislative process, which is intended to embody "the will of the people", deeming it inadequate, in her reinterpretation of law?

(Was a potential expansion of the AWB discussed in 2014? I don't recall.)

 

[hbar26]

Why not invite her, if she shows, which I doubt, you can ask her. If she doesn't show, makes her look like a D**che.

 

[mac1911]

1. Will a bill be put forward giving the power of the people to recall or remove elected officials that do not do their job or abuse their powers.
2. What are our elected officials going to do about the over reach of power.
3. Why can't Healy be arrested for something! I'm sure there has to be a law she has broken after all everything in MA is illegal!

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

OK, there was a law saying you can have a,b,c; but not x,y,z. So manufacturers had to change their product so it only had a,b,c and not x,y,z. Things worked that way for 20 years. All of a sudden, the product with a,b,c and not with x,y,z is NOT legal because why again? They SPECIFICALLY changed their product to comply with the law, yet they claim the law did not change. What happened?

Did I get this right?

Yes.

In MGL chapter 140 section 121 the text of law clearly reads " 'Assault weapon'', shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30)..."

The key words there are "same meaning". We have literally a decade of case law where the meaning of "Assault weapon" as defined in 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) was hashed out in the federal courts. The meaning was determined to be what it was prior to Healey's reinterpretation of the law. Given that this was decided law prior to the 1998 adoption of the federal law into Massachusetts law, I find it hard to believe that the phrase "same meaning as" ever meant anything different in Massachusetts than it did on July 19th.

Furthermore, MGL chapter 140 section 121 states "...the term assault weapon shall not include:...(ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action;...". Healey has unilaterally decided that said clause shall not apply if the manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action happens to share so much as a magazine with one of the enumerated prohibited models.

Nowhere in MGL or USC is there this magical "similarity test" or "interchangeability test". When you start constructing tests out of thin air, you are no longer interpreting the law, you are writing it.

The state legislature went through an exhaustive process back in 2014 to overhaul the gun laws in Massachusetts. They had a wishlist of many, many things, but modifying the existing assault weapon ban wasn't one of them.

Since 1998 when the language of U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) was adopted into MGL, there have been three Attorney General's sitting where Healey is now. Not one of them decided that MGL chapter 140 section 121 meant anything different than it did under federal law from 1994 to 2004. Now all on her own Healey decides that 22 years of case law and interpretation was wrong and she is right. She alone understands what the intent of the legislators was and everyone from the manufacturers to the courts has had it wrong. If that isn't the definition of arrogance, I am not sure what is.

 

[calsdad]

I've got a very simple question that she had better have an answer for - and it applies to much more than just guns.

What is the point of me following the law - when the law can just be changed on a whim, and I can be named a felon retroactively for following said law?

Invite me and I'll ask her that right to her face.

 

[thousm]

Joe McKenna is a great Rep and a gun owner himself. One of the most solid 2A Reps in the state. I took him to the range twice. He is a great shot. His girlfriend did well also.

~[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOsUnQYL9cM[/VIDEO

 

[Salyeica]

Are you concerned that if her actions aren't challenged, that it will set a precedent for a future AG to reinterpret the definition of "marriage" or "fetus" on a whim and along political battle lines?

 

[Scott7980]

Any ban on any weapon is wrong! Get ride of all bans not just what happened on 7/20

 

[ColdDeadHands]

Just make sure not to inundate these people who are on our side with questions they can do nothing about. Be realistic.

 

[JackOfAllTrades]

I've got a very simple question that she had better have an answer for - and it applies to much more than just guns.

What is the point of me following the law - when the law can just be changed on a whim, and I can be named a felon retroactively for following said law?

Invite me and I'll ask her that right to her face.

This. So many times, this.

If we are to believe in the rule of law, one of the requirements is that the law is certain. If the meaning of the law can be redefined by a single individual without debate, due process, or representation, then this isn't "rule of law" but is instead "rule by law".

If the very meaning of the law can be modified by a single person, without checks or balances, or any recourse of the people or their representatives, this is no longer a representative government.

There is entirely too much power concentrated in the hands of too few people in this state.

 

[DPR]

Healey has made it clear that she does not want certain firearms in the hands of civilians and she has put in place a means to remove them from civilians. Since her enforcement action, a rifle that I own is now considered an assault weapon and at any time I can be arrested for possessing an assault weapon, have my LTC revoked, have my firearms confiscated and be sent to jail...effectively revoking my 2nd Amendment rights. Her action is a precursor to a gun grab and revocation of my 2nd amendment rights. How can legislators allow her actions to stand? How can they let my Constitutionally protected rights be taken so easily? I don't need my possession "grandfathered"...we all need her action reversed.

 

[Billsail]

This decades old law was thoughtfully assembled, clearly worded, simple to follow, and CUT IN STONE! It was NOT a poorly written piece of legislation, that was vague, and subject to interpretation!

Even if it was a gross infringement, of civil rights, and stupid on its face, its meaning and intent was never in question. Until 07/20/2016.

 

[Dadstoys]

The obvious, what do we do now?
We need our elected officials to act.
This " It will be settled in court." is horse shit.
Even if they can't get this reversed, then lets stop her from doing more damage in the future.

If they let this slide, then there may be things done down the line they can't even imagine that may not even have anything to do with firearms.
There was a lot of people that signed that letter on both sides of the aisle that seemed to recognize that.

No matter what she claims , she created laws that never existed before, anywhere.

Finally how much of the taxpayer's money does she have free reign to piss away on this ?
A full account of every nickel needs to be made , and they damn well do have the authority to do that.

 

[Coyote33]

When does the new session start, or has it already. They should put together emergency legislation to roll back the AG's power and the AWB entirely (to remain consistent with other states) at the same time.

 

[iofneedle]

I spoke to Rep Dykema in July and she assured me that the AG would respond to the the legislator's questions. Not only will she never answer but she is ignoring FOIA.

I would ask "does Healey answer to anyone"?

 

[Lank]

I can make 3D printed parts if that will help. I've made half scale Lowers before.

winna winna chickie dinna

- - - Updated - - -

Hows this- I am a felon- what now do I have to lose, Maura?

 

[Whutmeworry]

Why not invite her, if she shows, which I doubt, you can ask her. If she doesn't show, makes her look like a D**che.

She already looks like a D**che.

 

[Junior314]

Very simple question.

What are they planning to do about the overreach of her power? Centering any of this around guns won't work. How do these guys and their fellow legislators appreciate having their balls clipped by an AG who thinks there's a crown on her head.