Compliance modification

Are there no pro-rights legislators willing to ask pointed legal questions of the AG?
Good luck finding one. This is MA. You’re gonna have a very hard time finding a legislator who’s that pro-2A. The controlling party here is vehemently anti-2A. Even the most pro-2A legislators here that are sponsored by GOAL most likely believe in other gun control laws like banning ghost guns and silencers.
 
Are you volunteering or one of the pussies?
Already did, for a case that was dropped by our side.
I'm also usually the first to point out that Maura's news conference is not law, and that legal Sporting rifles can be obtained.
But I also point out that I'm not a big enough fish, and that it should be planned and newsworthy, with names big enough to not be ignored. A la Rosa Parks.
 
Are there no pro-rights legislators willing to ask pointed legal questions of the AG?

Or does “gov’t official” mean something narrower than that?

It's not going to matter anyways because I would expect the AGs office to deliver the exact same soft-shoe answer to a legislator that they do everyone else. Insert "Some drivel about keeping children safe from assault weapons blah blah blah" etc ad nauseam. Wash rinse repeat.
 
It's not going to matter anyways because I would expect the AGs office to deliver the exact same soft-shoe answer to a legislator that they do everyone else. Insert "Some drivel about keeping children safe from assault weapons blah blah blah" etc ad nauseam. Wash rinse repeat.

Who does the AG work for? Is the AG's office basically independent, only subject to not being re-elected?

I'd think if a legislator wanted to know what the law currently is before making a new one, they'd demand a clear answer from the AG, and the AG would be obligated to provide one. I totally get why they don't to little people, but to the senate?
 
Who does the AG work for? Is the AG's office basically independent, only subject to not being re-elected?
It depends upon the party affiliations of the AG and the Governor.

If they are the same, the AG works for the Governor.
If they are different, there will be much high-minded bleating about the AG "working for the people".
 
It depends upon the party affiliations of the AG and the Governor.

If they are the same, the AG works for the Governor.
If they are different, there will be much high-minded bleating about the AG "working for the people".
Nah. If the AG is a Democrat they work for the DNC.
 
Who does the AG work for? Is the AG's office basically independent, only subject to not being re-elected?

basically, yes

I'd think if a legislator wanted to know what the law currently is before making a new one, they'd demand a clear answer from the AG, and the AG would be obligated to provide one. I totally get why they don't to little people, but to the senate?

Yeah but you know as well as I do that even if the AGs office really answered that, its just going to fire some word salad at the senator and hope they go away etc. If they bother at
all.
 
Who does the AG work for? Is the AG's office basically independent, only subject to not being re-elected?

I'd think if a legislator wanted to know what the law currently is before making a new one, they'd demand a clear answer from the AG, and the AG would be obligated to provide one. I totally get why they don't to little people, but to the senate?
Most of these people are lawyers, they cna do some basic research.

I will guess they also have resources, aids, or people working in the Senate that can research this or some sort of budget to pay a lawyer for the research.

If I was the AG and someone asked what the law is, I would send a URL and say "here is the law".

Since most of our laws are written in a f*cked up way that leave a lot of room for grey areas and interpretation, it would be impossible to give someone a good answer, even for the AG, and the AG is not going to spend hours every week meeting with different Senators to explain every law they ask about. Even the AG is not an expert, most lawyers aren't, that is why they keep law books as reference. Although some might keep them because they look good on a wall.
 
Most of these people are lawyers, they cna do some basic research.

I will guess they also have resources, aids, or people working in the Senate that can research this or some sort of budget to pay a lawyer for the research.

If I was the AG and someone asked what the law is, I would send a URL and say "here is the law".

Since most of our laws are written in a f*cked up way that leave a lot of room for grey areas and interpretation, it would be impossible to give someone a good answer, even for the AG, and the AG is not going to spend hours every week meeting with different Senators to explain every law they ask about. Even the AG is not an expert, most lawyers aren't, that is why they keep law books as reference. Although some might keep them because they look good on a wall.

The question isn't about law though, it's about the AG's declaration that some supper killy guns are unsafe because reasons.

There literally is no law to reference as to why a S&W M&P with its stupid little "loaded chamber indicator hole" is perfectly safe, but a Gen5 Glock's visual and tactile loaded chamber indicator, isn't, yet the 92FS's visual and tactile LCI (which isn't as good as the Glock's) is fine.
 
If I was the AG and someone asked what the law is, I would send a URL and say "here is the law".

Since most of our laws are written in a f*cked up way that leave a lot of room for grey areas and interpretation, it would be impossible to give someone a good answer, even for the AG, and the AG is not going to spend hours every week meeting with different Senators to explain every law they ask about. Even the AG is not an expert, most lawyers aren't, that is why they keep law books as reference. Although some might keep them because they look good on a wall.

It's not impossible because in law there's usually an argument explaining an interpretation somewhere.

I suspect that argument in the AGs office for her edict consists in reality of "Because I said so".

There's no real excuse for her not explaining her interpretation other than the fact that it fulfills some kind of political motive.
 
OK, so here's how I see our options:

1. Shit pants. Move to NH.
2. Shit pants. Get rid of "Assault Weapons" that are clones/copies of AR/AK. Stay in MA.
3. Don't shit pants. Do nothing. Hope you don't get jammed up through unfortunate circumstances or an overzealous CoP while staying in MA.

Did I miss anything?

How about this: rent storage space in NH. Move "Assault Weapons" there. Buy time to decide how to react above.
 
Dumb question that maybe nobody will have the answer to- what's the difference between an alteration and as manufactured?

So, for instance, if a ffl with a manufacturing license had a lower, pinned the mag, pinned the stock, put in the fire control group, etc. Is it altered or manufactured to spec? Does it matter if it starts from a branded lower or a 80% that is then stamped with make and model?

I could see the argument that isn't text based legal that buying a Saint and pinning the brake and stock would not meet their expectation, but at what point does it?
 
OK, so here's how I see our options:

1. Shit pants. Move to NH.
2. Shit pants. Get rid of "Assault Weapons" that are clones/copies of AR/AK. Stay in MA.
3. Don't shit pants. Do nothing. Hope you don't get jammed up through unfortunate circumstances or an overzealous CoP while staying in MA.

Did I miss anything?

How about this: rent storage space in NH. Move "Assault Weapons" there. Buy time to decide how to react above.
marlon brando trip GIF


Actually, nah, you're pretty much right on. Lol.
 
OK, so here's how I see our options:

1. Shit pants. Move to NH.
2. Shit pants. Get rid of "Assault Weapons" that are clones/copies of AR/AK. Stay in MA.
3. Don't shit pants. Do nothing. Hope you don't get jammed up through unfortunate circumstances or an overzealous CoP while staying in MA.

Did I miss anything?

How about this: rent storage space in NH. Move "Assault Weapons" there. Buy time to decide how to react above.
4. Don't shit pants. Continue to follow the law as written. Hope that, if you get jammed up, NES will follow through and throw $$$ at Comm2A, FPC, @nstassel, etc., to fund your arduous journey through the system and produce the next Bruen/Heller/Caetano.
 
Dumb question that maybe nobody will have the answer to- what's the difference between an alteration and as manufactured?

So, for instance, if a ffl with a manufacturing license had a lower, pinned the mag, pinned the stock, put in the fire control group, etc. Is it altered or manufactured to spec? Does it matter if it starts from a branded lower or a 80% that is then stamped with make and model?

I could see the argument that isn't text based legal that buying a Saint and pinning the brake and stock would not meet their expectation, but at what point does it?
Just my opinion. I'd say if the manufacturer puts a serial number on it then it's manufactured.

So if he started from an 80% he'd have to serialize it and so that is manufacturing.
If he started with a finished lower with a serial already on it, then that isn't manufacturing as far as he is concerned.
 
Just my opinion. I'd say if the manufacturer puts a serial number on it then it's manufactured.

So if he started from an 80% he'd have to serialize it and so that is manufacturing.
If he started with a finished lower with a serial already on it, then that isn't manufacturing as far as he is concerned.
But a stamped and serial numbered lower does not have a stock nor barrel ever associated with it, nor has the magazine assembly been completed. Is it compliant or non compliant? And if it is non-compliant, why?
 
But a stamped and serial numbered lower does not have a stock nor barrel ever associated with it, nor has the magazine assembly been completed. Is it compliant or non compliant? And if it is non-compliant, why?
Manufacturing is Fed laws, Compliance is state laws, two different things.
 
Manufacturing is Fed laws, Compliance is state laws, two different things.
At some point they have to mix.

If the state says you can't pin a stock to be compliant, and the manufactured item doesn't have a stock, can you or can you not attach a pinned stock?
 
Just my opinion. I'd say if the manufacturer puts a serial number on it then it's manufactured.

So if he started from an 80% he'd have to serialize it and so that is manufacturing.
If he started with a finished lower with a serial already on it, then that isn't manufacturing as far as he is concerned.
Don't Feds define "assembly" for profit as manufacturing? That is, installing parts to a stripped lower counts, no?
 
At some point they have to mix.

If the state says you can't pin a stock to be compliant, and the manufactured item doesn't have a stock, can you or can you not attach a pinned stock?
So starting with a pistol you add a stock, that's now an SBR. Putting that aside, I'd say no because you are putting on a pinned stock that wasn't there before.

They may get close but unless you're intentionally trying to confuse and twist, it looks pretty simple. If you can't have a treaded barrel, it doesn't matter who threaded the barrel.
 
Don't Feds define "assembly" for profit as manufacturing? That is, installing parts to a stripped lower counts, no?
I don't believe it does. It makes you a gunsmith, but not a manufacturer. Although being a manufacturer would include the subset of "gunsmith".
 
I don't believe it does. It makes you a gunsmith, but not a manufacturer. Although being a manufacturer would include the subset of "gunsmith".
That could be what I'm thinking of. Just remembering this recent thread:
 
Back
Top Bottom