This thread is devoted to tracking the status of Healey's power grab, and discussing ONLY the implications. Debate, discussion, bashing our overlords can occur in the other thread.
At this time it looks like the governor (who has little authority to do anything directly anyway) will not being pressuring the AG to reverse her decision. A response from the legislature is yet to be seen, but I don't expect to see one.
What I expect will happen: The AG will be sued. When, and the details of the lawsuit(s) are as of yet unknown (by me). Basically the AG DOES have authority to interpret statute and regulations... to a degree. I personally am not well read on exactly what the limitations are normally understood to be. I have a feeling that to a degree, some of her "interpretation" will stand, unless there turns out to be overwhelming precedent that it can't. What I don't think will stand is her broad and vague definitions used in her "tests." Even if it stands in a lower court, I think it will get tossed higher up, and this will get fought to the top unless either side decides it's not worth the risk, or the issue is rendered moot by a new AG or legislation. Ultimately, I don't think she can use this to, say, ban Tavors. I think "compliant" AR type rifles, for example may potentially be covered, but this remains to be seen.
Donating to Comm2A, using the amazon link, etc is probably a good idea.
Mike
At this time it looks like the governor (who has little authority to do anything directly anyway) will not being pressuring the AG to reverse her decision. A response from the legislature is yet to be seen, but I don't expect to see one.
What I expect will happen: The AG will be sued. When, and the details of the lawsuit(s) are as of yet unknown (by me). Basically the AG DOES have authority to interpret statute and regulations... to a degree. I personally am not well read on exactly what the limitations are normally understood to be. I have a feeling that to a degree, some of her "interpretation" will stand, unless there turns out to be overwhelming precedent that it can't. What I don't think will stand is her broad and vague definitions used in her "tests." Even if it stands in a lower court, I think it will get tossed higher up, and this will get fought to the top unless either side decides it's not worth the risk, or the issue is rendered moot by a new AG or legislation. Ultimately, I don't think she can use this to, say, ban Tavors. I think "compliant" AR type rifles, for example may potentially be covered, but this remains to be seen.
Donating to Comm2A, using the amazon link, etc is probably a good idea.
Mike
Last edited: