• 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.

When do you think this AR ban will be overturned?

If someone can put this in words for us slower kids.
If what she did is upheld , then does it confirm that ex post facto is in fact legit?
Meaning some AG in another state could "re-interpret " the laws regarding the "A" word and start charging anyone who performed one or who had one in the past with murder?
How about anyone who bought ivory or leopard skins 30 years ago before the bans?
The list could go on forever.
I don't see why not considering the rule of law seems to be null and void.
 
Goliathan said:
Why should they bother with a test case? They have us exactly where they want us: dancing from one foot to the next trying to figure out the law, dealers too afraid to sell anything, and out of state suppliers cutting us off completely. They've achieved their goal through fear without changing the law one bit. They have no incentive to single anyone out and prosecute, thus risking their upper hand. I don't even think they'll go for confiscation, at least in the short term. They have no reason to, with everything as it currently is. All they have to do is wait until this is the new normal.

The insidious thing about this is that Healey's people will stand before the court and swear they didn't change a thing about the law; they were only enforcing what was already there. It's going to take a court that actually understands English and cares about the rule of law to see what they've done, and most of the courts we have access to are too sympathetic to the anti cause to be reasonable.



So what? No future AG is going to go out on a limb for a tiny fraction of the population and publicly repudiate Healey's decree. The best we can hope for is someone who will decide not to pursue it, but it'll still be out there, and people will still be afraid.
Click to expand...


Len-2A Training said:
There is so much truth here that it really isn't funny. FUD works wonders to accomplish her goals without even charging anyone with any alleged crime.

.
Click to expand...

This is why I constantly keep saying: You're going to have to find another way to fight this. The courts will screw you. Your "representatives" don't care. The next AG will not rescind it.

What is left.

Seriously people wake the Fu(k up.
 
Sorry to say but NEVER. Too few Mass people support the 2nd amendment and those that do are too few in numbers. The mass state has the unlimited time, funds and lawyers to fight this to the Supreme Court.. the pro-gun mass people are limited in funds, time and lawyers to fight engage in a long term fight. Just as they resolved themselves to the reality of their mass gov chipping away of their gun right before they will realize this is a no win situation. When the majority of the Mass gov for YEARS has been Democratic and anti gun, I can't see any turn around coming ever!
 
calsdad said:
Actually - I read somewhere in the last few days that the President of Czekoslovakia said that everybody should buy guns to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

The Czechs actually already have more gun rights than MA, in many ways. Training and exams required, but once you're good to go, you're way better off. Shall issue permits for self defense, easier to get select fire, no mag restrictions, no evil features.
 
Dadstoys said:
If someone can put this in words for us slower kids.
If what she did is upheld , then does it confirm that ex post facto is in fact legit?
Click to expand...

No, because her defense is, and always be that she didn't change the law. There is no de jure change.

There is, however a de facto change, based on facts and circumstances that constitutes a de facto rewriting of legislation through "reinterpretation". No idea if a court will see it this way, but I believe I'm seeing this correctly and using the correct terms, maybe not.

Meaning some AG in another state could "re-interpret " the laws regarding the "A" word and start charging anyone who performed one or who had one in the past with murder?
How about anyone who bought ivory or leopard skins 30 years ago before the bans?
The list could go on forever.
I don't see why not considering the rule of law seems to be null and void.
Click to expand...

This is why our messaging needs to be less about guns and more about basic rule of law, checks and balances, and consent of the governed.

Her actions effectively end any hope of any meaningful legislation standing as intended in any state in the union that doesn't pass the political leanings of the sitting AG. What I mean by this is that, yes, any AG can (and likely will at this point) continue to "reinterpret" any law they see fit for their own agenda, no matter the intent of the legislation, legislators, the constituents who influenced it or the executive that signed it.

This being upheld federally basically makes the AG the Queen/King of America, beholding only in states were they aren't overly protected by law from recall.
 
Beansie said:
This is why our messaging needs to be less about guns and more about basic rule of law, checks and balances, and consent of the governed.
Click to expand...

I mean, yes and no. It has to be about guns too, or we lose long term for short term gain. It has to be fought from both angles, because even if this was done by consent of the governed, it would still be in flagrant violation of the constitution.
 
Mass residents will be affected by the ban until they move out of state or until they start partying like it's 1775, or for some odd reason Mass goes from a deep blue state to a more purple/red state, which seems about as likely as (or less likely?) then the planet being attacked by an aggressive alien species.
 
ColdDeadHands said:
I mean, yes and no. It has to be about guns too, or we lose long term for short term gain. It has to be fought from both angles, because even if this was done by consent of the governed, it would still be in flagrant violation of the constitution.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I think we're driving down two lanes of the same highway here, and my post could use a bit better wording, because your suggestions are correct.
 
ex post facto is in fact legit?
Click to expand...
This would not be an example of ex post facto, since an upholding of her position would simply clarify the guns have been illegal since day 1 of the Romney ban.

Denying a protected right because of a change to the punishment for an offense committed before the change is ex post facto. For example, telling someone at the time of making a plea deal "sealed and cannot be used against you after the age of majority" and following that up with "ooops, didn't really mean it" is a clear example of ex post facto that the system gets away with.

Ditto for felons who had their gun rights stripped for pre-1934 convictions.
 
Last edited:
calsdad said:
This is why I constantly keep saying: You're going to have to find another way to fight this. The courts will screw you. Your "representatives" don't care. The next AG will not rescind it.

What is left.

Seriously people wake the Fu(k up.
Click to expand...


Which is what the fu(k I have been screaming since day uno.
 
Too be honest?? It will more than likely not be repealed in one piece any time soon. This country is one a one way collision with Tyranny, and we all better be ready for it.
 
Short of some legalese mumbo jumbo, I don't think it will ever be repealed. Even if AG Healey's arbitrary edict is overturned, "duplicates and copies" will still be in the statute, thus will always be a threat. Even if it is overturned, I'm not sure there is anything that will prevent another rogue AG from changing the enforcement of that phrase.

It seems to me that threat will exist as long as there is an Assault Weapons Ban on the books.
 
Tracer1951 said:
Sorry to say but NEVER. Too few Mass people support the 2nd amendment and those that do are too few in numbers. The mass state has the unlimited time, funds and lawyers to fight this to the Supreme Court.. the pro-gun mass people are limited in funds, time and lawyers to fight engage in a long term fight. Just as they resolved themselves to the reality of their mass gov chipping away of their gun right before they will realize this is a no win situation. When the majority of the Mass gov for YEARS has been Democratic and anti gun, I can't see any turn around coming ever!
Click to expand...


see i think this where we lose. "too few people support the 2nd amendment..." it doesnt matter what they support. it matters what the law and the COTUS says. relying on support and feelings when its a guaranteed right is where we lose. I vote party like its 1775 soon.
 
hv55maxx said:
see i think this where we lose. "too few people support the 2nd amendment..." it doesnt matter what they support. it matters what the law and the COTUS says. relying on support and feelings when its a guaranteed right is where we lose. I vote party like its 1775 soon.
Click to expand...


It matters what the SJC & SCOTUS think and neither of them believe in the COTUS so... We screwed.
 
Alex0311 said:
Short of some legalese mumbo jumbo, I don't think it will ever be repealed. Even if AG Healey's arbitrary edict is overturned, "duplicates and copies" will still be in the statute, thus will always be a threat. Even if it is overturned, I'm not sure there is anything that will prevent another rogue AG from changing the enforcement of that phrase.

It seems to me that threat will exist as long as there is an Assault Weapons Ban on the books.
Click to expand...

If it gets rescinded though - you get breathing room. And people will learn from that - just like they did from the Federal AWB.

It will be harder the next time.

A defeat is still a defeat.
 
Sb81 said:
Mass residents will be affected by the ban until they move out of state or until they start partying like it's 1775, or for some odd reason Mass goes from a deep blue state to a more purple/red state, which seems about as likely as (or less likely?) then the planet being attacked by an aggressive alien species.
Click to expand...

I would not put it out of the realm of probability that MA moves to being more of a red state.

In case you haven't been watching : somebody has picked up the snowglobe of politics in this country (and in Europe too for that matter) - and has been shaking the shit out of the thing.

We're not going to be in the same place we are now 10 years from now. The Democrats may well have shot themselves in the foot over this Hillary thing.
 
calsdad said:
I would not put it out of the realm of probability that MA moves to being more of a red state.

In case you haven't been watching : somebody has picked up the snowglobe of politics in this country (and in Europe too for that matter) - and has been shaking the shit out of the thing.

We're not going to be in the same place we are now 10 years from now. The Democrats may well have shot themselves in the foot over this Hillary thing.
Click to expand...


I don't know man. You're talking about the only state in the union that didn't vote for Nixon in the biggest election landslide in US history.
 
Beansie said:
I don't know man. You're talking about the only state in the union that didn't vote for Nixon in the biggest election landslide in US history.
Click to expand...

The demographics have changed quite a bit.

So much so I don't think Massachusetts would be such an outlander again.
 
I remember when Karen Spilka was making her first run for office. She told me "The Democratic primary is the real election, since whomever wins that will take office".

Unfortunately, she was and continues to right on that point.
 
Sen. Spilka,

Thanks for the reply.

I am in total opposition of the Attorney General’s recent interpretation of the existing gun laws.

My reasoning is as follows:

1. The current laws that have been in place for the past 18 years have been reviewed and supported by the mass. government, law abiding citizens, gun dealers, and manufacturers.
2. The products in question ARE NOT assault weapons, as they are not capable of firing in fully automatic mode. They are modern sporting weapons. None of our armed services use them.
3. Over the past 5 years, not one murder was attributed to any of the guns in question. How are they “on the streets”?
4. Your assertion that the Attorney General is now “right” about the interpretation suggests that the Mass. government and her processors in the Attorney General’s office were retroactively incompetent.
5. That would mean that everyone involved since 1998 are complicit in their dereliction of sworn duties.
6. The new law now makes approximately 300,00 formerly legal gun owners felons. I do not believe that the promise on non-prosecution will be followed.
7. The new law will hurt small businesses and cause job losses.
8. Laws that are retroactive in their legality undermine our way of life, and damage the reputation of government.

But the biggest issue of all is the fact that due process, public opinion/input, and legislative review were all bypassed by the Attorney General when she acted unilaterally to put this new law in place. This is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.

I cannot express to you how hurt and betrayed I feel in regard to the way this was handled. My faith in the Mass. government to do the right thing and involve all salient stakeholders has greatly diminished.

However, I am not alone feeling this way, as over 100 legislators have given this same feedback to the Attorney General.

History will prove that you and your fellow Democrats are on the wrong side of this issue, and the attack on peoples’ rights will be decided by the courts and in the voting booths.

Regards,

Paul Tumolo
 

Similar threads

Will this work
Replies
9
Views
326
LittleCalm
L
I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
673
chris_1001
chris_1001
what do you all think about plastering your vehicle with pro-gun stickers?
2 3 4
Replies
109
Views
2K
Sterg
Sterg
This hurt my brain reading this "article" on an AR-15
Replies
14
Views
524
Broc
Broc
When 17 rounds aren’t enough
Replies
9
Views
515
Dench
Dench
Back
Top Bottom