SD.2637: Legislation To Remove AG Authority On Firearms Sales

[beach]

Deb wassermanachuktz gad to resign she violated Bernie support civil rights, Healy violated our civil rights. The 2nd amendment is much older than the settled law of climate change, gay marriage and transgender bathrooms. As Jim Wallace said at the rally if it can happen to me it can happen to thee. This is a powerful argument.

 

[ruebarb]

It's a good bill worthy of support, but how would it kill the latest assault weapon bullshit? I'm not seeing it.

AG made an independent determination of the copycat clause and declared we are fellons, if her decre is revoked and she has no power over developing further guidelines around the law, then we atleast only have to deal with legislation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[jasons]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Read the last sentence of the bill:
"Further, that any such rule or regulations having previously being promulgated are hereby repealed."

131M is the actual law in the MGL that makes "assault weapons" illegal. It was not promulgated by the AG, nor is it a rule or a regulation, so I fail to see how this bill would repeal it.

AG made an independent determination of the copycat clause and declared we are fellons, if her decre is revoked and she has no power over developing further guidelines around the law, then we atleast only have to deal with legislation.

The problem is that the AG's interpretation is out of the bag as it were. Nothing stopping an DA from seeking charges based on her interpretation. The only way real way to fix this now is to address 131M, which is something that this bill, while good, falls short on.

 

[ruebarb]

131M is the actual law in the MGL that makes "assault weapons" illegal. It was not promulgated by the AG, nor is it a rule or a regulation, so I fail to see how this bill would repeal it.

My AWB compliant AR 15 is NOT an Assault Weapon.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[jasons]

My AWB compliant AR 15 is NOT an Assault Weapon.

I don't think so either, but I'm not a DA.

 

[jasons]

Guys, the bill is right here to read for yourself: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/SD2637

While it does address the AGO's ability to regulate (which is a good thing in and of itself) it does not in any way address 131M or anything else in the actual MGL for that mater.

SECTION 1. Section 2 of Chapter 93A of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting, in line 11, after the word "chapter" the following words: provided that such rules and regulations shall not govern, limit, or otherwise relate to weapons as defined in Section 121 of Chapter 140, the manufacture of weapons or the sale of weapons. Further, that any such rule or regulations having previously being promulgated are hereby repealed.

In other words it would turn this:

Section 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

(b) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing paragraph (a) of this section in actions brought under sections four, nine and eleven, the courts will be guided by the interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts to section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended.

(c) The attorney general may make rules and regulations interpreting the provisions of subsection 2(a) of this chapter. Such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts interpreting the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1) (The Federal Trade Commission Act), as from time to time amended.

Into this:

Section 2. (a) Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.

(b) It is the intent of the legislature that in construing paragraph (a) of this section in actions brought under sections four, nine and eleven, the courts will be guided by the interpretations given by the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts to section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)), as from time to time amended.

(c) The attorney general may make rules and regulations interpreting the provisions of subsection 2(a) of this chapter provided that such rules and regulations shall not govern, limit, or otherwise relate to weapons as defined in Section 121 of Chapter 140, the manufacture of weapons or the sale of weapons. Further, that any such rule or regulations having previously being promulgated are hereby repealed. Such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with the rules, regulations and decisions of the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Courts interpreting the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1) (The Federal Trade Commission Act), as from time to time amended.

And on a side note, the AG's guidance isn't even a regulation. It's not a CMR, just "guidance." I'm not sure this bill would even address it anyway.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

If 100% of the efforts going forward aren't going into repealing the AWB entirely, then it is a frivolous waste of time, money and energy and at the end of the day, you'll still have the ban.

You'll still have a group of people dictating to you as to what private property you can own.

You'll still have a group of people dictating to you that they can openly violate their oath of office at your expense in denying you your unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.

You'll still have a group of people dictating to you that they can and will endorse, enact and enforce a multi tiered system of laws and justice, where there is ALWAYS and exemption for both them and the police they will eventually send to your door.

You'll still have a group of people dictating to you that they are above the law and can do as they please without the consent of the governed.

You'll still have a group of people dictating to you that an inanimate object is responsible for crime, rather than the individual/s involved.

The majority of states, forty-three, have no assault weapons ban.......do you see the problem YET????

 

[Dadstoys]

Maybe let the Mass GOP know that you will not be donating time or money to Any of their campaigns until Baker is removed?

Phone: 617.523.5005
Email: [email protected]
Office Address:
Massachusetts Republican Party
85 Merrimac Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114

Already done to both the national GOP and state.
Crickets so far.
Let's do this.

 

[Dadstoys]

If her authority is nullified then her edict becomes crap. That said, I fear that a more likely possibility is the legislature does a half assed job on a subsequent bill and we end up with a law that nullifies her edict but also at the same time ends up creating another AWB that simply has the same bullshit in it but presented in a more graduated fashion (similar to what the CT AWB, etc, has, where they have cutoffs and implementation deadlines, etc, etc... ) The only thing going in our favor here is that I've never seen more gun owners pissed off at once in a short period of time; because with this issue the "I have my ARs so I don't care" crowd has skin in the game too because if this shit is allowed to stand they might be rendered felons, too.

-Mike

There's no "Might" about it.
You own one and your a felon according to the new supreme overlord.

 

[hv55maxx]

The fuerher did proclaim during this spat that the AWB didn't really do anything and that it applied to cosmetics. That might get the ball rolling to at least opening legiscritters to education about firearms. And then repeal the stupid fu(king ban


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mecheenop]

I contacted my 2 reps today and I'll be calling again tomorrow. This bill may be our lifeline

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/SD2637

 

[kevin9]

Guys, the bill is right here to read for yourself: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/189/Senate/SD2637

While it does address the AGO's ability to regulate (which is a good thing in and of itself) it does not in any way address 131M or anything else in the actual MGL for that mater.

Section 131M only defines the offense (i.e. what's banned), but not what an assault weapon actually is; that's defined in Section 121. S121 contains the definition of "assault weapon" as a type of "weapon" (a subset), and contains the "copies or duplicates" wording that Herr Healey has attempted to "clarify". "Weapon" is defined in 121 as "any rifle, shotgun or firearm."

This bill rolls back the definition of assault weapon and the AWB to where they were on April 19th by preventing the AG from making any regulations, determinations, directions, guidance or clarifications regarding "weapons", and rolling back all prior AG actions relative to "weapons".

 

[amm5061]

This bill rolls back the definition of assault weapon and the AWB to where they were on April 19th by preventing the AG from making any regulations, determinations, directions, guidance or clarifications regarding "weapons", and rolling back all prior AG actions relative to "weapons".

So would this repeal the Glock ban, too?

 

[rcwhat]

Section 131M only defines the offense (i.e. what's banned), but not what an assault weapon actually is; that's defined in Section 121. S121 contains the definition of "assault weapon" as a type of "weapon" (a subset), and contains the "copies or duplicates" wording that Herr Healey has attempted to "clarify". "Weapon" is defined in 121 as "any rifle, shotgun or firearm."

This bill rolls back the definition of assault weapon and the AWB to where they were on April 19th by preventing the AG from making any regulations, determinations, directions, guidance or clarifications regarding "weapons", and rolling back all prior AG actions relative to "weapons".

Exactly!

 

[NorthShore]

Maybe let the Mass GOP know that you will not be donating time or money to Any of their campaigns until Baker is removed?

Phone: 617.523.5005
Email: [email protected]
Office Address:
Massachusetts Republican Party
85 Merrimac Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114

Great idea

 

[jasons]

Section 131M only defines the offense (i.e. what's banned), but not what an assault weapon actually is; that's defined in Section 121. S121 contains the definition of "assault weapon" as a type of "weapon" (a subset), and contains the "copies or duplicates" wording that Herr Healey has attempted to "clarify". "Weapon" is defined in 121 as "any rifle, shotgun or firearm."

This bill rolls back the definition of assault weapon and the AWB to where they were on April 19th by preventing the AG from making any regulations, determinations, directions, guidance or clarifications regarding "weapons", and rolling back all prior AG actions relative to "weapons".

No. No it doesn't roll back her guidance. It limits the AG's authority to regulate. This isn't even a regulation, it's just guidance. Her opinion for lack of a better word. It's not even a CMR. Anybody else can take her "interpretation" or "opinion" or whatever you want to call it and run with it.

And 131M is the teeth of the MA AWB:

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.....

No 131M, no AWB....

At the very least we should push to get the AG's 7/20 "promise that's not a promise" date codified into the law via an amendment of 131M. That still wouldn't fix the problem going forward but at least it gets us off the gallows for the stuff we already owned.

Exactly!

Sigh... Whatever guys, go nuts.

 

[dawesrevere]

The atty general's website has a section that allows you to file civil right complaints. .could we all file claims against her.

 

[jasons]

The atty general's website has a section that allows you to file civil right complaints. .could we all file claims against her.

Go nuts.

 

[Marty McFly]

Go nuts.

Then what. These people need to unify with a goal and direction. What are your thoughts. What are the steps?

 

[jasons]

Then what. These people need to unify with a goal and direction. What are your thoughts. What are the steps?

Here are some. I'm sure there are others that I'm missing:

First and foremost, get educated. Read the bills and understand what they will and will not do. Learn how the process works. Follow the bills as they move from committee to committee and be prepared to write and call the committee members, especially chairs, with your support for the bills.

Absolutely support SD.2637. Call and write your legislators and demand they support it too. Show up at the hearings when it's time and testify.

In addition to SD.2637, call your legislators and demand that the AG's "just the tip pinky promise" be addressed by repealing or at the very least modifying Chapter 140 Section 131M. At a ~minimum~ the date needs to change so that there's no ambiguity as to our status prior to that date. (Repeal is better, but it will be a tough fight. An amendment may be more politically expedient to solve the emergency that the AG created.)

Make no mistake, the AG did create a legislative emergency here. Make sure they understand how serious this is - that you're a criminal living under the threat of prosecution until they address it. Push the issue - it can't wait until next year or even next week.

Reach out to GOAL. Give them money and follow their guidance. Ask them how you can help. This isn't their first rodeo.

Same with Comm2A.

Same with NRA-ILA and the other national orgs.

 

[crazymjb]

I'd also start spamming the shit out of big MA gun companies (S&W, Troy, etc) to start sharing this shit around to their MA customers.

Mike

 

[Individualist]

Like BCM? They just completely wrote MA off. We're a small market so they take the hit. I gave them hell and they basically gave me the B.S. corporate line about how they need to think about ALL of their other customers, not just MA. Sorry, Charlie. They deserted us without so much a blink. BCM is dead to me.

 

[jamesvt]

I am a bit disappointed in BCM's decision, but I will still buy their products because they won't sell to any MA law enforcement either. Now if they decided to still sell to law enforcement in MA I wouldn't buy anything from them ever again.

 

[crazymjb]

Like BCM? They just completely wrote MA off. We're a small market so they take the hit. I gave them hell and they basically gave me the B.S. corporate line about how they need to think about ALL of their other customers, not just MA. Sorry, Charlie. They deserted us without so much a blink. BCM is dead to me.

No, like S&W, Troy, etc. The ones that are based in this state.

I think you are making a mistake to write off BCM. The AGs guidance is incredibly foggy. BCMs lawyers undoubtedly told them they face a huge financial risk selling here, and can also get their customers bound up. What the AG did is unprecedented, and is incredibly confusing as evidenced by the confusion on this forum. It does seem to me they should be able to sell parts/uppers, but I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not their lawyer. Just the fact that the AG is arbitrarily declaring things that happened in the past as violative of the law in a manner its never been read before should be enough to scare manufacturers. Undoubtedly this is part of her plan.

They are being overly safe, but not without reason.


Imagine if we could get gun shops to make people call their reps and ask for the support of this bill before proceeding with a sale....

Mike

 

[jdubois]

S121 contains the definition of "assault weapon" as a type of "weapon" (a subset), and contains the "copies or duplicates" wording that Herr Healey has attempted to "clarify". "Weapon" is defined in 121 as "any rifle, shotgun or firearm."

Careful there. I don't see that § 121 defines "assault weapon" as a subset of "weapon". It defines it as having the same meaning as the expired federal § 921(a)(30) *. You cannot assume it means the same as "weapon" just because it has the word weapon within it, because the § 121 definition of "weapon" applies to §§ 122 to 131Q, and "assault weapon" specifically defines itself independently.

Why does it matter? Because it is why Healey thinks she can claim that stripped lowers are "assault weapons" even though they are not "weapons". Assault weapons are not limited to the state definition of weapons under the § 121 definition.


* I think this is an interesting line of attack. If it has the same meaning as the federal meaning, and ATF at the time interpreted it to not include 'ban-compliant' guns, then shouldn't the state law follow the ATF determination? With Healey's "guidance" we now have a clearly different meaning from the federal meaning.

 

[MachineHead]

Here are some. I'm sure there are others that I'm missing:

First and foremost, get educated. Read the bills and understand what they will and will not do. Learn how the process works. Follow the bills as they move from committee to committee and be prepared to write and call the committee members, especially chairs, with your support for the bills.

Absolutely support SD.2637. Call and write your legislators and demand they support it too. Show up at the hearings when it's time and testify.

In addition to SD.2637, call your legislators and demand that the AG's "just the tip pinky promise" be addressed by repealing or at the very least modifying Chapter 140 Section 131M. At a ~minimum~ the date needs to change so that there's no ambiguity as to our status prior to that date. (Repeal is better, but it will be a tough fight. An amendment may be more politically expedient to solve the emergency that the AG created.)

Make no mistake, the AG did create a legislative emergency here. Make sure they understand how serious this is - that you're a criminal living under the threat of prosecution until they address it. Push the issue - it can't wait until next year or even next week.

Reach out to GOAL. Give them money and follow their guidance. Ask them how you can help. This isn't their first rodeo.

Same with Comm2A.

Same with NRA-ILA and the other national orgs.

^^^^^^THIS!

/thread

 

[Horrible]

Can we have the OP add the reference for the bill (SD.2637) to the title of the thread, please?

Will make it easier for people that are writing their Legislators to reference!

Thank you

 

[reeldog]

^^^^^^THIS!

/thread

THIS!!!
Make no mistake, the AG did create a legislative emergency here. Make sure they understand how serious this is - that you're a criminal living under the threat of prosecution until they address it. Push the issue - it can't wait until next year or even next week.

 

[esamjj]

Probably been said before, this deision is a test case and will effect the whole country over time if it stands. The mfg should know this. Not only the rifle mfg, but all the support industries will be effected. I would guess this is at least a $200M industry in MA. NEXT is semi-pistols. Only revolvers will be left, then none in less than 10 years.

 

[member 58617]

Apparently the local NPR affiliate mentioned this on the morning news. Not sure whether that's good.