Tracking Healey's Effect on Civil Rights in MA

[crazymjb]

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

 

[Boris]

I'm donating shit until there is a clear goal here.

I'm up for a lawsuit, by gun shops for the loss of business, hit that POS where it hurts, in the money ****. Rights, shmrights, no one cares. Libtards love their 2mil houses and vacation on MV.

Since this POS is an elected official, I don't see how she could be sued effectively, but we need some ****ing concrete steps on what will be done and how.

 

[crazymjb]

I'm donating shit until there is a clear goal here.

I'm up for a lawsuit, by gun shops for the loss of business, hit that POS where it hurts, in the money ****. Rights, shmrights, no one cares. Libtards love their 2mil houses and vacation on MV.

Since this POS is an elected official, I don't see how she could be sued effectively, but we need some ****ing concrete steps on what will be done and how.

Elected officials cannot violate the law. She absolutely can be (and expects to be) sued for this.

Mike

 

[07BlackHawk]

donated to GOAL and Comm2A.

i refuse to sit by silently.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

An elected official can be sued to change behavior, however, it is virtually impossible to pierce the immunity of the position so she cannot be sued personally.

The AGs office will not care about the expense of defending a suit. in politics and business, the more people working for you, and the more you spend, the bigger budget you can justify the next go around.

The courts sometimes hold the law means what it says. For example, the prosecution recently argued that the "expired LTC means possession/carry is a civil, not a criminal offense" did not apply to an LTC that expired 15 or so years ago since that obviously was not intended. The MA court ruled the law meant what it said.

On the other hand, courts sometimes rule that the law means what the courts think the legislature or congress wanted, influenced by the court's desire for a particular social policy. I am avoiding citing a specific somewhat obscure gun-related example in this thread because I don't want to help the AG cite it in a defense to any potential suit.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the status at this point is that previously compliant rifles are now not compliant and cannot be sold or transferred to Mass residents, exactly the same as their evil brothers, the "assault" weapons, but like "approved" gun list they can still be sold face to face via an FA10, just not through dealers.
The question is did these based on her ruling become banned guns for everyone and she is saying that while they are illegal to own we are not going to go after you.

I am interested to watch the progress of this to and through the courts.

 

[crazymjb]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the status at this point is that previously compliant rifles are now not compliant and cannot be sold or transferred to Mass residents, exactly the same as their evil brothers, the "assault" weapons, but like "approved" gun list they can still be sold face to face via an FA10, just not through dealers.
The question is did these based on her ruling become banned guns for everyone and she is saying that while they are illegal to own we are not going to go after you.

I am interested to watch the progress of this to and through the courts.

I understand it to mean this:

1- All of her newly defined guns (essentially everything, certainly what we would normally consider compliant ARs) are "assault weapons" per the statute, but she is using her discretion not to prosecute those who bought them prior to yesterday. She could (per her reasoning) change her mind overnight, although as was previously mentioned, entrapment by estoppel would probably require a turnover order before she could prosecute. IE she is estopped (prevented) from prosecuting due to telling people they could keep them. If she said going forward you must turn them in, and if you dont after today I can prosecute, she would likely be good to go.
2 - these cannot be transferred within the state. Her discretion is being used to protect those who already had them. "protect" - lol
3 - the already pre-ban stuff (9/1994) is protected by statute, and she can't change that. Those can be bought/sold as always.

 

[robjax]

I understand it to mean this:

1- All of her newly defined guns (essentially everything, certainly what we would normally consider compliant ARs) are "assault weapons" per the statute, but she is using her discretion not to prosecute those who bought them prior to yesterday. She could (per her reasoning) change her mind overnight, although as was previously mentioned, entrapment by estoppel would probably require a turnover order before she could prosecute. IE she is estopped (prevented) from prosecuting due to telling people they could keep them. If she said going forward you must turn them in, and if you dont after today I can prosecute, she would likely be good to go.
2 - these cannot be transferred within the state. Her discretion is being used to protect those who already had them. "protect" - lol
3 - the already pre-ban stuff (9/1994) is protected by statute, and she can't change that. Those can be bought/sold as always.

So based on that, bayo lug, flash hiders and folding stocks are all ok now on the supposed grandfathered post pre bans? Because if the law was used incorrectly then those things were never banned....or non-compliant...right?

 

[knfmn]

So based on that, bayo lug, flash hiders and folding stocks are all ok now on the supposed grandfathered post pre bans? Because if the law was used incorrectly then those things were never banned....or non-compliant...right?

We'll let you take one for the team and be the test case on that one.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

We'll let you take one for the team and be the test case on that one.