Emergency Preamble to be signed Weds?

GL2020 said:
That would end up in court in a heart beat. A car or boat is not constitutionally protected. Be right there in the same camp as a poll tax.
Click to expand...
Not that I disagree with you, but paying for an LTC/FID is exactly the same as a poll tax (smoke-poll tax?). That hasn't stopped them yet.
 
pastera said:
While the EOPSS doesn't have the authority to simply declare long guns to be compliant with Chapt 140 Section 123 (o), they have setup an estoppel defense for dealers that sell long guns.

Yes, any ASF must have been possessed in state on 8/1 (or by a very narrow exception if it was in the transaction database on 7/20/16)

Yes, any "assault weapon" under the prior law that is now exempt under the current law therefore it is the same are a pre93

They aren't boned, they are illegally possessing firearms and subject to a felony conviction.

Correct - per the letter of the law no retraining will be required until the new training is actually implemented (some cities will put extra-legal requirements though)
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks for the time you gave me @pastera. Two things though in red. The EOPSS is simply a mass.gov agency and though the declaration is in our favor, Including the estoppel defense for the LGS's, is this due to the Chevron decision?

I'm going to have to disagree about the being boned part but then our definitions may not be the same but being subject to a felony conviction (which flies in the face of about three rights) for something you legally possessed one day but a felony charge the next is pretty much getting boned.
 
Taipan01 said:
Okay, thanks for the time you gave me @pastera. Two things though in red. The EOPSS is simply a mass.gov agency and though the declaration is in our favor, Including the estoppel defense for the LGS's, is this due to the Chevron decision?

I'm going to have to disagree about the being boned part but then our definitions may not be the same but being subject to a felony conviction (which flies in the face of about three rights) for something you legally possessed one day but a felony charge the next is pretty much getting boned.
Click to expand...
I think it is more binding than you think. The ES of EOPSS is delegated the authority to add/remove stuff to any roster at anytime. These changes take effect when published. They issued the memo saying all long guns not otherwise prohibited can still be transferred/sold by dealers. They then published this memo on the state website. This would seem to meet the statutory requirements in MGL 140 131 3/4 and was done by the ES of EOPSS. This all seems to add up to a new long gun roster that is "all rifles and shotguns not otherwise prohibited in MA until further guidance is provided".

It was done in a very unprofessional and non-official looking way, BUT it appears to actually meet the legal requirements. Odd. But this is MA
 
gerrycaruso said:
She says she signed the emergency preamble because some provisions were so important, they couldn't wait. Maybe I'm too dumb to understand but if they're so important, why did she wait this long?
Click to expand...

That's the same question I had. What wasn't an emergency suddenly became one.

My best guess is that she needed more time to work up to a 'climactic' signing. 😉
 
Taipan01 said:
Okay, thanks for the time you gave me @pastera. Two things though in red. The EOPSS is simply an mass.gov agency and though the declaration is in our favor, Including the estoppel defense for the LGS's, is this due to the Chevron decision?
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with Chevron - actually the opposite.
Chevron says that EOPSS cannot make a rule outside its clear statutory authority therefore it cannot allow the sale of off roster firearms by simple decree.
The estoppel defense is that the state published a document leading the average, reasonable person to believe that an action is legal when they actually don't have the power to do so. Therefore while the action remains illegal, the state cannot prosecute since the person could not reasonably known that the conduct was illegal (actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea)

Taipan01 said:
)

I'm going to have to disagree about the being boned part but then our definitions may not be the same but being subject to a felony conviction (which flies in the face of about three rights) for something you legally possessed one day but a felony charge the next is pretty much getting boned.
Click to expand...
I should have been more clear - if you are one of the FID FUDs that felt they were above the rest of us and sat on your FID because "no one needs more than good shotgun and Rem 700 for hunting" then you can choke to death on a BOD then FOAD.
Those are the one's that deserve to get raked over the coals of the judicial system.

For those under 21 limited to an FID - yeah, you got the shit end of the stick.
 
Last edited:
pastera said:
Nothing to do with Chevron - actually the opposite.
Chevron says that EOPSS cannot make a rule outside its clear statutory authority therefore it cannot allow the sale of off roster firearms by simple decree.
The estoppel defense is that the state published a document leading the average, reasonable person to that an action is legal when they actually don't have the power to do so. Therefore while the action remains illegal, the state cannot prosecute since the person could not reasonably known that the conduct was illegal (actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea)


I should have been more clear - if you are one of the FID FUDs that felt they were above the rest of us and sat on your FID because "no one needs more than good shotgun and Rem 700 for hunting" then you can choke to death on a BOD then FOAD.
Those are the one's that deserve to get raked over the coals of the judicial system.

For those under 21 limited to an FID - yeah, you got the shit end of the stick.
Click to expand...
I see, okay, thank you again. It's that I have limited time to follow it all as every minute it seems to be changing. We used to have a name for this.... Clusterf***.

Thanks.
 
Was looking through the law changes and here's an interesting one I'd never heard of:

Chapter 140 Section 126: Placards, signs or advertisements; prima facie evidence

Section 126. If there is exposed from, maintained in or permitted to remain on any vehicle or premises any placard, sign or advertisement purporting or designed to announce that firearms are kept in or upon such vehicle or premises or that an occupant of any vehicle or premises is a gunsmith, it shall be prima facie evidence that are kept in or upon such vehicle or premises for sale or that the occupant is engaged in business as a gunsmith.
Click to expand...

So, if you are traveling out of NH, and you have a bumper sticker that says "Honk and I shoot", you're in the business of selling firearms without a license in the state?
 
Drix said:
Was looking through the law changes and here's an interesting one I'd never heard of:

Chapter 140 Section 126: Placards, signs or advertisements; prima facie evidence



So, if you are traveling out of NH, and you have a bumper sticker that says "Honk and I shoot", you're in the business of selling firearms without a license in the state?
Click to expand...
I guess you don't pay much attention - I made this very clear early on in the game.
 
pastera said:
I guess you don't pay much attention - I made this very clear early on in the game.
Click to expand...
I mean, there's a lot of shit to wade through, so I guess you didn't make a big enough deal about it, especially where this law predates the update and just took out a bit about rifles, shotguns, and machine guns.
 
Marty McFly said:
I was concerned that I could buy the pistol from him but also concerned i would need it for him 🤣
A week later I was lured back to Fairhaven for another deal. I'm 6 foot 3 and this giant towering dude shows up. Gruff. Of course I'm telling myself I'm done with the south coast. Dude was a giant teddy bear. Super nice
Click to expand...
Was it this guy lol 😂

IMG_6575.jpeg
 
PDB said:
Not that I disagree with you, but paying for an LTC/FID is exactly the same as a poll tax (smoke-poll tax?). That hasn't stopped them yet.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the Supreme court has always acknowledged (even in Bruen) that some states license. I wish they hadn't because they took it as an invite to run wild in handful of states we all know and love to dislike. A license implies a fee of some sort, so kind of the same but different
 
GL2020 said:
Yeah but the Supreme court has always acknowledged (even in Bruen) that some states license. I wish they hadn't because they took it as an invite to run wild in handful of states we all know and love to dislike. A license implies a fee of some sort, so kind of the same but different
Click to expand...
The Supremes haven't said no to licenses. They also didn't say yes. They said "we're not addressing that right now". There's no more need to charge for it than there is to charge for voter registration, though. Courts should be reminded of that.
 
pastera said:
The estoppel defense is that the state published a document leading the average, reasonable person to believe that an action is legal when they actually don't have the power to do so. Therefore while the
Click to expand...
More precisely the defense is "entrapment by estoppel". If the state (or feds) induce you to do something by telling you it is legal, and then prosecutes you for it, it is entrapment.

The doctrine does not work across jurisdictional lines. A state actor telling you something federally legal, or vice-versa, does not meet the criteria for this defense. By extension, a local government official (cop, mayor, etc.) tellins you somethig is legal at the state level may (emphasis may) not qualify under the same doctrine.

The Supremes haven't said no to licenses. They also didn't say yes. They said "we're not addressing that right now". There's no more need to charge for it than there is to charge for voter registration, though. Courts should be reminded of that.
Click to expand...
The ability to do so creates the need. It's called the "dog licks own balls" effect.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Post your Emergency Preamble Purchases
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
4K
chris_1001
chris_1001
USPS should be abolished and everyone who works there needs to be fired.
3 4 5
Replies
125
Views
2K
Golddiggie
Golddiggie
Special Legislative Commission on Emerging Firearms Tech
Replies
5
Views
290
mu2bdriver
mu2bdriver
Can gun groups sue the state of MA for the emergency preamble? And if yes, what would happen if it worked?
Replies
5
Views
606
SteakAndEggs
S
Here's How Police Are Being Trained To Deal With Incels
2
Replies
31
Views
796
Rocky Mosasaurus
Rocky Mosasaurus
Back
Top Bottom