Compliance modification

I was told Healey issues , one licensing guy was pushing the issue of how it was purchased and registered after 2016
That is why all the talk of pinning stocks, brakes - it is all quite secondary to the reality how police is told to operate.
It all depends upon the determination of enforcers of how far to push this.
 
Is it bad that I don’t give a f*** about this shit anymore? Do your best to stay out of trouble, check your risk tolerance, and live, laugh, love.
Yup. This why I asked how many valid LTC holders have been actually prosecuted for AWB and mag violations when thier shit is compliant. I don’t ever foresee myself getting into trouble and losing my shit to the police but I always wonder when I’m driving to and from the range if I get pulled over will the cop go full retard and want to get into my shit?? Guess I could always beat it with a non-consent to a search😂
 
This.

According to this horse-puckey, you're in for a penny, in for a pound: you'll get "prosecuted" for a pinned stock OR an unpinned one.

I HOPE someone takes that cheese. I HOPE a CoP tries to test that. I HOPE the AG pushes this. It'll just make the whole house of cards fall faster. Almost makes me want to go out and buy an AR simply so I can keep that daft plastic stock unpinned...

Almost.
Almost doesn't count, especially in the struggle for freedom.
 
I’m going to say no. I think there are plenty of gun owners who said F*** ensuring my AR is “compliant” and is “registered” after the 2016 bullshit.
But as others here have alluded, do at your own risk.
I live a boring life so I hope my guns will never be scrutinized. But nothing is definite in life I realize.
Anything gun-related is a risk in this state. For example, remember the FA10 leak a few months ago? There were guns under my name that I sold long ago, as well as guns missing that I have FA10s for - both could get me in trouble if someone went looking, and yet everything has been done by the book, although I'd go bankrupt proving it. MA sucks, I'm counting down the days till I move.
 
Almost doesn't count, especially in the struggle for freedom.

Don't worry. I'm covered: I've hypothetically got another rifle that's hypothetically in violation. I hypothetically shoot it regularly, and there is neither hypothetical nor actual shit in my pants.

I just put "almost" because I'm not into ARs.
 
This is why our side should set up a professional activist whose job is to intentional draw a case against themselves. None of that would matter to them short of going to prison because they are being taken care of. The left does this all the time, the right needs to learn how to do it.
I would get harangued whenever I stated this in the past. This forum is full of pussies.
 
Name them.

ETA: FWIW I understand the larger point you are trying to make. Ayn Rand/No way to govern honest men, Lavrentiy Beria/Show me the man and I'll show you the crime, et al.
That is like asking how long is a piece of string. When Silverglate's book was written over a decade ago, even more ways of felony charging have been devised. There's no way of determining how many felonies are actually on the books now because you can have an orgy or gangbang of charges, when combined, automatically elevate the charge from a misdemeanor. We're probably up to at least 10x/day by 2023.
 
Nope.

Attorney will tell client - you have been offered a deal. Take it, there is no telling what a court will decide and persons who insist on a trial because they honestly believe they are innocent tend to be severely punished by the court for doing so. There are lots of prison cells occupied by people offered no jail time deals. Client will fold.
Ya but the attorney(s) are not always right. In a civil trial we were begged by our counsel and the plaintiffs lawyer to take the deal and we went to court anyway for a judges decision. No jury for the plaintiff to cry at and say we were mean to her.

We went to trial and we won.

Frankly seeing her almost arrested in the court room was just the start of a very happy conclusion.
 
Name them.




ETA: FWIW I understand the larger point you are trying to make. Ayn Rand/No way to govern honest men, Lavrentiy Beria/Show me the man and I'll show you the crime, et al.

Good read
 

Good read
“When we think about the pace of change in technology, it's usually to marvel at how computing power has become cheaper and faster or how many new digital ways we have to communicate. Unfortunately, this pace of change is increasingly clashing with some of the slower-moving parts of our culture.

Technology moves so quickly we can barely keep up, and our legal system moves so slowly it can't keep up with itself. By design, the law is built up over time by court decisions, statutes and regulations. Sometimes even criminal laws are left vague, to be defined case by case. Technology exacerbates the problem of laws so open and vague that they are hard to abide by, to the point that we have all become potential criminals.

Boston civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls his new book "Three Felonies a Day," referring to the number of crimes he estimates the average American now unwittingly commits because of vague laws. New technology adds its own complexity, making innocent activity potentially criminal.

Mr. Silverglate describes several cases in which prosecutors didn't understand or didn't want to understand technology. This problem is compounded by a trend that has accelerated since the 1980s for prosecutors to abandon the principle that there can't be a crime without criminal intent.
In 2001, a man named Bradford Councilman was charged in Massachusetts with violating the wiretap laws. He worked at a company that offered an online book-listing service and also acted as an Internet service provider to book dealers. As an ISP, the company routinely intercepted and copied emails as part of the process of shuttling them through the Web to recipients.

The federal wiretap laws, Mr. Silverglate writes, were "written before the dawn of the Internet, often amended, not always clear, and frequently lagging behind the whipcrack speed of technological change." Prosecutors chose to interpret the ISP role of momentarily copying messages as they made their way through the system as akin to impermissibly listening in on communications. The case went through several rounds of litigation, with no judge making the obvious point that this is how ISPs operate. After six years, a jury found Mr. Councilman not guilty.

Other misunderstandings of the Web criminalize the exercise of First Amendment rights. A Saudi student in Idaho was charged in 2003 with offering "material support" to terrorists. He had operated Web sites for a Muslim charity that focused on normal religious training, but was prosecuted on the theory that if a user followed enough links off his site, he would find violent, anti-American comments on other sites. The Internet is a series of links, so if there's liability for anything in an online chain, it would be hard to avoid prosecution.

Mr. Silverglate, a liberal who wrote a previous book taking the conservative position against political correctness on campuses, is a persistent, principled critic of overbroad statutes. This is a common problem in securities laws, which Congress leaves intentionally vague, encouraging regulators and prosecutors to try people even when the law is unclear. He reminds us of the long prosecution of Silicon Valley investment banker Frank Quattrone, which after five years resulted in a reversal of his criminal conviction on vague charges of obstruction of justice.

These miscarriages are avoidable. Under the English common law we inherited, a crime requires intent. This protection is disappearing in the U.S. As Mr. Silverglate writes, "Since the New Deal era, Congress has delegated to various administrative agencies the task of writing the regulations," even as "Congress has demonstrated a growing dysfunction in crafting legislation that can in fact be understood." Prosecutors identify defendants to go after instead of finding a law that was broken and figuring out who did it. Expect more such prosecutions as Washington adds regulations.

Sometimes legislators know when they make false distinctions based on technology. An "anti-cyberbullying" proposal is making its way through Congress, prompted by the tragic case of a 13-year-old girl driven to suicide by the mother of a neighbor posing as a teenage boy and posting abusive messages on MySpace. The law would prohibit using the Internet to "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." Imagine a law that tried to apply this control of speech to letters, editorials or lobbying.

Mr. Silverglate, who will testify against the bill later this week, tells me he figures that "being emotionally distressed is just part of living in a free society." New technologies like the Web, he concludes, "scare legislators because they don't understand them and want to control them, even as they become a normal part of life."

In a complex world of new technologies, there is more need than ever for clear rules of the road. Americans should expect that a crime requires bad intent and also that Congress and prosecutors will try to create clarity, not uncertainty. Our legal system has a lot of catching up to do to work smoothly with the rest of our lives.”
 
Last edited:
It says "altered by the seller". To me, that doesn't sound like it will apply to rifles altered by the end user, or rifles constructed as compliant by the manufacturer.

But then again, all of the friends I know who have ARs stopped paying attention to the AWB entirely a long time ago. You can't take a shit in Massachusetts without breaking 3 different laws. At some point, people just stop giving a f*ck and live their lives.

Glad to see she has her priorities straight though. The opioid epidemic, black-on-black violence, homelessness, squatters ruining landlords, rising violent crime, illegal discrimination against Whites and Asians, and prosecutorial misconduct masquerading as prosecutorial "discretion" shouldn't be priorities at all...
 
From post 102 above^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Mr. Silverglate, who will testify against the bill later this week, tells me he figures that "being emotionally distressed is just part of living in a free society."

That's funny,,,,actually its a really f'ing bad joke. [laugh] [rofl]

All my emotional distress with regard to guns, gun laws and living in a police state disappeared the day I moved from Massachusetts to the free society of Kentucky.
 
Ask an AI (ChatGPT):

Q: “Can the Massachusetts attorney general declare something is illegal on his/her own?”

A: “In Massachusetts, the Attorney General has the authority to interpret and enforce state laws, but they cannot unilaterally declare something to be illegal on their own.

The Attorney General's authority to enforce the law in Massachusetts is generally limited to bringing legal actions and prosecutions in accordance with the state's statutes and regulations. The Attorney General can investigate allegations of illegal activity and may bring a legal action or prosecution if they believe a violation has occurred, but they cannot simply declare something illegal without some legal basis.

In some cases, the Attorney General may issue advisory opinions on the legality of certain activities or transactions. These opinions are not binding but can provide guidance to individuals and organizations about the interpretation and enforcement of state law. However, even in this case, the Attorney General's opinion would need to be based on existing law and legal precedent.”
 
This has no basis in law.
If I’m correct they tossed the Worman case because basically it didn’t affect anybody, no one was prosecuted over the Notice. This essentially put Healy in check. Maybe the new AG is that extreme and will try and prosecute a MA compliant rifle. Hopefully the whole AWB is smacked down nationally as soon as possible. It’s the only way to put a stop to this bs.
 
If I’m correct they tossed the Worman case because basically it didn’t affect anybody, no one was prosecuted over the Notice. This essentially put Healy in check. Maybe the new AG is that extreme and will try and prosecute a MA compliant rifle. Hopefully the whole AWB is smacked down nationally as soon as possible. It’s the only way to put a stop to this bs.
If the goal was to take AR15's off the gun store shelves in MA, it was 100% effective. A bit less so in taking stripped lowers off the market, but 95%+ of shops won't tough those either, even though they are not firearms, rifles or shotguns under MGL.
 
If the goal was to take AR15's off the gun store shelves in MA, it was 100% effective. A bit less so in taking stripped lowers off the market, but 95%+ of shops won't tough those either, even though they are not firearms, rifles or shotguns under MGL.
With the push now on dealers and police training is it only a matter of time before a valid LTC holder in AWB compliance gets jammed up?
 
With the push now on dealers and police training is it only a matter of time before a valid LTC holder in AWB compliance gets jammed up?
It's already happened im sure, likely more than once. Like a keystone cop overcharging someone etc. Has nothing to do with this guidance and everything to do with the fact that there's a contingent of first class douchebags in some PDs in this state.

The problem is not new. It's just rare, and in other cases you don't hear about it because their attorney told them to just shut the f****** about the whole incident even if they got out clean.
 
I would hope the few that manage to get into the states crosshairs, would/could be helped financially and represented by Comm2a’s attorneys. I think many other gun owners would donate to help with their legal fees to fight this BS
Well maybe assuming they’re not a POS and didn’t, for example, abuse their wife or kids and now their guns are under the microscope.
Comm2a is always on the lookout for good cases, but baggage can cause problems.

First off, there needs to be no downside to the plaintiff. For example, I would love to see a "FLRB relief not recognized" case, but we would need a plaintiff who obtained such state level relief; was denied by NICS; and did not possess or ever handle a gun between the time after they became a federal PP (misdafelony in this case). An existing gun owner convicted of a misdafelony who continued to possess his gun, but only brought action after a NICS denial would be at legal risk for a "felon in possession" prosecution if the ATF position that FLRB relieft isn't prevailed.

Then there is the "likeability" factor. The best plaintiff are ones with no baggage - such as someone with no convictions or charges being told "prove they are not AWs" to get their guns back who does not have a series of calls for domestic issues to their house. While technically these should not effect the case, it is easier for the court to concentrate on the issues when the don't see someone who "obviously should not possess a gun" as the petitioner.

So, if anyone encounters a "clean" case, please let Comm2a know.
 
Last edited:
Then there is the "likeability" factor. The best plaintiff are ones with no baggage - such as someone with no convictions or charges being told "prove they are not AWs" to get their guns back who does not have a series of calls for domestic issues to their house. While technically these should not affect the case, it is easier for the court to concentrate on the issues when the don't see someone who "obviously should not possess a gun" as the petitioner.

I understand the importance of this “likeability” factor but I do think though that sometimes there is too much focus placed on finding the “perfect” plaintiff to bring a lawsuit, and sometimes perfect can be the enemy of progress. Good enough quickly is better than perfect but slow as molasses (sometimes even slower than that). I’m aware of the importance of not creating bad case law but we can’t have massive court victories if no lawsuits are ever filed, and who knows what a future SCOTUS will interpret the 2A to mean. We’re nearing another presidential election. Justice Thomas ain’t gonna live forever, and I don’t trust Chief Justice Roberts not to flip-flop on his position later on down the line.

I think getting rid of suitability in MA should be legal priority number one, even ahead of stuff like the AWB & mag bans. I know it’s a hard beast to take down and the difficulties involved with it (good plaintiff, PD moots case, etc.) but part of the reason why the Pro-2A side is losing in this state is because there’s so few of us. Less than 10% of the population of MA are legal gun owners. There are still people being denied LTCs or having them revoked because of suitability even post-Bruen. Creating more gun owners helps everyone in the long run (more potential GOAL & Comm2A donations, more support against anti-2A legislation, creating a bigger gun culture, etc.).

Suitability should be very easy to kill once and for all in a post-Bruen world, I mean heck NY introduced a “good moral character” requirement very similar to suitability after Bruen and it’s already being challenged in CA2. I just don’t think waiting around for other states to get to SCOTUS is the right move, because there’s no guarantee that those cases will affect us. We still have safe storage requirements Post-Heller after all.

I think a recent example of not needing the perfect plaintiff to win can actually be found in the case of US v. Rahimi out of CA5. The dude in that case appears to be a total scumbag but he still managed to win in the end on the merits, and if SCOTUS takes the appeal from the DOJ and affirms the inferior court’s ruling then he’ll be responsible for another major 2A victory on the level of Heller, McDonald, Caetano & Bruen.

I know Rahimi is a different jurisdiction but If you want one local to MA, I think FRB v. Simkin was another pretty good example of not needing the perfect plaintiff. From my understanding of that case, Simkin was kind of a weirdo but even then it still ended up being a major legal victory for MA gun owners (one of the very few ones in this state).
 
I'm not going to Out the dealer but I just bought a handgun from another state and the dealer I picked said they would do the transfer IF it was "Ma. Compliant " so the state has trained the FFL's to do their work for them. I'm not blaming the dealer but blaming the attitude the AG office has instilled in the people, dealers and LE's into doing what they want. This Mother May I is and always be are downfall .
I’m not saying I agree with the laws in Ma but it would be a felony for the dealer if they didn’t comply
 
I understand the importance of this “likeability” factor but I do think though that sometimes there is too much focus placed on finding the “perfect” plaintiff ....
Excellent points. One thing that cannot be compromised on are plaintiff who are put at legal risk by filing a case (example already cited).

A step towards getting rid of "Suitability" it to get deprivation of an LTC as treates as"removal of a right" by the courts, and subject to all due process in appeals. This would include the right to be assumed not guilty of behavior making one dangerous until proven otherwise; exclusion of heresay evidence (now explicitly allowed); the right to discovery (not allowed now); and the right to a de-novo appeal.

We were screwed at the last gun law update when the term "de novo" was quietly removed from the bill. This would have been a game changer. Surprisingly, there was not a single word from GOAL about this, which leads me to believe it was either done behind closed doors and no info was available regarding who did this, or there were strategic reasons (like someone who is generally a friend did this). I would still like to know who took that two word term out of the change to the suitability standard (now allegedly based on dangerousness).

The lack of de novo means the courts handling appeals are still following the Moyer guidance (arguably obsolete) that their role is to determine if the issuing authority thought he had a reason that was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion - and that reason does not have to match what the court would have decided in a de novo review.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom