Glockster30
NES Member
It's not scheduled until this coming Saturday. Check with the OP as he mentioned that there wasn't a lot of room.
-
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***
Round Table with State Reps Re: AG Healey's Gun Control
- Thread starter jyanis
- Start date
It's not scheduled until this coming Saturday. Check with the OP as he mentioned that there wasn't a lot of room.
MachineHead
NES Member
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
I can't make it.
If I was going to be there I would say:
To be blunt and honest. FEATURES do not make a rifle any different then one without. There should be a repeal of the AWB, period !!!!!!!!!!!
They also need to tell the AG no go on her current BS effective NOW.
They will talk it up really good at the round table and nothing will come from it.
Just remind them that there are 400,000 plus gun owners in this state, and that number grows daily !!
Thanks to machinehead:
show them this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/26/gallup-support-ban-assault-weapons-hits-time-low/
If I was going to be there I would say:
To be blunt and honest. FEATURES do not make a rifle any different then one without. There should be a repeal of the AWB, period !!!!!!!!!!!
They also need to tell the AG no go on her current BS effective NOW.
They will talk it up really good at the round table and nothing will come from it.
Just remind them that there are 400,000 plus gun owners in this state, and that number grows daily !!
Thanks to machinehead:
show them this:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/26/gallup-support-ban-assault-weapons-hits-time-low/
Last edited:
inerlogic
NES Member
if we were an effective voting block, she'd be out of a job next election, so would DeLeo and those other a-holes...
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
it's exactly what it's about, added with the BS she pulled off in her 15mins of fame on TV. The state government has no right to tell gun owners what they can and can not buy ! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED !! The courts can side step and comment with the BS of with reasonable restrictions BS. In the end they a all danger to freedom and liberty. For the love of god, please don't go in there saying Healey hurts families.
Last edited:
*******
This is an orchestrated agenda from the DNC. This is part of their new tactics to use Dem State AG's to attack companies that go against their political agenda. Guns and climate change are at the top of the list. They're frustrated with the lack of oppressive gun control legislation passed under Barry and we know that climate change is number one on their list. With Obamacare tanking like we predicted they need to deflect criticism from it and go after other targets.
You are dreaming if you think there are 400,000 gun owners in MA for whom gun laws are a primary voting issue.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
But we don't have half. GOAL membership is what? 20,000? Many of those 200,000 gun owners still think their "lifetime" FIDs are still valid.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sir, I respectfully disagree.
We should not bring the idiocity of the AWB into this conversation. We have very little time with these gentlemen and they want to talk specifically about the AG's reinterpretation. We must stay on that specific subject.
Steve
Not until it hits everyone where it hurts unfortunately.
But , there are enough right now to get noticed.
If that wasn't the case you'd be looking at the spot where your safe used to sit with fond memories of when you used to own guns.
Long term , this may set them back further than it helps them.
She went full retard. Never go full retard.
After this shit show she may be, we'll see.
I'm betting she doesn't know when to quit and keeps pissing off more outfits like Exxon.
Wonder what their campaign contribution will be to whoever runs against her in 2018 ?
You would have thought Martha would have won hands down in this libitard state too.
How's that working for her?
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
You are basing it on GOAL membership..LOL. Many of the 200,000 are lifetime FID's? prove it.
Last edited:
namedpipes
NES Member
I personally know one. Cannot convince him. He'll pass on and his wife will throw or give them away, unless he has a survivable event and the EMTs see something and say something. Then he'll not have to worry about retirement costs anymore.
Acujeff
NES Member
GOAL Director Responds to MA Lawyers Weekly Supporting Healey
http://blog.goal.org/goal-director-responds-ma-lawyers-weekly-supporting-healey/
GOAL Director Keith Langer is an attorney and a subscribing member of Mass Lawyers Weekly. He was dismayed recently to read an op-ed in their members only news, which supports the actions of Attorney General Healey.
Attorney Langer wrote the rebuttal below, which will be published by Mass Lawyers Weekly.
Great work Keith!
KEITH G. LANGER
Attorney at Law
Admitted in Massachusetts and Rhode Island
255 Harvard Lane, Wrentham, MA 02093-1069
Phone: (508) 384-8692 Fax: (508) 384-3547
[email protected]
October 23, 2016
Lawyers Weekly
Attention: Editor
10 Milk Street, Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02108
Dear Editors:
In the October 20th issue of MLW, the editorial board declared, “AG on right side of ‘copycat’ gun issue.” I beg to differ.
Specifically, I believe the AG’s precipitate and unilateral action flouts over two decades of settled law, with little substantive basis for that action. It logically follows that the MLW editorial board’s endorsement of that fiat is disappointing.
Let us review the facts:
1. The criteria determining what is an “assault weapon” was set forth in Federal law in 1994. It remained law for a decade; from Maine to American Samoa. Everywhere, its identification of those guns specifically (if speciously) identified as “assault weapons” was understood, as were the detailed criteria and features by which other guns would be so deemed. The statutory criteria were duly applied, and the gun makers complied with them, removing those features.
2. In 1998, Chapter 180 adopted the Federal definition and criteria verbatim, incorporating it into Massachusetts law. All firearms meeting the Federal criteria, therefore, necessarily met the new, identical, Massachusetts criteria. The criteria are set forth in M.G.L. c. 140, §121.
That act further established a separate license, the License To Carry Firearms (LTC), which was required to possess any “large capacity” gun, including long arms. So-called “assault weapons” were, inherently by definition, “large capacity,” meaning the legislature created a new firearms license which was required to own these guns.
Therefore, the Massachusetts legislature clearly knew what an “assault weapon” was, as it defined both the guns and “large capacity feeding devices” which are the fundamental basis for that definition. Expressly addressing those issues, the legislature specifically provided for the legal ownership of “large capacity” guns and mags, both “preban” and “postban,” including those guns defined it defined as “assault weapons.”
In short, the legislature statutorily authorized the possession and transfer of the very class of firearms AG Healey has unilaterally declared “illegal.” Yet the MLW Editorial Board endorses her action.
3. In 2005, Chapter 150 again addressed firearms ownership and licensing. It re-enacted the exact same definition of “assault weapon” verbatim, and again kept the requirement of a specific license, the LTC, to possess any “large capacity” firearm.
4. In 2014, after exhaustive “listening tours” and protracted negotiations between the house and senate, Chapter 284 was enacted. Yet again, no change was made to the well-settled, twice-enacted definition of “assault weapon,” or the criteria by which a gun would be so defined. Yet again, the LTC was kept as a requirement for owning any “large capacity firearm.”
AG Healey’s directive flouts all of the above statutes; she ignores the clear intent, express language, and documented legislative history of one Federal statute and two state statutes specifically defining “assault weapon.” She does so with no consultation with, still less prior notice to, those directly affected; gun owners and dealers.
Such notice as was given was, initially, in a letter to the Globe, with mere hours before her reversal of two decades of settled law took place. It resulted in those guns lawfully acquired and possessed unilaterally being declared unlawful, exposing the owners to criminal sanctions. Yet the MLW Editorial Board endorses that act.
Note that all three (3) of AG Healey’s immediate predecessors never interpreted the “assault weapon” statute, M.G.L. c. 140, §121, as she does. That includes Editorial Board member Harshbarger. Are we really to believe three (3) consecutive Attorneys General failed to comprehend the law?
AG Healey’s dictat goes directly against the well-settled, clearly defined, and thrice-enacted law. The MLW editorial board’s endorsement of that act is ill-considered.
http://blog.goal.org/goal-director-responds-ma-lawyers-weekly-supporting-healey/
GOAL Director Keith Langer is an attorney and a subscribing member of Mass Lawyers Weekly. He was dismayed recently to read an op-ed in their members only news, which supports the actions of Attorney General Healey.
Attorney Langer wrote the rebuttal below, which will be published by Mass Lawyers Weekly.
Great work Keith!
KEITH G. LANGER
Attorney at Law
Admitted in Massachusetts and Rhode Island
255 Harvard Lane, Wrentham, MA 02093-1069
Phone: (508) 384-8692 Fax: (508) 384-3547
[email protected]
October 23, 2016
Lawyers Weekly
Attention: Editor
10 Milk Street, Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02108
Dear Editors:
In the October 20th issue of MLW, the editorial board declared, “AG on right side of ‘copycat’ gun issue.” I beg to differ.
Specifically, I believe the AG’s precipitate and unilateral action flouts over two decades of settled law, with little substantive basis for that action. It logically follows that the MLW editorial board’s endorsement of that fiat is disappointing.
Let us review the facts:
1. The criteria determining what is an “assault weapon” was set forth in Federal law in 1994. It remained law for a decade; from Maine to American Samoa. Everywhere, its identification of those guns specifically (if speciously) identified as “assault weapons” was understood, as were the detailed criteria and features by which other guns would be so deemed. The statutory criteria were duly applied, and the gun makers complied with them, removing those features.
2. In 1998, Chapter 180 adopted the Federal definition and criteria verbatim, incorporating it into Massachusetts law. All firearms meeting the Federal criteria, therefore, necessarily met the new, identical, Massachusetts criteria. The criteria are set forth in M.G.L. c. 140, §121.
That act further established a separate license, the License To Carry Firearms (LTC), which was required to possess any “large capacity” gun, including long arms. So-called “assault weapons” were, inherently by definition, “large capacity,” meaning the legislature created a new firearms license which was required to own these guns.
Therefore, the Massachusetts legislature clearly knew what an “assault weapon” was, as it defined both the guns and “large capacity feeding devices” which are the fundamental basis for that definition. Expressly addressing those issues, the legislature specifically provided for the legal ownership of “large capacity” guns and mags, both “preban” and “postban,” including those guns defined it defined as “assault weapons.”
In short, the legislature statutorily authorized the possession and transfer of the very class of firearms AG Healey has unilaterally declared “illegal.” Yet the MLW Editorial Board endorses her action.
3. In 2005, Chapter 150 again addressed firearms ownership and licensing. It re-enacted the exact same definition of “assault weapon” verbatim, and again kept the requirement of a specific license, the LTC, to possess any “large capacity” firearm.
4. In 2014, after exhaustive “listening tours” and protracted negotiations between the house and senate, Chapter 284 was enacted. Yet again, no change was made to the well-settled, twice-enacted definition of “assault weapon,” or the criteria by which a gun would be so defined. Yet again, the LTC was kept as a requirement for owning any “large capacity firearm.”
AG Healey’s directive flouts all of the above statutes; she ignores the clear intent, express language, and documented legislative history of one Federal statute and two state statutes specifically defining “assault weapon.” She does so with no consultation with, still less prior notice to, those directly affected; gun owners and dealers.
Such notice as was given was, initially, in a letter to the Globe, with mere hours before her reversal of two decades of settled law took place. It resulted in those guns lawfully acquired and possessed unilaterally being declared unlawful, exposing the owners to criminal sanctions. Yet the MLW Editorial Board endorses that act.
Note that all three (3) of AG Healey’s immediate predecessors never interpreted the “assault weapon” statute, M.G.L. c. 140, §121, as she does. That includes Editorial Board member Harshbarger. Are we really to believe three (3) consecutive Attorneys General failed to comprehend the law?
AG Healey’s dictat goes directly against the well-settled, clearly defined, and thrice-enacted law. The MLW editorial board’s endorsement of that act is ill-considered.
It takes a lawyer to slap down another lawyers unlawful directive. Quite surprising that Lawyers Weekly supports Healey's unlawful directive but reinforces our belief that repressive liberals don't believe they have to follow laws they don't agree with. Barry has changed the playing field and if Hillary is elected we'll see more of the same.
Horrible
NES Member
This. Outstanding, factual, logical response/dissent.
FTR, it doesn't surprise me that lawyers are ok with an AG making up laws as they go. I am sure that they would love nothing more than to play Tyrant if they find themselves in that role someday. Not to mention all of the $ that lawyers stand to make thanks to Queen Maura's decree.
******
When Ma. lawyers agree w/an unlawful edict from the AG you know it's time to get out of Dodge. We have a bullseye on our backs and they're zeroing in.
lowbuckbob
NES Member
They agree only because it fits their liberal agenda. If this had been some conservative or republican backed edict, they'd be all over it.
Glockster30
NES Member
Scott Harshbarger is on the Editorial Board for the Mass Lawyers Weekly, so it's not surprising that it supports the AG.
http://www.casneredwards.com/attorneys/scott-harshbarger/memberships-and-community
http://www.casneredwards.com/attorneys/scott-harshbarger/memberships-and-community
*****
Of course, the liberal double standard. Since we live in a corrupt one party State they rule and there's nothing we can do about it.
