Someone has to be first... getting the AWB overturned...

A

Atlantis

NES Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
1,686
Likes
2,819
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Okay, I know the law as far as the state (mass) is concerned. There are varying levels of interpretation.

If you ask Healy, any AR pattern rifle is illegal, but she just won't prosecute based on a magical date. Great. Screw Healy, screw her date.

If you ask CMR/MGL you find that bayonet lugs, flash hiders, adjustable stocks = Felony.

If you ask CMR/MGL you find that you need low cap magazines if manufactured after a certain date.

If you ask the constitution.... Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

So here is my question. If you are an otherwise law abiding citizen. You don't clear leather, you don't give cause for your home to be searched. Your ONLY crime, is violating the state AWB through simple possession, do you think there is light at the end of that tunnel?

I understand that logically the amount of time and money and effort doesn't directly outweigh the inconvenience of welding up the bayonet lug, welding on a comp, pinning a stock at your favorite position, and running multiple 10 round mags vs 30's. But at the end of the day, we as a community seem to constantly be defensive/passive. We don't seem to be actively trying to defend our rights.

What do the lawyers out there think? Is breaking the law the only/best path to getting in front of the SC? Should I just take up an activist campaign and follow the letter of the law until I die or affect change?

I realize that I sound like I am just rationalizing breaking the law. I don't WANT to get myself arrested and be the test case. I want freedom. And I don't want to just move to another state to get it. Isn't the constitution supposed to supersede state law?
 
You could probably bring the case without getting arrested. Being a resident of the AWB state would probably be enough to be granted standing. I don't know if there would be any benefit to actually being arrested if your goal is to challenge the law. Maybe SCOTUS would be more inclined to take it if you were sitting in jail, but plenty of controversial cases are denied cert every year.

There have been other challenges that SCOTUS has declined. Odds are good they won't even look at it and you serve your time without accomplishing anything.
 
Matt-CZ said:
You could probably bring the case without getting arrested. Being a resident of the AWB state would probably be enough to be granted standing. I don't know if there would be any benefit to actually being arrested if your goal is to challenge the law. Maybe SCOTUS would be more inclined to take it if you were sitting in jail, but plenty of controversial cases are denied cert every year.
Click to expand...

This is what I am fuzzy on. My understand of why there are no "post healy ban" prosecutions is that no one can claim she harmed them and sue her. I guess I am under the impression that a case saying "I want my freedoms as outlined in 2A" would get denied and there would be "benefit" to being arrested as I would be deprived of liberty.
 
Atlantis said:
This is what I am fuzzy on. My understand of why there are no "post healy ban" prosecutions is that no one can claim she harmed them and sue her. I guess I am under the impression that a case saying "I want my freedoms as outlined in 2A" would get denied and there would be "benefit" to being arrested as I would be deprived of liberty.
Click to expand...

GOAL is already litigating this and no one had to get arrested for them to have standing.
 
Matt-CZ said:
GOAL is already litigating this and no one had to get arrested for them to have standing.
Click to expand...

Okay, clearly I need to think with my head more than my heart and do some reading about the legal process. Just frustrating as hell to be bound to the whims of others.
 
Atlantis said:
Okay, I know the law as far as the state (mass) is concerned. There are varying levels of interpretation.

If you ask Healy, any AR pattern rifle is illegal, but she just won't prosecute based on a magical date. Great. Screw Healy, screw her date.

If you ask CMR/MGL you find that bayonet lugs, flash hiders, adjustable stocks = Felony.

If you ask CMR/MGL you find that you need low cap magazines if manufactured after a certain date.

If you ask the constitution.... Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

So here is my question. If you are an otherwise law abiding citizen. You don't clear leather, you don't give cause for your home to be searched. Your ONLY crime, is violating the state AWB through simple possession, do you think there is light at the end of that tunnel?

I understand that logically the amount of time and money and effort doesn't directly outweigh the inconvenience of welding up the bayonet lug, welding on a comp, pinning a stock at your favorite position, and running multiple 10 round mags vs 30's. But at the end of the day, we as a community seem to constantly be defensive/passive. We don't seem to be actively trying to defend our rights.

What do the lawyers out there think? Is breaking the law the only/best path to getting in front of the SC? Should I just take up an activist campaign and follow the letter of the law until I die or affect change?

I realize that I sound like I am just rationalizing breaking the law. I don't WANT to get myself arrested and be the test case. I want freedom. And I don't want to just move to another state to get it. Isn't the constitution supposed to supersede state law?
Click to expand...
You're setting your sights too low. If you're gonna say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" just go make some lightning links/machine guns and then call the ATF on yourself (please send any/all dogs to a relative first). That way we can get some redress from the courts.

:) ianal
 
one-eyed Jack said:
In the meanwhile, contribute to the folks that are working on this. Jack.
Click to expand...

Aside from/in addition to fiscal donations, any way to directly support the cause by donating time/energy? Is anyone directly targeting the AWB/evil features with litigation? Not just healy's interpretation nonsense?
 
daekken said:
You're setting your sights too low. If you're gonna say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" just go make some lightning links/machine guns and then call the ATF on yourself (please send any/all dogs to a relative first). That way we can get some redress from the courts.

:) ianal
Click to expand...

Hey, I feel you. I have to keep a level of discretion when arguing with folks about 2A issues because I firmly believe if Elon Musk wants to support the cause and go buy a F-22 and some ordinance, he should be able to do so. But I think I'm a better shot with semi anyways, and right now I am having a hard time swallowing my pride and pinning a perfectly good stock "because reasons"
 
You are being denied the opportunity to acquire these items, so you do have an actionable claim. The harm does not have to be getting thrown in prison.

On the other hand, if you commit a crime for possessing these banned items (as currently interpreted by the AGO), you can have your licensed revoked as an unsuitable/prohibited person, and it can be argued that with no license, you would not have standing to sue since you would not be able to buy the banned items regardless of the ban.
 
Atlantis said:
Okay, I know the law as far as the state (mass) is concerned. There are varying levels of interpretation.

If you ask Healy, any AR pattern rifle is illegal, but she just won't prosecute based on a magical date. Great. Screw Healy, screw her date.

If you ask CMR/MGL you find that bayonet lugs, flash hiders, adjustable stocks = Felony.

If you ask CMR/MGL you find that you need low cap magazines if manufactured after a certain date.

If you ask the constitution.... Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

So here is my question. If you are an otherwise law abiding citizen. You don't clear leather, you don't give cause for your home to be searched. Your ONLY crime, is violating the state AWB through simple possession, do you think there is light at the end of that tunnel?

I understand that logically the amount of time and money and effort doesn't directly outweigh the inconvenience of welding up the bayonet lug, welding on a comp, pinning a stock at your favorite position, and running multiple 10 round mags vs 30's. But at the end of the day, we as a community seem to constantly be defensive/passive. We don't seem to be actively trying to defend our rights.

What do the lawyers out there think? Is breaking the law the only/best path to getting in front of the SC? Should I just take up an activist campaign and follow the letter of the law until I die or affect change?

I realize that I sound like I am just rationalizing breaking the law. I don't WANT to get myself arrested and be the test case. I want freedom. And I don't want to just move to another state to get it. Isn't the constitution supposed to supersede state law?
Click to expand...
Great post. Now here’s my 2 cents:

Unfortunately the Constitution does not supersede states rights. Here’s why:
U can say anything u want and petition the Government for grievances but u can’t yell fire in a movie theater because no right is absolute. This is what the anti- gunners are hanging onto in the Heller decision. If only Scalia didn’t say “that no right is absolute” then issue his landmark decision. Hopefully in the next few years this gets to SCOTUS, especially if the Magazine restrictions get there first and get ruled in our favor.
 
nstassel said:
If you have an ltc the penalty is a fine only of 1k to 10k for 1st offense awb violation so go for it.
Click to expand...

1-10yrs in prison is on the table too... no?

qqac said:
You are being denied the opportunity to acquire these items, so you do have an actionable claim. The harm does not have to be getting thrown in prison.

On the other hand, if you commit a crime for possessing these banned items (as currently interpreted by the AGO), you can have your licensed revoked as an unsuitable/prohibited person, and it can be argued that with no license, you would not have standing to sue since you would not be able to buy the banned items regardless of the ban.
Click to expand...

I mean, same difference. If that was the stance of prosecution, couldn't defense counter that the entire notion of a permission slip is flawed if the 2A is a RIGHT? I get that its some circular logic. But still.
 
Atlantis said:
I mean, same difference. If that was the stance of prosecution, couldn't defense counter that the entire notion of a permission slip is flawed if the 2A is a RIGHT? I get that its some circular logic. But still.
Click to expand...


Your question was about challenging the AWB, not challenging the licensing scheme in MA.
 
Last edited:
I read the OP. Then I think about this skit I recall seeing/hearing (might have been on the radio) back in the 70's. This undercover narcotics cop comes into a HS classroom to "rap" about the drug problem. They are all sitting in a circle.

"So, anyone use drugs before?"

Lots of confused head-shaking. Feigned innocence, etc.,

"C'mon. This is a judgement free zone. Heroin? Anyone ever use heroin?"

MORE head shaking. Kids looking down. Others looking around like they are in traffic.

"What about cocaine? Anyone ever have cocaine? You'd know it. Again - there is no judgement here. We're trying to help each other make good decisions."

Still nothing.

"What about pot. C'mon. You've got to have tried a little weed. Anyone?"

More head shaking. MORE guilty looks. One girl keeps staring at him. Slowly, her hand goes up barely above her shoulder.

"You. What's your name?"

"Sally."

"You have something for us, Sally? Don't be shy. I'm not going to bite."

"Well, uh," Sally starts. "I've tried pot."

"What have you tried honey?"

"Uh, pot."

"You need to speak up, now."

Sally is getting exasperated. "I TRIED POT!"

Immediately, seven jackbooted thugs rush in, grab Sally and drag her kicking and screaming from the room. Everyone else is frozen in their places. The UC guy is cool and calm.

The JBT's leave, the door slams shut and he looks around.

"Sooo. . . . anyone else?"


I'll refrain from an opinion on this thread. ROFL!!! Not willing to be a test case in any event. And, with many things, how do they know if you're illegal if you aren't committing another crime in the first place???? (Or pulling your weapon in a self defense scenario, but let's assume you aren't pulling your far-too-short, folds into a Ginsu Knife AR Whateveritis down on Main St.)
 
Atlantis said:
1-10yrs in prison is on the table too... no?
Click to expand...
$1k to 10k is the penalty for an awb violation. If a person had no ltc among other problems they'd face not less than 2.5 to max 10 for ch 269 10(m).

"(m) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) or (h), any person not exempted by statute who knowingly has in his possession, or knowingly has under his control in a vehicle, a large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device therefor who does not possess a valid license to carry firearms issued under section 131 or 131F of chapter 140, except as permitted or otherwise provided under this section or chapter 140, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison for not less than two and one-half years nor more than ten years. The possession of a valid firearm identification card issued under section 129B shall not be a defense for a violation of this subsection; provided, however, that any such person charged with violating this paragraph and holding a valid firearm identification card shall not be subject to any mandatory minimum sentence imposed by this paragraph. The sentence imposed upon such person shall not be reduced to less than one year, nor suspended, nor shall any person convicted under this subsection be eligible for probation, parole, furlough, work release or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served such minimum term of such sentence; provided, however, that the commissioner of correction may, on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent or other person in charge of a correctional institution or the administrator of a county correctional institution, grant to such offender a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: (i) to attend the funeral of a spouse or next of kin; (ii) to visit a critically ill close relative or spouse; or (iii) to obtain emergency medical services unavailable at such institution. Prosecutions commenced under this subsection shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file. The provisions of section 87 of chapter 276 relative to the power of the court to place certain offenders on probation shall not apply to any person 18 years of age or over charged with a violation of this section.

The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device by (i) any officer, agent or employee of the commonwealth or any other state or the United States, including any federal, state or local law enforcement personnel; (ii) any member of the military or other service of any state or the United States; (iii) any duly authorized law enforcement officer, agent or employee of any municipality of the commonwealth; (iv) any federal, state or local historical society, museum or institutional collection open to the public; provided, however, that any such person described in clauses (i) to (iii), inclusive, is authorized by a competent authority to acquire, possess or carry a large capacity semiautomatic weapon and is acting within the scope of his duties; or (v) any gunsmith duly licensed under the applicable federal law."
 
There are people who are “free-er” than me who have ignored the AWB in regards to magazine size. All the more power to them, I hope they don’t get caught. As an instructor I can’t tell people to ignore the law, but if enough people were to ever say, “f*** it”, there might be a chance it could be thrown out.
I also know that Santa Is just as likely to deliver me a 93R this year... /s
 
SgtHal75 said:
but u can’t yell fire in a movie theater
Click to expand...
Yes you can if there's a fire and you can if the theater is empty and you can if there isn't one but if you do you'll face charges. You're not muzzled before entering the movie so the right isn't restricted but if you misuse that right you face a penalty. Yes Scalia didn't do us any favors the way he worded his decision. I heard he did that so Kennedy would side with him and get his vote. I don't know if it's true or not.
 
qqac said:
Your question was about challenging the AWB, not challenging the licensing scheme in MA.
Click to expand...

Right, Maybe I misunderstood your previous post. If the AWB was overturned then you couldn't be a prohibited person, because you couldn't have committed a crime. So its circular logic. And as for the licensing issue, I guess you can't go into these things with broad scope. I would hope that a "2A is absolute" type ruling would have greater effect than simply knocking down the AWB. So I was picturing the licensing issue being relevant if prosecution tried to use it to argue that an AWB case had no standing.

Dennis in MA said:
I'll refrain from an opinion on this thread. ROFL!!! Not willing to be a test case in any event. And, with many things, how do they know if you're illegal if you aren't committing another crime in the first place???? (Or pulling your weapon in a self defense scenario, but let's assume you aren't pulling your far-too-short, folds into a Ginsu Knife AR Whateveritis down on Main St.)
Click to expand...

Yeah I get it, not asking anyone here what they personally do or have done. And I don't WANT to be a test case. It would be one thing if the constitution didn't exist and we just lived in lefty land in a vacuum. But the fact is we are lucky enough to be citizens of this country and allegedly this country has a bill of rights. I want that to mean something
 
It might take a a pro-2A, elderly single person with no kids (not joking), and a clean record. Someone with pretty much literally nothing to lose and/or content with their life. Have them deliberately and demonstrably break it, while committing no other crimes.
 
daekken said:
It might take a a pro-2A, elderly single person with no kids (not joking), and a clean record. Someone with pretty much literally nothing to lose and/or content with their life. Have them deliberately and demonstrably break it, while committing no other crimes.
Click to expand...

Kids just being a factor that would stop such a person from following through? Or a lever for the state to press to get them to back down? And this was sort of what I had in mind. I don't think just being at a range would get you jammed up. And I don't know that I'd want to walk up to a police station and ask for an arrest as that might go south in a hurry. I'd say OC it and that would do the trick, but I don't know that I'd want to be lumped in with that crowd either, plus I think that would muddy the legal waters.
 
Atlantis said:
Kids just being a factor that would stop such a person from following through? Or a lever for the state to press to get them to back down? And this was sort of what I had in mind. I don't think just being at a range would get you jammed up. And I don't know that I'd want to walk up to a police station and ask for an arrest as that might go south in a hurry. I'd say OC it and that would do the trick, but I don't know that I'd want to be lumped in with that crowd either, plus I think that would muddy the legal waters.
Click to expand...
Yeah, so the person doesn't have to worry about the kids either emotionally/financially, etc. or get cold feet.

I'm just reminded of a guy who had some really bad medical situation but no money and he went to a bank with a "I am robbing you but not really" note and then waited for the cops so he could get medical service in jail (if I remember).

Same sort of concept, you'd want it be strictly on a AWB stuff alone with no aggravating factors and someone who was pretty much beyond reproach and with no incentive to take plea deals, etc.
 
daekken said:
Yeah, so the person doesn't have to worry about the kids either emotionally/financially, etc. or get cold feet.

I'm just reminded of a guy who had some really bad medical situation but no money and he went to a bank with a "I am robbing you but not really" note and then waited for the cops so he could get medical service in jail (if I remember).

Same sort of concept, you'd want it be strictly on a AWB stuff alone with no aggravating factors and someone who was pretty much beyond reproach and with no incentive to take plea deals, etc.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. Would this have a significantly better chance than something like the Worman V Baker case has?

Either way sounds like the best strategy personally would be to suck it up and just do what I can to support Comm2A. While networking around for a 70 year old patriot with no kids and no priors....
 

Similar threads

Smart gun will put fingerprint, facial recognition technology to work: Biofire has called it the 'first and only biometric firearm on the market'
2
Replies
42
Views
706
JuergenG
JuergenG
Georgia officer who fatally shot unarmed, naked man has convictions overturned
Replies
1
Views
146
71montess
71montess
The First Amendment Is Getting In The Way Of Government Removing Posts It Doesn't Agree With
Replies
20
Views
475
Uzi2
U
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
610
Zappa
Zappa
Juniors First Glock
Replies
10
Views
401
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Back
Top Bottom