Well i guess now that i'm a multi felon i might as well put all those evil fixtures on my AR15s (anyone know how to remove pins from stocks) and get me some of that tacticool stuff so i can pretend im an Operator ...... God i HATE this State.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Healey's office considering action against those who bought & sold rifles on July 20
- Thread starter jeepchute
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,300
- Likes
- 1,347
How would one interpret this?
Individuals could have bought and sold yesterday, but dealers could only sell out of state on the 20th?
Again...even more confusion
Sent from my big ass iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
So then if you already owned an assault weapon or copy on or before the 20TH does that then mean all the evil features are now GTG?
Mass-diver
NES Member
Obviously no one knows the answer. The gun is already illegal in its neutered form, so it won't be more illegal with evil features, however peheraps the AGs decision to not prosecute only applies to neutered rifles????
What a Cluster****!
The Only solution is for the ban to be repealed, the AG censured by the Legislature and a mechanism put in place to RECALL rogue politicians.
The Only solution is for the ban to be repealed, the AG censured by the Legislature and a mechanism put in place to RECALL rogue politicians.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 1,300
- Likes
- 1,347
This whole mess just highlights the stupidity of criminalizing law abiding Americans. Using their own words they say "if it is a copy or duplicate then the enforcement notice will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer." That is huge admission of the failure of their policies. So full on deneutered is the word for the day.
No the likeliest solution is a lawsuit against Moar claimin 18 years of interpretation of the law by 2 different AGs and the registration of hundreds of thousands of guns during that period have estopped her office from putting a new interpretation on the law. Then it goes back to status quo ante
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,611
- Likes
- 20,000
Perhaps but likely 3-5 years after today before we MIGHT get such a ruling. There is tremendous evidence that her interpretation of the Fed Ban is wrong, but the judicial system makes a tortoise look like a Indy 500 car and the prejudicial judiciary is not in our favor even at that.
oldguy68
NES Member
I feel compassion for the ones that were there on Saturday's Rally for everyone's freedom.
The others, let them rot!
A coward dies a thousand deaths a hero dies but once!
No fu_ks given to them!
The others, let them rot!
A coward dies a thousand deaths a hero dies but once!
No fu_ks given to them!
Last edited:
Well then. I'm kinda glad I was out of state at the time, because sure as hell if I had been around I would have grabbed one.
Wouldn't that be double ex-post-facto prosecution if she said the guidance went into effect the next day? I guess it doesn't matter, when you're a dictator you can do as you please.
Wouldn't that be double ex-post-facto prosecution if she said the guidance went into effect the next day? I guess it doesn't matter, when you're a dictator you can do as you please.
I posted this in another thread regarding Healey's stance and transfers, but will put it here too:
Per Healey, subject guns violate the Mass AWB, are illegal to possess or transfer, and anyone doing so is committing a felony. Don't forget this.
She has, graciously, decided to not go after buyers on/before 7/20. But she can't bind other prosecutors in Mass. Nothing about a subject gun superficially indicates purchase date, so any cop can decide to take it, toss the possessor in jail, and a court can deny bail, and then, maybe, the gun owner can get a chance to prove it's a pre-7/20 purchased gun. Maybe.
Again, the subject gun is illegal in Mass and it is a felony to possess or transfer it. Don't forget that.
All you have to protect you at this point is not being noticed (do you go to the range? transport in your car?) and Healey's word that SHE won't go after you. For now.
A recipient of a transfer post 7/20 is, obviously, not a buyer on/before 7/20. In this case Healey's promise may not apply. She said a personal transfer is allowed, but she did not say purchase or receiving a transfer are allowed. She could mean transfers are allowed out of state only. Nobody knows.
Doing a legitimate FTF sale/transfer requires the seller to file an FA10 in Mass. That generates proof of at least one felony and maybe two or three.
Again, the subject gun is illegal to possess or transfer, violates the AWB, and is a felony magnet according to Healey. Seriously, don't forget this and certainly don't take her promise (for now) to let this fact slide.
Per Healey, subject guns violate the Mass AWB, are illegal to possess or transfer, and anyone doing so is committing a felony. Don't forget this.
She has, graciously, decided to not go after buyers on/before 7/20. But she can't bind other prosecutors in Mass. Nothing about a subject gun superficially indicates purchase date, so any cop can decide to take it, toss the possessor in jail, and a court can deny bail, and then, maybe, the gun owner can get a chance to prove it's a pre-7/20 purchased gun. Maybe.
Again, the subject gun is illegal in Mass and it is a felony to possess or transfer it. Don't forget that.
All you have to protect you at this point is not being noticed (do you go to the range? transport in your car?) and Healey's word that SHE won't go after you. For now.
A recipient of a transfer post 7/20 is, obviously, not a buyer on/before 7/20. In this case Healey's promise may not apply. She said a personal transfer is allowed, but she did not say purchase or receiving a transfer are allowed. She could mean transfers are allowed out of state only. Nobody knows.
Doing a legitimate FTF sale/transfer requires the seller to file an FA10 in Mass. That generates proof of at least one felony and maybe two or three.
Again, the subject gun is illegal to possess or transfer, violates the AWB, and is a felony magnet according to Healey. Seriously, don't forget this and certainly don't take her promise (for now) to let this fact slide.
Last edited:
mibro
NES Member
My guess is something like this will happen fairly soon. We've already heard of one LEO attempting to search the trunk of a car entering a range. How long before some self-righteous LEO stops a vehicle leaving a range on a public road for, er, a marked lane violation and then, er, smells pot.
We do, people don't.
I missed the thread that mentioned the LEO attempting to search a car entering a range. Can someone please post a link?
We have some cool protect and serve type of cops in my town who are an asset to the community, but we do have some including a Sgt. who get a boner any chance they have to write up a minor violation. They have automated plate scanning and whether or not I'm in a car registered to me or my wife- we both have LTC's and both own AR's. If they pull me over for some BS reason, in order to comply with the law I have to answer truthfully if there are any weapons in the car. Hello confiscation and pursuant felony defense. Yeah, I suspect I'll walk away with my rifles, but it will cost me ~$2K for a good defense.
Another sad irony is that the two AR's I am most likely to be transporting are competition rifles built to the maximum legal weight for their class. They are damn heavy and the last thing ANYONE would want to commit a crime. One I built with only the target crown, but the other I paid good money to neuter a threaded muzzle. Pissed I jumped through these hoops only to end up a felon in waiting.
Given that officer overzealous is likely to be the one pulling me over, I'll either leave the AR's in the safe or take the quickest route out of town. Shame...
We have some cool protect and serve type of cops in my town who are an asset to the community, but we do have some including a Sgt. who get a boner any chance they have to write up a minor violation. They have automated plate scanning and whether or not I'm in a car registered to me or my wife- we both have LTC's and both own AR's. If they pull me over for some BS reason, in order to comply with the law I have to answer truthfully if there are any weapons in the car. Hello confiscation and pursuant felony defense. Yeah, I suspect I'll walk away with my rifles, but it will cost me ~$2K for a good defense.
Another sad irony is that the two AR's I am most likely to be transporting are competition rifles built to the maximum legal weight for their class. They are damn heavy and the last thing ANYONE would want to commit a crime. One I built with only the target crown, but the other I paid good money to neuter a threaded muzzle. Pissed I jumped through these hoops only to end up a felon in waiting.
Given that officer overzealous is likely to be the one pulling me over, I'll either leave the AR's in the safe or take the quickest route out of town. Shame...
Varmint
NES Member
How about if Trump wins and gets the Supreme Court back to 2A friendly so they decide to hear a case?
I'm thinking that could take several years as well, since he probably needs 2 nominees.
Varmint
NES Member
If they pull you over for speeding, why do you feel you have to tell them you have an AR in the trunk? Let them do an illegal search and find it.
I don't feel I have to tell them anything. If asked if carrying by LEO, in the PRM it is the law to inform.
I am almost always carrying, assuming my destination is legal to do so. Exceptions are work (due to policy and I value my job), schools, or when I plan to drink at a bar. If I'm carrying I will be complying with the law and if asked by LEO when carrying, again I will comply with the law. If asked if I have any other firearms I'll have to answer yes. No I don't have to inform AR's- I can say get a warrant & they probably will. At this time I'll contact my lawyer. Again, I'm sure I will walk with my rifles but it will be expensive.
It's a moot point here in the people's republic of Massachusetts. If he was running for Governor, sure. But as president I don't think he would be able to do anything for our situation other than prevent any further Federal laws via veto.
SpaceCritter
NES Member
"Coattails."
They go beyond mere electoral consequences. They have consequences in social psychology as well.
Varmint
NES Member
You're supposed to answer if asked if you are carrying, that has nothing to do with your trunk and what's in it. Definitely tell them to get a warrant.
Wow that shows you how much of a dick the LEO is there if hes trying to trap you leaving a gun range. Then again if you bought the AR before Healeys fake enforcement date what can they do? They cant take it for no reason.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
What about them fishing for AR's and AK's in their towns and then going after the illegal guns?
