Healey Suspends Enforcement of Long Gun Roster

[MGnoob]

The urban youth are breathing a sigh of relief/s

I believe it’s pronounced “yutes”

 

[zork51]

Got a link? or a hint for the blind?

all I see is a roster from September (before the "all rifles and shotguns..." notice) and it has no mention of rifles or shotguns.

You have the right roster "I believe". They have 2 columns now instead of single sheets to scroll down to get your all excited like there is a shitload of new choices. Unlike most here, I'm not a rifle model expert. The giveaway is the caliber column. Like YotaCrawler said, I did see one Thompson rifle that is .308. Now there is talk of recalling Healey. Once we get Crackpot elected as Governor and Pastera as Lt. Governor, and KAG as AG, we will update the list regularly..

 

[spt_1955]

I disagree with the entire premise of this thread. In the thread title GOAL states that in anticipation of a GOAL lawsuit Healy suspended enforcement of the Long Gun Roster with issuance of EOPSS memo #2. That is not what she did. The EOPSS memo states :

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 is categorically false. The original memo (and this second addendum) correctly states that the Act under section 131.3/4.(a) requires that a gun be contained on an approved roster in order to be sold. Therefore "under the act" dealers cannot sell shotguns and rifles. Furthermore 501 CMR 7.00 defines the steps necessary to get guns onto the various rosters and has NOTHING CONTAINED IN IT "under which" non roster guns can be sold.

There is nothing in the memo saying that she has suspended or delayed these requirements as was done with the training requirements. They missed their opportunity with the budget bill to delay the roster requirement or fund the development of the new roster. They thought they had dodged the bullet by issuing an EOPSS memo saying that using the authority given to EOPSS by the act they were deeming the existing roster to be the new approved rosters. Somebody woke up and said "OMG there is no long gun/shotgun roster" and issued the second memo. Since the Act does not give EOPSS the right to deem a non existent roster to actually exist either somebody said "just tell the dealers they can continue to sell rifles and shotguns and they'll leave us alone" or the staffers are actually stupid enough to not understand the English language.

This is not the same as the 2016 "enforcement notice" in which Healy defined her interpretation of the words contained in the law. There is no interpretation that magically makes a non existent roster appear.

I am not a lawyer but I assume that all these "Bruen experienced" lawyers that GOAL has lined up should be able to issue a lawsuit based on what the law actually says. I personally would love to see a MA court go on the record as saying that it doesn't matter what the law or regulations actually say becasue the Executive branch in this state has the authority to declare law by issuing a memorandum. Let's push that one up the court system.

While we are at it how about we wake up and realize that a lot of people in this state including those identifying as liberal do not approve of this type of behavior. The Globe was happy to run an article exposing the "seniority system" controlling legislators pay. How about we get them to "expose" how they use that system to control votes. We've got to do something to start shaping opinions for when this recall petition gets on the ballot. Do not let this opportunity pass.

 

[milktree]

You have the right roster "I believe". They have 2 columns now instead of single sheets to scroll down to get your all excited like there is a shitload of new choices. Unlike most here, I'm not a rifle model expert. The giveaway is the caliber column. Like YotaCrawler said, I did see one Thompson rifle that is .308. Now there is talk of recalling Healey. Once we get Crackpot elected as Governor and Pastera as Lt. Governor, and KAG as AG, we will update the list regularly..

Ah!

Those are not rifles. Those are rifle caliber handguns.

 

[zork51]

Ah!

Those are not rifles. Those are rifle caliber handguns.

Thank you Mr. Milk. Hence my extensive rifle knowledge. So WTF is the rifle and shotgun roster?

 

[BigGreen2000]

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.

And Dartmouth was chartered by the King of England to bring civilization to the wild, remote reaches of northern New England

 

[milktree]

Thank you Mr. Milk. Hence my extensive rifle knowledge. So WTF is the rifle and shotgun roster?

It doesn't exist. That's the problem.

The way the law is written, everything must be on the "approved firearms roster".

So, one of the following has to happen to fix this:

• EVERY SINGLE RIFLE AND SHOTGUN must be added to the "approved firearms roster"
• A new roster of rifles and shotguns must be created, and specifically referenced in MGL (this would require a new bill that the legislature would have to vote on and pass)
• MGL would have to be changed so the requirements in §123(o) would only apply to handguns (and the "firearms roster" would have to get renamed as "handgun roster") This would also take an act of the legislature.

 

[Chappy7]

I believe it’s pronounced “yutes”

My Cousin Vinny!

 

[Mesatchornug]

It doesn't exist. That's the problem.

The way the law is written, everything must be on the "approved firearms roster".

So, one of the following has to happen to fix this:

• EVERY SINGLE RIFLE AND SHOTGUN must be added to the "approved firearms roster"
• A new roster of rifles and shotguns must be created, and specifically referenced in MGL (this would require a new bill that the legislature would have to vote on and pass)
• MGL would have to be changed so the requirements in §123(o) would only apply to handguns (and the "firearms roster" would have to get renamed as "handgun roster") This would also take an act of the legislature.

or

• dealers could call their bluff.

If everyone publicly refuses to comply, the Commonwealth can either

• apply the law arbitrarily and capriciously to only a subset of dissenters
• arrest and charge everyone
• blink

This is where we have to hang together or separately.

 

[Night_solstice]

It doesn't exist. That's the problem.

The way the law is written, everything must be on the "approved firearms roster".

So, one of the following has to happen to fix this:

• EVERY SINGLE RIFLE AND SHOTGUN must be added to the "approved firearms roster"
• A new roster of rifles and shotguns must be created, and specifically referenced in MGL (this would require a new bill that the legislature would have to vote on and pass)
• MGL would have to be changed so the requirements in §123(o) would only apply to handguns (and the "firearms roster" would have to get renamed as "handgun roster") This would also take an act of the legislature.

One hope is that they keep going this 'off the cuff' adjustments to the rules, none of which are 'official' and this just further compounds the issues that this law created and paints them further into the corner when it comes under judicial scrutiny. "You passed a law/bill with a 3 month window. You choose to enact it immediately 3 weeks before that date due to 'urgent circumstances'. This caused problems because the measures you outlined do not exist, so you pushed the training requirements (hidden in another bill), and then a different legal body issued a statement that this didn't apply to long guns, but the original bill was not modified and that body doesn't have the authority to 'override' the requirements of that bill, etc.... " To say nothing about reporting requirements now in a system that doesn't exist (despite the old one being online, the bill says to use the 'new' one).... It's built on a flimsy foundation, and they keep patching it and modifying it as it grows, but the foundation is still at risk.

 

[Chappy7]

or

• dealers could call their bluff.

If everyone publicly refuses to comply, the Commonwealth can either

• apply the law arbitrarily and capriciously to only a subset of dissenters
• arrest and charge everyone
• blink

This is where we have to hang together or separately.

Be united or

 

[Goliathan]

or

• dealers could call their bluff.

If everyone publicly refuses to comply, the Commonwealth can either

• apply the law arbitrarily and capriciously to only a subset of dissenters
• arrest and charge everyone
• blink

This is where we have to hang together or separately.

Or, if history is a guide, they'll simply ignore the problem they created, not charge anyone, and let the chilling effect continue to do their job for them.

I'll be watching to see if distributors and manufacturers choose to stop shipping here. Dealers can mutiny all they want, until they run out of stock and can't get more.

 

[MGnoob]

I have no idea how it’s easier to deal with a federal government than it is to deal with this state…. i’m f***ing leaving.

Heading south

 

[Mesatchornug]

Be united or

hey man, can't some of us choose both?

Or, if history is a guide, they'll simply ignore the problem they created, not charge anyone, and let the chilling effect continue to do their job for them.

This would be "blink"

I'll be watching to see if distributors and manufacturers choose to stop shipping here. Dealers can mutiny all they want, until they run out of stock and can't get more.

This could be the hang up. Getting UPS to follow along might be harder than Carl. Of course, I haven't checked in a bit - are they still prohibited from transporting to Maine and NH? By extension, is Sig prohibited from shipping out?

 

[center442]

I disagree with the entire premise of this thread. In the thread title GOAL states that in anticipation of a GOAL lawsuit Healy suspended enforcement of the Long Gun Roster with issuance of EOPSS memo #2. That is not what she did. The EOPSS memo states :

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 is categorically false. The original memo (and this second addendum) correctly states that the Act under section 131.3/4.(a) requires that a gun be contained on an approved roster in order to be sold. Therefore "under the act" dealers cannot sell shotguns and rifles. Furthermore 501 CMR 7.00 defines the steps necessary to get guns onto the various rosters and has NOTHING CONTAINED IN IT "under which" non roster guns can be sold.

There is nothing in the memo saying that she has suspended or delayed these requirements as was done with the training requirements. They missed their opportunity with the budget bill to delay the roster requirement or fund the development of the new roster. They thought they had dodged the bullet by issuing an EOPSS memo saying that using the authority given to EOPSS by the act they were deeming the existing roster to be the new approved rosters. Somebody woke up and said "OMG there is no long gun/shotgun roster" and issued the second memo. Since the Act does not give EOPSS the right to deem a non existent roster to actually exist either somebody said "just tell the dealers they can continue to sell rifles and shotguns and they'll leave us alone" or the staffers are actually stupid enough to not understand the English language.

This is not the same as the 2016 "enforcement notice" in which Healy defined her interpretation of the words contained in the law. There is no interpretation that magically makes a non existent roster appear.

I am not a lawyer but I assume that all these "Bruen experienced" lawyers that GOAL has lined up should be able to issue a lawsuit based on what the law actually says. I personally would love to see a MA court go on the record as saying that it doesn't matter what the law or regulations actually say becasue the Executive branch in this state has the authority to declare law by issuing a memorandum. Let's push that one up the court system.

While we are at it how about we wake up and realize that a lot of people in this state including those identifying as liberal do not approve of this type of behavior. The Globe was happy to run an article exposing the "seniority system" controlling legislators pay. How about we get them to "expose" how they use that system to control votes. We've got to do something to start shaping opinions for when this recall petition gets on the ballot. Do not let this opportunity pass.

Beautifully stated, and I salute you.

If my understanding is correct, it puts gun owners in Mass in the peculiar position of filing suit to force the state to follow the actual letter of the law which means that rifles and shotguns can't be sold.

It seems counter-intuitive, but could work in our favor since it bans the sale of virtually all firearms in the state, a clear violation of the 2nd amendment, which even a Mass court would have to realize.

This would be a PITA for gun shops since there would be damn little they could sell until a court renders a decision.

The legislature and Governor created this mess and are now trying to 'fix' it. The problem is that they can't violate the existing law to do a quick fix... or at least they shouldn't be able to.

They handed the people of this state a steaming pile of feces and now they're trying to clean it up by spraying air freshener. No. Deal with the crap you created!

 

[MGnoob]

At least at @Reptile is killing it

 

[MGnoob]

My figure is turning purple


View: https://youtu.be/sFsKcfpQuWI?si=jzxLMXD8SbMfY9P8

 

[pastera]

You have the right roster "I believe". They have 2 columns now instead of single sheets to scroll down to get your all excited like there is a shitload of new choices. Unlike most here, I'm not a rifle model expert. The giveaway is the caliber column. Like YotaCrawler said, I did see one Thompson rifle that is .308. Now there is talk of recalling Healey. Once we get Crackpot elected as Governor and Pastera as Lt. Governor, and KAG as AG, we will update the list regularly..

The item you are looking at is the Thompson Contender - an interchangeable barrel competition pistol.
Sorry, but there are exactly ZERO long guns on the rosters.

If @CrackPot and I held high office, there would be no firearms enforcement including for felons no longer incarcerated or on probation.
Don't assume we are closet gun banners - shall not be infringed has a definite meaning and rosters ain't one of them.

 

[pastera]

No. A C&R can easily run afoul of the new ASF definition if it wasn’t in state on 8/1.

Not necessarily since it is a true preban and C&R holders are allowed to transfer in C&R arms not in the state pre 98
I haven't pulled the string on C&R so I would have to study the text but I believe you could bring in a 60's AR without issue

 

[pastera]

Looks like they removed the large capacity roster completely.

They changed the definition of large capacity firearm to be only valid if the gun has a LCFD in or near it.

 

[milktree]

or

• dealers could call their bluff.

If everyone publicly refuses to comply, the Commonwealth can either

• apply the law arbitrarily and capriciously to only a subset of dissenters
• arrest and charge everyone
• blink

This is where we have to hang together or separately.

I don't understand what "dealers call their bluff" would mean. I'm not even sure what the bluff is.

Refuse to sell anything not on the roster because that's what the law says? Sell anything they want because they said it was OK?

 

[milktree]

Not necessarily since it is a true preban and C&R holders are allowed to transfer in C&R arms not in the state pre 98
I haven't pulled the string on C&R so I would have to study the text but I believe you could bring in a 60's AR without issue

You couldn't, because it would be an ASF that wasn't possessed by an LTC holder or dealer on 8/1/24.

Unlike the AW definition which doesn't apply to some guns that are old enough, the ASF definition applies to *ALL* guns that meet the definition, regardless of age. They "grandfathered" based on "in state date" rather than "birth date"

(you, @pastera , know this, I'm sure. But for the benefit of the audience)

 

[Mesatchornug]

I don't understand what "dealers call their bluff" would mean. I'm not even sure what the bluff is.

Refuse to sell anything not on the roster because that's what the law says? Sell anything they want because they said it was OK?

No. Sell everything. Let the state decide to enforce or not.

Enforcement brings winnable cases. Nonenforcement retires the law to the dustbin of history.

 

[milktree]

One hope is that they keep going this 'off the cuff' adjustments to the rules, none of which are 'official' and this just further compounds the issues that this law created and paints them further into the corner when it comes under judicial scrutiny. "You passed a law/bill with a 3 month window. You choose to enact it immediately 3 weeks before that date due to 'urgent circumstances'. This caused problems because the measures you outlined do not exist, so you pushed the training requirements (hidden in another bill), and then a different legal body issued a statement that this didn't apply to long guns, but the original bill was not modified and that body doesn't have the authority to 'override' the requirements of that bill, etc.... " To say nothing about reporting requirements now in a system that doesn't exist (despite the old one being online, the bill says to use the 'new' one).... It's built on a flimsy foundation, and they keep patching it and modifying it as it grows, but the foundation is still at risk.

Stop saying this. (bolded part) It's not true. The training requirements "change" was just a fix of a typo.

There's plenty of crappy malice in the bill to criticize and plenty of bullshit shenanigans on their part. Don't misrepresent things, it makes us look hysterical.

 

[pastera]

It doesn't exist. That's the problem.

The way the law is written, everything must be on the "approved firearms roster".

So, one of the following has to happen to fix this:

• EVERY SINGLE RIFLE AND SHOTGUN must be added to the "approved firearms roster"
• A new roster of rifles and shotguns must be created, and specifically referenced in MGL (this would require a new bill that the legislature would have to vote on and pass)
• MGL would have to be changed so the requirements in §123(o) would only apply to handguns (and the "firearms roster" would have to get renamed as "handgun roster") This would also take an act of the legislature.

Not correct - While the law does specify what types of guns can be placed on an approved roster it does not define the format, naming or number of roster documents. In other words, all of the "rosters" are in effect different parts of a single roster.

 

[pastera]

I don't understand what "dealers call their bluff" would mean. I'm not even sure what the bluff is.

Refuse to sell anything not on the roster because that's what the law says? Sell anything they want because they said it was OK?

Dealers could simply continue business as usual and not comply with any of the new changes that we know prima facie run afoul with Canjura (the controlling case law in Mass as it incorporates Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen)

 

[milktree]

No. Sell everything. Let the state decide to enforce or not.

Isn't that the same as, "follow the EOPSS guidance"? (i.e.: "do what we're told")

Or do you mean EVERYTHING, including off roster handguns and ASWs?

Enforcement brings winnable cases. Nonenforcement retires the law to the dustbin of history.

It depends? If a dealer sells off-roster handguns, the state will come down on them. That's how TiteGroup Sporting got nailed.

Selling ASFs would also be pretty risky.

The state could stomp on anyone selling those without touching the absurd rifle/shotgun problem.

 

[MGnoob]

i’m gonna have to cauterize this….

 

[Chappy7]

hey man, can't some of us choose both?

That would depend on whether you are giving or receiving!

 

[pastera]

No. Sell everything. Let the state decide to enforce or not.

Enforcement brings winnable cases. Nonenforcement retires the law to the dustbin of history.

Nonenforcement in the current timeline keeps it out of the consciousness of those that would fight it now but if the state slowly picks certain unpopular dealers to hit over time then it become the status quo.