- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 1,206
- Likes
- 1,405
@Vulkan18th40K
A lot of guys (about 70 in fact) thought it was lawful of them to assemble armed in the pre-dawn hours on Lexington Green with their militia company under the command of Captain John Parker. In fact, they saw it as their obligation to their community, and to their notion of Natural Law and Liberty. Hey--it was an honest mistake--they thought they were within their rights.
As it turns out, the British Officer in charge of the troops which sought to disarm them and confiscate their stores of powder informed them that--in his educated and superior English opinion--they were completely mistaken. That they were criminals. The rest, of course, is History. It all just goes to show you how even educated opinions can differ dramatically.
I'm not going to pretend that I understand all the in's and out's of MA law, it's all pretty confusing because it was all written by half-wit retards who are incompetent at crafting laws--but I'd suggest that your law-abiding friend proceed in innocent and guileless adherence to MA law as written--to wit: he should pay the man what he asks for the firearm in any legal tender of his choice. Then--IF the seller desires to offer and/or retain a detailed, written bill of sale, great. His obligation (as buyer) is clear. The LAW as WRITTEN informs him that he MUST REGISTER his ownership of that new firearm, and to do so within ONE YEAR to the MA REGISTRY OF FIREARMS (a registry which does not as of yet even exist). But it will exist some day. So he absolutely can and should do that, dutifully, as the law requires, within ONE CALENDAR YEAR AFTER THE REGISTRY IS CREATED.
That is what MA law requires of him--so that is what I personally think he should do.
Before the most recent changes to MA law it was perfectly legal for citizens to own AR-15 receivers. They could buy as many as they wanted. They could give them away to perfect strangers. One didn't even need a license to possess one--because under MA law they were not legally considered "firearms". I advised everyone who I know and everyone who would listen to go buy one--or two, or seven. I reminded them that they were Free and Law-Abiding Citizens, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with behaving AS free men in such a law abiding fashion.
If at some later date MA later tries to make him, a law-abiding citizen, into a criminal, if it calls him a villian and a rebel and tells him to disperse, well--as History shows again and again, sometimes it's good to own a gun. As opposed to not.
That's my .02 and pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.
One caveat. If firearms ownership to you has nothing to do with Liberty or Freedom or Rights, if there is nothing there worth dying for and you are basically just a dirt-shooting retard who likes to turn money into noise and thinks he's "gangsta" for owning a "badass gat"--maybe go find a different hobby. The dirt in your world isn't actually worth the squeeze.
Good luck.
A lot of guys (about 70 in fact) thought it was lawful of them to assemble armed in the pre-dawn hours on Lexington Green with their militia company under the command of Captain John Parker. In fact, they saw it as their obligation to their community, and to their notion of Natural Law and Liberty. Hey--it was an honest mistake--they thought they were within their rights.
As it turns out, the British Officer in charge of the troops which sought to disarm them and confiscate their stores of powder informed them that--in his educated and superior English opinion--they were completely mistaken. That they were criminals. The rest, of course, is History. It all just goes to show you how even educated opinions can differ dramatically.
I'm not going to pretend that I understand all the in's and out's of MA law, it's all pretty confusing because it was all written by half-wit retards who are incompetent at crafting laws--but I'd suggest that your law-abiding friend proceed in innocent and guileless adherence to MA law as written--to wit: he should pay the man what he asks for the firearm in any legal tender of his choice. Then--IF the seller desires to offer and/or retain a detailed, written bill of sale, great. His obligation (as buyer) is clear. The LAW as WRITTEN informs him that he MUST REGISTER his ownership of that new firearm, and to do so within ONE YEAR to the MA REGISTRY OF FIREARMS (a registry which does not as of yet even exist). But it will exist some day. So he absolutely can and should do that, dutifully, as the law requires, within ONE CALENDAR YEAR AFTER THE REGISTRY IS CREATED.
That is what MA law requires of him--so that is what I personally think he should do.
Before the most recent changes to MA law it was perfectly legal for citizens to own AR-15 receivers. They could buy as many as they wanted. They could give them away to perfect strangers. One didn't even need a license to possess one--because under MA law they were not legally considered "firearms". I advised everyone who I know and everyone who would listen to go buy one--or two, or seven. I reminded them that they were Free and Law-Abiding Citizens, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with behaving AS free men in such a law abiding fashion.
If at some later date MA later tries to make him, a law-abiding citizen, into a criminal, if it calls him a villian and a rebel and tells him to disperse, well--as History shows again and again, sometimes it's good to own a gun. As opposed to not.
That's my .02 and pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.
One caveat. If firearms ownership to you has nothing to do with Liberty or Freedom or Rights, if there is nothing there worth dying for and you are basically just a dirt-shooting retard who likes to turn money into noise and thinks he's "gangsta" for owning a "badass gat"--maybe go find a different hobby. The dirt in your world isn't actually worth the squeeze.
Good luck.
Last edited:
