Healey "closing the loophole" letter to gun dealers

Status
Not open for further replies.
42! said:
All that's needed is one cop or DA to press charges. There has got to be one in the state that would be willing to do this just so the case would move forward.

Just having a couple dealers do this isn't going to happen. It's a huge risk to them and you can bet they will be closed down during the court case. And whoever the buyers are will also be at risk.

Build the case, control every aspect, and win.
Click to expand...

They will just use it as a bargaining chip until the "right" victim comes along. Just like the FBI tried to do when they wanted Apple to give them the info to access the phone and they expected Apple to just roll over because it was owned by a terrorist.

Bob
 
42! said:
That's funny, I only see three that need to collude, plus comm2a.

Buyer - this will be the toughest one.
Seller - easy, not even violating the re-interpretation.
DA or Cop - harder then the seller but there is a HUGE pool of possible people and the only risk is political (with the cop union being what it is they couldn't even fire him).
Click to expand...

That's all fine & dandy....until said DA's "BOSS" (maura) decides to remove said DA from the case and replace him/her with people that will do everything **cough cough**"legally"**cough cough** possible to make that case go South and screw us even more.
 
Bill Katt said:
That's all fine & dandy....until said DA's "BOSS" (maura) decides to remove said DA from the case and replace him/her with people that will do everything **cough cough**"legally"**cough cough** possible to make that case go South and screw us even more.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. The AG is not the boss of a DA.

District Attorney is an elected position in MA. They do not report to the AG. They probably know each other (like most of our AGs, Maura Healey was previously the Middlesex County DA), but the AG can't order a DA to do anything.
 
M1911 said:
You are mistaken. The AG is not the boss of a DA.

District Attorney is an elected position in MA. They do not report to the AG. They probably know each other (like most of our AGs, Maura Healey was previously the Middlesex County DA), but the AG can't order a DA to do anything.
Click to expand...

I did not know that. I thought it worked as a 'chain of command' type of thing with the states AG at the top of the ladder.
 
I have heard heard and in other threads about we need to repackage our discussions and writings on gun rights, the anti's do that, but we forget that over the last 40 years they have constantly changed their names and messages, they keep loosing and changing and changing "gun control inc" becomes "stop handgun violence" becomes "gun safety" but they only have to win once we have to win and win over and over.
It is like a prop 2 1/2 override, a no means it is coming back again and again... but a yes is set in stone.
 
Bill Katt said:
That's all fine & dandy....until said DA's "BOSS" (maura) decides to remove said DA from the case and replace him/her with people that will do everything **cough cough**"legally"**cough cough** possible to make that case go South and screw us even more.
Click to expand...

DAs do NOT answer to the AG and she can't remove them. And one of the issue is that she can't tell them not to prosecute. Her promise only covers her office, not cops or DAs. When was the last time you heard on the AG's office prosecuting a firearms offence.

DAs are elected, surely there must be one district friendly to the cause?
 
42! said:
DAs do NOT answer to the AG and she can't remove them. And one of the issue is that she can't tell them not to prosecute. Her promise only covers her office, not cops or DAs. When was the last time you heard on the AG's office prosecuting a firearms offence.

DAs are elected, surely there must be one district friendly to the cause?
Click to expand...

Jason Flare said:
It's not, and it is why the AG cannot speak for the DA's regarding indictment.
Click to expand...

As stated above, I stand corrected. Carry on. [smile]
 
42! said:
DAs do NOT answer to the AG and she can't remove them. And one of the issue is that she can't tell them not to prosecute. Her promise only covers her office, not cops or DAs. When was the last time you heard on the AG's office prosecuting a firearms offence.

DAs are elected, surely there must be one district friendly to the cause?
Click to expand...

There's one DA I can think of who had some, shall we say, firearm legality issues in his past.
 
M1911 said:
A SQL injection hack.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection

A badly designed web application can sometimes be hacked relatively easily, allowing the hacker to either retrieve non-public data and/or modify database contents.
Click to expand...

The XKCD reference being made...
exploits_of_a_mom.png

https://xkcd.com/327/
 
amm5061 said:
I always thought the AG was responsible for defending the State during lawsuits involving the State or state agencies?
Click to expand...

Yes. At one time, the AG was basically the state's civil lawyer. Ambitious AGs (Elliot Spitzer, Andre Cuomo) have turned it into a one person legislature, creating laws (regulations) out of whole cloth and using that as a springboard to higher office.
 
Serapis said:
These actions fed right into their playbook. They wanted and knew some would do this. I wish some of us took a different approach, but it is inevitable that some wouldn't. We gave them ammo to us against us and people that are middle of the road are eating it up. They are making us look like mindless hillbillies.

We need to clean up our approach until the time is necessary for us to use a more forceful approach.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I think even if no one said vile things, this would have been put out anyways.
 
Len-2A Training said:
Yes, any transfer of ownership no matter who or why.
Click to expand...
Not to get off topic... but, Len, aren't husband/wife possessions legally owned by both? In other-words if I own a 1911, my wife also owns it, can carry it and have no issues as long as she has her LTC? No transfer FA-10 required from husband to wife.
 
M125X said:
Not to get off topic... but, Len, aren't husband/wife possessions legally owned by both? In other-words if I own a 1911, my wife also owns it, can carry it and have no issues as long as she has her LTC? No transfer FA-10 required from husband to wife.
Click to expand...
LOL, when I created my trust for my SBR, I have the gun going to my kids when they are of age and deemed fit by the trustee (my best friend). Told the wife and she was pissed. Now she's a lawyer and didn't feel like helping me with the trust so I outsourced it (no slam on her, she just thought it was another of my crazy ideas). Told her if I died she would quickly remarry (because she's hot) and only my blood can touch that gun. The new dude is forbidden from shooting or touching it.

Again she thinks I'm a nut lol
 
I worry the AG will partner with scummy chiefs, revoke ltcs on 'suitability' nonsense (like they see a FA10 for a semi) and then confiscate since we can't even have a MA ffl hold our guns anymore.
 
Hay HEALEY you broke the law

Saw this online:Art. XX. The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.

Art. XXIV. Laws made to punish for actions done before the existence of such laws, and which have not been declared crimes by preceding laws, are unjust, oppressive, and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of a free government.








CAR said:
At the risk of starting a panic, in the Boston Globe app today I see a letter from Maura Healy on Opinion page A11 titled "Closing the loophole" announcing that she is sending a letter to the state's gun dealers informing them that weapons "functionally equivalent" to prohibited weapons are in fact prohibited, specifically that cosmetic features like flash hiders and pistol grips are not what made the weapon prohibited but rather its semiautomatic operation.

tin foil hat time, I can't find that same letter on their website and I don't get the paper in physical form. Can anyone else confirm or deny the presence of that letter?

I'm so ramped up I took a screenshot to make sure I have a copy but I don't think I can post it here. Anyone else seeing that???

EDIT: Found the article on their site, added a link in a followup message and here

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html
Click to expand...
 
Waher said:
I worry the AG will partner with scummy chiefs, revoke ltcs on 'suitability' nonsense (like they see a FA10 for a semi) and then confiscate since we can't even have a MA ffl hold our guns anymore.
Click to expand...

I think you can have a MA FFL hold your guns, just that they couldn't give them back to you only sell them out of state, so much for the AG worrying about the children but I guess only Mass Children's lives matter, not those in other states
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Biden Closing "Gun show loophole"
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
zboys
zboys
Thousands more gun dealers must run background checks on buyers as Biden administration moves to close 'doggone dangerous' loophole
Replies
4
Views
255
AJK129
AJK129
The Supreme Court upholds a gun control law
4 5 6
Replies
174
Views
4K
sbhaven
S
ATF Report Undermines Left’s Hysteria Over So-Called ‘Gun Show Loophole’
Replies
0
Views
242
Reptile
Reptile
Are people this retarded at the Gun Parlor?
3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
4K
Stee
S
Back
Top Bottom