Healey Suspends Enforcement of Long Gun Roster

[milktree]

Yesterday, she put out a notice stating dealers can sell all guns off the approved roster list.

No, she (Healey) didn’t. EOPSS (appears to have) added all rifles and shotguns not otherwise illegal to possess to the approved firearms roster.

EOPSS might have acted on their own, or maybe under direction from somewhere.

But the governor does not have the authority to modify the roster on her own.

 

[sig shooter]

No, she (Healey) didn’t. EOPSS (appears to have) added all rifles and shotguns not otherwise illegal to possess to the approved firearms roster.

EOPSS might have acted on their own, or maybe under direction from somewhere.

But the governor does not have the authority to modify the roster on her own.

Interesting. “Not otherwise illegal” is about clear as mud. Good way to try and jam people up.

 

[Bfatz]

Would doth appear the Royal Governor needs a reminder of 1776.

Perhaps the ghost of John Adams will visit her and persuade her away from such an obvious affront to the Massachusetts and Federal Constitutions.

For she should pray it is John who visits her and not his more ornery and rowdy cousin Sam who has a real knack for tar and feathers.

Another words CUT THE CRAP we have more than enough stupid trash laws in this State as it is! these do nothings are BORED obviously AND jobs! GOOD jobs! are leaving the State you morons! And taking their money with them!

The idiocy is truly beyond words with these clowns.

 

[Darksideblues42]

View attachment 923344

So I guess we can by glocks now?

Buy

 

[Fixxah]

I have something for you next time we meet up.

I will get in touch with reptile so I can be prepared.

 

[MGnoob]

View: https://youtu.be/WpE_xMRiCLE?si=KEX8khkisxqeEzed

 

[T-Unit]

How can anyone possibly follow this in good-faith?

It doesn't matter, you're either an approved individual based on your identity who is not subject to the laws on the books or you're an enemy of the state and thus subject to those laws.

 

[Realtor MA]

The memo is from The Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. Under the new law, chap 140 sec 131¾



So I suspect that the legal theory here is that the secretary of EOPSS has now amended the roster and added ALL long guns that are "not otherwise prohibited in Massachusetts"

This is within their authority under the new law. I doubt this authority survives legal scrutiny especially post SCOTUS removal of Chevron, but what do I know.

So while this was done poorly, is utter crap, and every other negative turn of phrase you can come up with... It potentially is within the authority of the Secretary of EOPSS to make such a declaration to add everything to the long gun roster.

Sadly it also proves the list is a meaningless, ineffective, arbitrary pile of dung.

 

[556USER]

Are Snap-On tools now not on the approved roster

Snap-on tools may not be allowed but on Maura’s roster Strap-on tools are good to go.

 

[CMEBoston]

Would doth appear the Royal Governor needs a reminder of 1776.

Perhaps the ghost of John Adams will visit her and persuade her away from such an obvious affront to the Massachusetts and Federal Constitutions.

For she should pray it is John who visits her and not his more ornery and rowdy cousin Sam who has a real knack for tar and feathers.

Another words CUT THE CRAP we have more than enough stupid trash laws in this State as it is! these do nothings are BORED obviously AND jobs! GOOD jobs! are leaving the State you morons! And taking their money with them!

The idiocy is truly beyond words with these clowns.

Are you implying those great men would ask her to “cut the crap”

The idiocy is the gun community hoping the government will stop the government from oppressing us

None of us are worthy of the protection of the constitution cause none of us have or truly will use it as the founding fathers intended…

 

[KAG Arms]

Are you implying those great men would ask her to “cut the crap”

The idiocy is the gun community hoping the government will stop the government from oppressing us

None of us are worthy of the protection of the constitution cause none of us have or truly will use it as the founding fathers intended…

Are you trying to say that those wise men and women that went to Harvard and Yale should not govern us instead? Or are you saying that We The People should self govern, think, and provide for ourselves?

 

[CMEBoston]

Are you trying to say that those wise men and women that went to Harvard and Yale should not govern us instead? Or are you saying that We The People should self govern, think, and provide for ourselves?

I don’t think I said either honestly

I am IMPLYING we are not worthy of the protections the constitution because we are unwilling to use 2A for its actual intended purpose

Take that however you want bit dems the facts

 

[KAG Arms]

I don’t think I said either honestly

I am IMPLYING we are not worthy of the protections the constitution because we are unwilling to use 2A for its actual intended purpose

Take that however you want bit dems the facts

I am unfamiliar with the actual intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment. My understanding that it was an afterthought in 1791, 4 years later to the original constitution of 1787.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Sadly it also proves the list is a meaningless, ineffective, arbitrary pile of dung.

Sadly?

It feels like a win to me. The roster is so important we can arbitrarily add every "not otherwise illegal" rifle and shotgun to it, without testing. I'm not smart enough to be a lawyer or nothing, but even NAGR should be able to write that brief.

I am unfamiliar with the actual intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment. My understanding that it was an afterthought in 1791, 4 years later to the original constitution of 1787.

Right? Madison thought he was clear by telling the government it could hire mercenaries and pirates in Art 1 Sec 8. Then they realized we need to remind the government they just instituted, based on the idea of preserving individual rights, that there are certain rights we mustn't abrogate.

 

[CMEBoston]

I am unfamiliar with the actual intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment. My understanding that it was an afterthought in 1791, 4 years later to the original constitution of 1787.

It’s for hunting….. I doubt it has anything to do with gun confiscation that finally kicked off the revolutionary war

 

[pastera]

No, she (Healey) didn’t. EOPSS (appears to have) added all rifles and shotguns not otherwise illegal to possess to the approved firearms roster.

EOPSS might have acted on their own, or maybe under direction from somewhere.

But the governor does not have the authority to modify the roster on her own.

Additionally, under the Act and 501 CMR 7.00, dealers may continue to sell shotguns and rifles so long as they are not otherwise prohibited in Massachusetts, pending further guidance from the Firearms Control Advisory Board.

This statement seems to tell us that it is okay to sell rifles and shotguns but it states "under the ACT and 501 CMR 7.00" which clearly bans the sales of firearms not on the list. And there are no long guns that are approved for sale under 501 CMR 7.00, therefore they are not legal for dealers to transfer.

1060 (p) Subsection (o) shall not apply to: (i) a firearm lawfully owned or possessed under a license issued under this chapter on or before October 21, 1998; (ii) a stun gun; or (iii) a firearm designated by the secretary of public safety, with the advice of the firearm control advisory board, established pursuant to section 131½, as a firearm solely designed and sold for formal target shooting competition or for Olympic shooting competition and listed on the rosters pursuant to section 131¾.

EOPSS only has the authority to add rifles and shotguns on advisement of the GCAB to the target roster - they do not have the statutory authority to blanket declare them saleable.

 

[pastera]

Are you trying to say that those wise men and women that went to Harvard and Yale should not govern us instead? Or are you saying that We The People should self govern, think, and provide for ourselves?

At the time of the country's founding Harvard and Yale were honorable institutions and alum would, and did, believe that self governance under God's divine instruction was the correct method.

 

[HARRYM]

I am unfamiliar with the actual intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment. My understanding that it was an afterthought in 1791, 4 years later to the original constitution of 1787.

The Constitution was intended to be the sole document and the rule of law for the new government. Some thought it wasn't specific enough or that some language needed to strengthened. Madison was against the 1791 additions/revisions because it could lessen the power of the original constitution.

 

[Boghog1]

The urban youth are breathing a sigh of relief/s

 

[paul73]

So did they alter anything to allow ffl to transfer something like aero solus, or still not?

 

[Sam P]

Yeah, but she saved the Beaver.

 

[KAG Arms]

The Constitution was intended to be the sole document and the rule of law for the new government. Some thought it wasn't specific enough or that some language needed to strengthened. Madison was against the 1791 additions/revisions because it could lessen the power of the original constitution.

Thats rather presumptuous I think.

 

[KAG Arms]

At the time of the country's founding Harvard and Yale were honorable institutions and alum would, and did, believe that self governance under God's divine instruction was the correct method.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

 

[milktree]

I am unfamiliar with the actual intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment. My understanding that it was an afterthought in 1791, 4 years later to the original constitution of 1787.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

It was an “afterthought” in the same way the other nine amendments to the bill of rights were.

The bill of rights was necessary to secure adoption of The Constitution by the states.

 

[Jason Flare]

He’s joking.

 

[namedpipes]

While I'm glad they see the issue, it's fascinating that EOPS thinks they can issue a memo and circumvent the new law's specific terms. Echoes of 2016 from the executive branch.

I mean. It worked to their advantage then. Why not again?

If people are confused and don't want to risk jail (or simply financially devastating legal defense fees), they won't take the risk and act like good little sheep.

 

[KAG Arms]

I can’t tell if you are joking.

It was an “afterthought” in the same way the other nine amendments to the bill of rights were.

The bill of rights was necessary to secure adoption of The Constitution by the states.

Like some sort of compromise?

 

[pastera]

The Constitution was intended to be the sole document and the rule of law for the new government. Some thought it wasn't specific enough or that some language needed to strengthened. Madison was against the 1791 additions/revisions because it could lessen the power of the original constitution.

The Bill of Rights was a planned addition to the Constitution to appease the anti-federalists (as we now know was not actually enough)

Why was the Bill of Rights Added to the Constitution?

Why was the Bill of Rights Added to the Constitution? Preserve the Bill of Rights: Since the most powerful states in the Union would not have ratified

www.historyonthenet.com

Since the most powerful states in the Union would not have ratified the Constitution if not for the Bill of Rights, the Founding generation would be its most ardent defenders. Gun control should never be considered; the “Fairness Doctrine” should never reach the floor of Congress for a vote; the Patriot Act, which allows the government to use unconstitutional powers, should be revised, amended, or placed in the trash-can; religious liberty, including the free expression of religious faith during government functions and prayer in public schools, should be defended; the burden of proof in a case involving “violations “of federal “regulations” should be placed on the government, not the accused; federal disregard for private property should cease. In short, federal activity should be severely curtailed.

 

[zork51]

At the time of the country's founding Harvard and Yale were honorable institutions and alum would, and did, believe that self governance under God's divine instruction was the correct method.

Sounds like they all started going downhill after God picked up his diploma.

 

[pastera]

Sounds like they all started going downhill after God picked up his diploma.

The moment they moved from a biblically oriented curriculum they quickly turned into centers of Marxism and debauchery.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams