GOAL Statement on Current Litigation v. AG Healey

[Mike S]

The NSSF statement has no effect on GOAL litigation v AG Healey.

Yesterday, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) announced that they were no longer pursuing their court case against AG Healey regarding her 2016 Enforcement Notice. The case known as Pullman Arms et al. v. Attorney General Healey has concluded.

We want to send notice that the NSSF’s decision in no way affects our continued litigation (Worman v. Baker)currently awaiting certification from the United States Supreme Court.

As of today, the Attorney General has posted new clarifications regarding the August 2016 Enforcement Notice. The information on the AG’s page shows that nothing has changed regarding owning and possessing AR and AK style rifles and magazines.

GOAL will continue to pursue our lawsuit until we have a positive outcome.

####

photo courtesy State House News Service
Support our efforts, including this lawsuit by donating here!
Click here to read the petition for writ of certiorari
Click here to view the SCOTUS web page with info about case
Click here for more information about GOAL’s legal team filing to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

 

[IPSC_DRL]

As of today, the Attorney General has posted new clarifications regarding the August 2016 Enforcement Notice. The information on the AG’s page shows that nothing has changed regarding owning and possessing AR and AK style rifles and magazines.


You can go to the posting above and let the AG's office know if they were helpful or not................................

"Thanks, your message has been sent to Office of Attorney General Maura Healey!
Would you like to provide additional feedback to help improve Mass.gov?"

 

[TrashcanDan]

Found this on the f.a.q.
She did a pretty good job of laying it all out there.

I am a law enforcement officer. Does the notice affect me?
No. The notice does not change the law with respect to ownership of Assault Weapons by law enforcement officers. Your existing right to buy and possess Assault Weapons remains protected under Massachusetts law. You may also own "Extra-Killy" magazines and rename everything as "equipment related to a patrol rifle", because patrol rifle gives it more of an elitist definition than the average tax paying peon's "assault rifle". If you're currently a member of the Mass State Gestapo, you may also sell patrol rifles (with under barrel chainsaw attachment) from your units armory, because I, the A.G., have concluded you can do no wrong.
I am a dealer. May I re-stock my inventory of Assault Weapons for sales exclusively to law enforcement officers?
No. Because I hate you. 95% of dealers in the Commonwealth are men, and I hate men. However, you may take orders for sales of Assault Weapons to law enforcement officers,because they can be re-interpreted as "patrol rifles", and you may obtain those weapons from your distributor and possess them until you complete the transfer, but upon completion of every transfer, you must then call my hotline and pledge allegiance and address me as "Your Royal Highness" When you do so, you must retain information sufficient to verify that the transferee is a law enforcement officer, or a friend or relative of a law enforcement officer.

 

[22lr]

What can I do if I no longer want my gun?
If you are a moron, you can give it away at one of the frequent state, regional or local buyback programs. Check with your local police department.
You may also sell your gun on NortheastShooters.com for (10) times the original MSRP, or (17) times MSRP if manufactured by Noveske, provided you list it as ‘Pre-Healey’ and include the words ‘like new’ in the listing.

 

[42!]

I am a law enforcement officer. Does the notice affect me?
No. The notice does not change the law with respect to ownership of Assault Weapons by law enforcement officers. Your existing right to buy and possess Assault Weapons remains protected under Massachusetts law.

So now it's clear, LE have this as a right but the rest of MA does not. There has got to be some way to take this to the courts, but don't narrowly define it as just about guns, they would just change the law and moot the case. Make it about "laws that grant exemption or special privilege to any group", this is just an example.

Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons?
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially similar model weapon;
Any Springfield Armory M1A or substantially similar model weapon

The use of the word "Any" opens interesting possibilities. It would include, based on the provided guidance and similarity test, a totally tacticool gun with the same trigger group as one of these, regardless of it having otherwise banned features. "Any" is a very special word.

 

[Boris]

So now it's clear, LE have this as a right but the rest of MA does not. There has got to be some way to take this to the courts, but don't narrowly define it as just about guns, they would just change the law and moot the case. Make it about "laws that grant exemption or special privilege to any group", this is just an example.

The use of the word "Any" opens interesting possibilities. It would include, based on the provided guidance and similarity test, a totally tacticool gun with the same trigger group as one of these, regardless of it having otherwise banned features. "Any" is a very special word.

I once looked into it, I believe that mini14 that originally came with non-folding stock, you can't just add a folding stock to it, no bueno.

 

[Eugenio.FV]

Well, i think its time for that $1,500 pre ban lower to be relisted at $2,500 and be in the listings for another year.

 

[HuntMaine]

So I wonder if former LEOs get the exception or is it just those currently employed as LEOs

 

[wmass]

So I wonder if former LEOs get the exception or is it just those currently employed as LEOs

The exemption doesn’t end when employment does.

 

[Shire Guy]

What exactly did change in the clarifications?

 

[MagGus1820]

What exactly did change in the clarifications?

She clairfied that she sucks.

 

[EJFudd]

What exactly did change in the clarifications?

Essentially nothing.

 

[rudiewhitebwoy]

Since Frank Cousins retired, we only have Leftie Sheriffs so this probably won't be happening in Mass.

Virginia Sheriff: He'll deputize residents if gun laws pass

 

[Dennis in MA]

She is such a tool and NSSF wasted a pile of time and energy for nothing.

 

[Len-2A Training]

So I wonder if former LEOs get the exception or is it just those currently employed as LEOs

The exemption doesn’t end when employment does.

According to the (now former) lawyer at FRB, essentially this is only true for active LEOs. It is a gray area (according to said attorney) the day they retire . . . they could be charged with the felony of illegal possession of an AW (if it violates the actual law-mag capacity, evil features, etc.). In any case, they can not purchase anything that a mere mortal can not purchase after they retire.

 

[Drix]

I am a dealer. May I re-stock my inventory of Assault Weapons for sales exclusively to law enforcement officers?
No.

FFL's be all "No! I won't sell you that VZ58, but if you turn around you can check out my wall of LEO only guns!"

 

[22lr]

In VA there are sheriffs that are going to deputize the populace if their gun control measures get passed. Why can’t we have some LEO’s step up like that in MA?!

 

[JoseyWales]

Why can’t we have some LEO’s step up like that in MA?!

I'm guessing that their pension is worth more to them than the civil rights of others.

 

[Len-2A Training]

FFL's be all "No! I won't sell you that VZ58, but if you turn around you can check out my wall of LEO only guns!"

Ah, No. The AG clearly says that LE Dealers can ONLY order after officer orders it and it can't be on display or hang around the shop longer than necessary to do the transfer. BTW, this violates the actual WRITTEN law in MGLs, but she doesn't care about that and dealers won't disobey her. [Since this case and discussion is about so-called AWs, my statement is too . . . nothing to do with handguns.]

In VA there are sheriffs that are going to deputize the populace if their gun control measures get passed. Why can’t we have some LEO’s step up like that in MA?!

I suspect that sheriffs being elected can deputize on their own authority. However, all police in MA are appointed by their "appointing authority" (mayor, vote of selectmen, etc.) and not by the police chief (who is merely an employee/administrator). Since sheriffs don't really enforce law in MA, this can't be done here.

I'm guessing that their pension is worth more to them than the civil rights of others.

True. But see my comment above, appointing structure is different and this can't be done here.

 

[Ultimate Shield]

Just out of curiosity, does this new clarification at all damage the chances of the GOAL lawsuit succeeding?
What's to effectively stop the court from saying something along the lines of "Well its not like you don't have other options. The AG has clearly laid out other viable alternatives that are still legal to purchase and own, and denying this single class/design of firearms isn't a burden enough to violate your constitutional rights as such"
I almost wonder if that's the new gameplan, to make the lawsuit that is the actual threat to her seem completely trivial and not worth the SC's time.

Since Frank Cousins retired, we only have Leftie Sheriffs so this probably won't be happening in Mass.

Virginia Sheriff: He'll deputize residents if gun laws pass

AFAIK Sheriffs in MA basically have no real power like their southern counterparts do, and instead effectively serve the role of "Jailers" rather than actual LE who would enforce said laws.

 

[rsj]

So the laws are all meaningless then.

 

[Coyote33]

I noticed this:
"Any .17 or .22 caliber rimfire rifle; "

... and there are these:

F17 Series | Gas Piston AR | Rimfire Rifle | .17 WSM

The F17 series is the world's first gas piston AR rimrifle. Our firearm F17 of semi-automatic rimfire rifles were designed with safety and efficiency in mind. .17 WSM

franklinarmory.com

Is there anything preventing someone from coming up with a bigger .17 rimfire caliber, or a corresponding .22 caliber rimfire; and the rifles to accept them?

 

[Whutmeworry]

So the laws are all meaningless then.

Yes. Because the entire United States is (and frankly always has been) a nation of political will, not a nation of laws.

 

[hv55maxx]

223rem-based rimfire in production yet?

ETA: or 7.62x51 or that matter

 

[42!]

I once looked into it, I believe that mini14 that originally came with non-folding stock, you can't just add a folding stock to it, no bueno.

That's what the Fed law said but that's not what Maura says.

The case was too narrowly defined, she got away with leaving lots of questions but just addressing a few specific firearms.

 

[GJH86]

"The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement."

I am guessing that it depends on what the agency does upon retirement.....

 

[LLF]

Since Frank Cousins retired, we only have Leftie Sheriffs so this probably won't be happening in Mass.

Virginia Sheriff: He'll deputize residents if gun laws pass

What about Sheriff Thomas Hodgson (Bristol County)?
He's pretty conservative. He wanted to send Bristol County Inmates down south to work on Trump's border wall.

 

[426wedge]

So M1A's are ok?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

"The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement."

I am guessing that it depends on what the agency does upon retirement.....

The wording states that the exemption applies to a LE who is not prohibited from receiving such a weapon, not one who does receive such a weapon. While the intent may be considered clear by some, parsing the sentence according to rules of grammer is an "If A then B" construct where A="retire...not probibited" and B="exempt"

It's like all you can eat vs. all you do eat.

 

[Len-2A Training]

"The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement."

I am guessing that it depends on what the agency does upon retirement.....

Departments used to gift service weapons to retirees. However, once the ethics commission was created, that is illegal . . . can't gift anything worth more than ~$25 (I don't recall exact amount). So they would have to auction it off to the highest bidder to meet the ethics law in MA.

Therefore that phrase isn't really valid anymore.