- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,558
- Likes
- 33,625
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
This law seems unconstitutional. Oh wait, it’s not even a law.
But ya, sounds like anything pre-94 is an AW even if it’s “AWB compliant” so I’m not sure the point of pinning stocks etc.
the intent there is to feed it to police for enforcement, and it will arrest you, take your ltc, confiscate all your guns, drag you into the court on those charges, will make you fired from your job, make you to pay $30k for a lawyer, for all that to be finally settled positively for you with charges dismissed - and leave you with all the guns stolen from you, no job and no future prospects.Take it to court, AG. Go on. I dare ya. Prosecute someone for this.
You'll NEVER see it.
the intent there is to feed it to police for enforcement, and it will arrest you, take your ltc, confiscate all your guns, drag you into the court on those charges, will make you fired from your job, make you to pay $30k for a lawyer, for all that to be finally settled positively for you with charges dismissed - and leave you with all the guns stolen from you, no job and no future prospects.
it is how they operate and they know it works very well. it matters not if it is lawful or constitutional, as long as police is covered for their actions and AG and DA are working in sync.
the process itself is made into the ultimate punishment, and actual judgment outcome does not interest no one.
ag office is not liable for any charges or monetary losses of a person that gets unjustifiably prosecuted for an imaginary crime.I believe the AG's office is probably not so dumb as to TRY to enforce this.
There is already a lawsuit challenging the AWB & mag bans, it’s NAGR v. Campbell.Absolutely correct, and I lack the moral courage (as well as the postban rifles, lol) to test this stuff. But somebody somewhere, hopefully, is willing to be the Ernesto Miranda in this case. Say the CoP does what you're saying, though, and the person they do it to is the right sort of plaintiff for a civil rights lawsuit... yum.
I doubt it'll matter, personally. I believe the AG's office is probably not so dumb as to TRY to enforce this.
there was that time in history when people had to go to actual offices in order to be able to get good paying jobs.Tell me again whay MA is worth living and working in??? Heck, for me, it is not even worth visiting...
I would not take that approach.So does this mean don’t bother doing it to what you currently own because it’s non compliant forever and you’re already a felon?
Glidden has been preaching this for probably 20 yrs now. It's nothing new and he's been training officers, LOs, chiefs on this interpretation all along.
In the MA marsupial court system, this interpretation will lead to a conviction. If it ever saw the USSC (very doubtful) it might fall, but not until that point.
Maura is behind it. Glidden is just aiding and abetting.So he’s the one behind this?
The AG is staking out a position that an MA defined AW cannot be "made compliant". Note slide #36 from the dealer training:
View attachment 735793
my take on this - in this rather interesting period of a transitional time i am partially joining pantshitters camp.I would not take that approach.
by having a very different person at the top of the enforcers food chain. it is all about the motivation of those who have power to enforce unlawful decisions.How is this any different from the previously eructated bullshit on 7/20/16
This was also the shitlogic used in that promulgated EOPS memo that went out long before 7/20/16.... aka "the unisgned by guida" memo.... that upon receiving it, every dealer basically was like.....Glidden has been preaching this for probably 20 yrs now. It's nothing new and he's been training officers, LOs, chiefs on this interpretation all along.
In the MA marsupial court system, this interpretation will lead to a conviction. If it ever saw the USSC (very doubtful) it might fall, but not until that point.
How is this any different from the previously eructated bullshit on 7/20/16? Lol. The AGs clowns have always maintained that described doctrine even if it clearly doesn't exist in law.
They fittin to be crying when their shit fails.....
View: https://youtu.be/4heHLbchPKk
or may not. and a 'win' there will only be granted if it makes it all the way to scotus that can take a decade of proceedings, and by the time it gets there - the scotus can look very different majority wise.We may well win if the AG tries to prosecute this
If you read all of the b******* that came out of the AG's office after 7/20/16 that was always their position.... basically she claimed that anybody with the AR etc after 9/94 is a felon "but that she wasn't going to prosecute anyone" with a gun in that class. Strictly speaking according to the garbage there is no pre healey.Is this one meant to cover 94-2016? So no pre-Healy? Lol.
There never is going to be a prosecution. This is exactly the same as her original position just cast into training materials as gospel that's all it really is......We may well win if the AG tries to prosecute this. But I’d rather not be the test case.
If you read all of the b******* that came out of the AG's office after 7/20/16 that was always their position.... basically she claimed that anybody with the AR etc after 9/94 is a felon "but that she wasn't going to prosecute anyone at this time" with a gun in that class. Strictly speaking according to the garbage there is no pre healey.