Healey's office considering action against those who bought & sold rifles on July 20

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

What about it? Who's going to stop them?

it might be but who would stop them, you wouldn't now about it until they showed up at your door with the FA10 you filled out on that Mass Compliant AR

 

[jasons]

it might be but who would stop them, you wouldn't now about it until they showed up at your door with the FA10 you filled out on that Mass Compliant AR

It's really not tinfoil at all IMO. You don't think the Chiefs in certain towns want to "rid their cities of illegal assault rifles?" Remember, the AG's guidance (such as it is) is only a promise to not prosecute at this time. Nothing in that guidance stops a little Eichmann from knocking on your door right now.

Hell, MCOPA was standing next to the podium with her at the presser.

 

[Len-2A Training]

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.

From my read of the post it was upon entering. In any case, yes they can take it away from you for no reason. It'll cost you to win it back. Few would do that but there are those few out there.

They don't need a warrant to run a query against the EOPSS database.

Still not probable cause to search the vehicle.

It's really not tinfoil at all IMO. You don't think the Chiefs in certain towns want to "rid their cities of illegal assault rifles?" Remember, the AG's guidance (such as it is) is only a promise to not prosecute at this time. Nothing in that guidance stops a little Eichmann from knocking on your door right now.

Hell, MCOPA was standing next to the podium with her at the presser.

I have to agree here.

 

[jasons]

Still not probable cause to search the vehicle.

"Your honor, after using my data terminal to run a query on the EOPSS database I learned that the defendant had recently purchased an assault weapon in violation of Chapter 140, Section 131M. Given that the defendant was leaving a gun club which I personally know to have a rifle range I believed that there was sufficient probable cause to search the defendant's vehicle."

No? (Remember, this is MA.)

 

[Varmint]

They don't need a warrant to run a query against the EOPSS database.

If they want to go that route, bring it, would love to see the courts discussing how the cops used what's not a firearms database to discover you have a legally purchased rifle which the AG now deemed illegal after you bought it, and this inspired the cop to do an illegal search of your vehicle.

 

[Varmint]

It's really not tinfoil at all IMO. You don't think the Chiefs in certain towns want to "rid their cities of illegal assault rifles?" Remember, the AG's guidance (such as it is) is only a promise to not prosecute at this time. Nothing in that guidance stops a little Eichmann from knocking on your door right now.

Hell, MCOPA was standing next to the podium with her at the presser.

In America, it's not about what the law lets you do, it's about the consequences of your actions. Any cop bringing this matter into the courts is gonna get a stern talking to from the AG.

If the AG thought she could prosecute people and get away with it, she'd be doing it yesterday.

 

[jasons]

In America, it's not about what the law lets you do, it's about the consequences of your actions. Any cop bringing this matter into the courts is gonna get a stern talking to from the AG.

If the AG thought she could prosecute people and get away with it, she'd be doing it yesterday.

I'm not sure you get it. There doesn't need to be a prosecution. This will drive gun owners out of the state or under ground and will put gun shops out of business. When people leave or become too cautious to let their rifle see the light of day she's won, and she doesn't need to bring a single prosecution for that.

The only remedy here is to repeal or amend 131M. At the very least change the date in 131M to codify her "guidance" into the actual law. Until then we're all living under the guillotine. And even then we're still stuck with her new expansive interpretation going forward.

 

[10thSFFD]

I'm not sure you get it. There doesn't need to be a prosecution. This will drive gun owners out of the state or under ground and will put gun shops out of business. When people leave or become too cautious to let their rifle see the light of day she's won, and she doesn't need to bring a single prosecution for that.

The only remedy here is to appeal or amend 131M. At the very least change the date in 131M to codify her "guidance" into the actual law. Until then we're all living under the guillotine. And even then we're still stuck with her new expansive interpretation going forward.

^THIS

Excellent post!

 

[jaymce]

In America, it's not about what the law lets you do, it's about the consequences of your actions. Any cop bringing this matter into the courts is gonna get a stern talking to from the AG.

If the AG thought she could prosecute people and get away with it, she'd be doing it yesterday.

The AG has said she will not prosecute against possession of firearms bought between 94-7/16 but that those firearms are illegal under the AGs new interpretation. My understanding is that she has not set in place a grandfather clause or given amnesty to the owners of these firearms. In addition to that she reserves the right to change her mind at any point.

There is a difference between LE activly seeking these people out (door to door confiscation) and the LE asking if you have any firearms in the vehicle after stopping you for a broken tail light upon seeing you exit a shooting range.

The legality of an overzealous LE stopping a shooter entering a range fishing on private property, hoping you will incriminate yourself, would probably end up with a case that could not be prosecuted. It would probably end up with loss of your baned semi-auto rifle unless it was pre 94'

My guess is that when a licensed firearms owner is legally stopped by,a non-friendly to the pro 2A cause LE and is descovered to have a 94' - 7/16, that person will have to choose to roll over or fight legally to get your firearm back and becomes the test case.

To me it seems to be like teenage drinking in the late 70s-80s. LE pulls you over takes your case of beer or has you pour it out on the roadside and sends you on your way. Start hassling the cop and you, he, the DA and your parents can all meet at the station house and play out their respective roles.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[jaymce]

The AG has said she will not prosecute against possession of firearms bought between 94-7/16 but that those firearms are illegal under the AGs new interpretation. My understanding is that she has not set in place a grandfather clause or given amnesty to the owners of these firearms. In addition to that she reserves the right to change her mind at any point.

There is a difference between LE activly seeking these people out (door to door confiscation) and the LE asking if you have any firearms in the vehicle after stopping you for a broken tail light upon seeing you exit a shooting range.

The legality of an overzealous LE stopping a shooter entering a range fishing on private property, hoping you will incriminate yourself, would probably end up with a case that could not be prosecuted. It would probably end up with loss of your baned semi-auto rifle unless it was pre 94'

My guess is that when a licensed firearms owner is legally stopped by,a non-friendly to the pro 2A cause LE and is descovered to have a 94' - 7/16, that person will have to choose to roll over or fight legally to get your firearm back and becomes the test case.

To me it seems to be like teenage drinking in the late 70s-80s. LE pulls you over takes your case of beer or has you pour it out on the roadside and sends you on your way. Start hassling the cop and you, he, the DA and your parents can all meet at the station house and play out their respective roles.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Should be added that the AG does think she can prosecute she just needs a test case. Right now she is after the trophy game once they are hunted out she will turn her sights on small game.


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[not new guy]

On the amnesty and grandfathering points, both are outside of the scope of her authority. That may explain why she didn't get into them beyond saying she won't prosecute.

 

[TLB]

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.

Well said.

 

[10thSFFD]

So I ask the LEO's On NES: which will it be?
Do you have OUR backs?
If so, a well written letter by the Mass LEO's to the AG would be an awesome first step in a good direction.

PS: I'm pretty sure that EVERY CCW holder in Mass has your backs!

Stop immediately acting like a girlfriend over the brake up email. Don't be ludicrous!

We have to be smart. Idiotic behavior will allow them to keep us in the "hobby category" together with "ham radio operators".

We had one run at it. We collected feedback. Nothing changed. What we did was nowhere near enough. Legislators in session decided to ignore us. Police did not show up. They did show up in many other activities IN UNIFORMS and they do not mind wasting taxpayer's money on all kind of charity rides. Do not become soft and do not beg!

Creating illusion that police, media, pigeons in the park, are all with us, but they can't show up, is dangerous.

Put your thinking caps on and realize the following (these are not for discussion points intended to drag this non-sense whining for another 100 posts):]

1. This was not an act of one crazy AG. This is a well prepared, well timed attacks on our rights in America.
2. What is going on in America right now is the final push for globalism. Germany is ahead of us. Do pay attention to what happened to citizen's rights over there. While they are experiencing one terrorist attack after another THE MAIN FOCUS REMAINS THE CITIZEN WITH THE BRAIN. Last night this is what was requested:

After the Munich attack, Herrmann urged the German government to allow the country’s military to be deployed to support police during attacks. Germany’s post-war constitution, because of the excesses of the Nazi era, only allows the military to be deployed domestically in cases of national emergency.
Herrmann has called those regulations obsolete and said that Germans have a ‘‘right to safety.’’

Do you get this?

3. We became felons OVERNIGHT! This is not a joke. You paid taxes, did what they told you to do, you supported them and they still made a felon out of you. OUR SIGN WAS SUPPOSE TO BE: 400,000 felons in ONE DAY!!!! Why? Because they can. They also very clearly stated that they may or may not pick you up one day and sump you in the prison. There you will meet the company you have avoided all your life successfully. Do you get this?

4. You may ask: Why this happened to us? Why they did not hit manufactures of sodas or peanut butter? Because we are easy target. Because when we become felons overnight we go and shout Blue Lives Matter. After Oregon, after AG going after us, we assemble and we do not shout OUR LIVES MATTER! We care about others. In Russia, right before the communist revolution, nice people, just like us, could not take the neglect and the mess all around, they decided to organize a peaceful demonstration with religious symbols, songs, "blue lives matter" type of compassion and went to show their well behaved minority to the tyrannical Russian czar. You know what happened to them? They were shot on the spot. This was one of many other events which started the revolution. When tyranny becomes illogical the end of the tyranny is near but that does not mean that what is coming is better.

5. We can't play in the minor league anymore. This is not about guns. GOAL has 5 people. Did you miss that? You probably did because your party catering requires more people than GOAL has. I did not miss it! This is unacceptable! Yet, when I was watching all media coverage GOAL was one of very few who made a perfect sense. You bitched that NRA will do nothing for us for in MA. Did you try? And if you did, why there are still 5 people at GOAL?

Sorry for a long post, but this has to stop.

 

[n1oty]

On the amnesty and grandfathering points, both are outside of the scope of her authority. That may explain why she didn't get into them beyond saying she won't prosecute.

This. She has prosecutorial discretion, but no authority to issue an edict granting amnesty or grandfathering. Future AG's, or even her majesty, could easily ratchet up from here.

 

[esamjj]

We need to get at least $100k in donations to GOAL. That's only $50 per each of us that was at the rally. Then they can fund additional legal services. Then we need to fund a 2A PAC. This is the US, money talks!

 

[crazymjb]

We need to get at least $100k in donations to GOAL. That's only $50 per each of us that was at the rally. Then they can fund additional legal services. Then we need to fund a 2A PAC. This is the US, money talks!

According to BPD that is only 20 from everyone in the crowd.

Mike

 

[dennism]

According to BPD that is only 20 from everyone in the crowd.

Mike

This keeps getting stated. Has the BPD been quoted somewhere that I missed?

 

[crazymjb]

Good question. Ive just seen it here.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[10thSFFD]

According to BPD that is only 20 from everyone in the crowd.

Mike

Which crowd? 10? 10:30? 11? ......What CROWD?

 

[esamjj]

RE: According to BPD that is only 20 from everyone in the crowd.
This is reference the dollar amount per person the raise $100K for GOAL.
$20 X 5,000 at rally = $100K.

 

[42!]

We need to get at least $100k in donations to GOAL. That's only $50 per each of us that was at the rally. Then they can fund additional legal services. Then we need to fund a 2A PAC. This is the US, money talks!

Done.

 

[esamjj]

For what is worth, just sent the following to my D Rep.

If the legislature does not act on this action by the AG, it is allowing a political party to potentially eliminate their opposition, other congressman, government employees, and the citizens from voting. May sound far fetched, but this was far fetched also.

The legislature needs to create some sort of safe guards against actions like this. The next R AG may declare pro-choice illegal in some form and make all previous abortions felonies and not allow new one. You may say this is a Federal law, well the Assault Weapon ban expired in 2004, but this state still applies it.

 

[Varmint]

Should be added that the AG does think she can prosecute she just needs a test case. Right now she is after the trophy game once they are hunted out she will turn her sights on small game.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

I totally disagree - this is an end run around the judicial system, she does NOT want cases in court, that will eventually lead to not only her actions being overturned, but the entire legality of the AWB questioned.

She just wants us all to turn in our firearms with a whimper, with no effort on her part.

 

[Varmint]

Stop immediately acting like a girlfriend over the brake up email. Don't be ludicrous!

We have to be smart. Idiotic behavior will allow them to keep us in the "hobby category" together with "ham radio operators".

We had one run at it. We collected feedback. Nothing changed. What we did was nowhere near enough. Legislators in session decided to ignore us. Police did not show up. They did show up in many other activities IN UNIFORMS and they do not mind wasting taxpayer's money on all kind of charity rides. Do not become soft and do not beg!

Creating illusion that police, media, pigeons in the park, are all with us, but they can't show up, is dangerous.

Put your thinking caps on and realize the following (these are not for discussion points intended to drag this non-sense whining for another 100 posts):]

1. This was not an act of one crazy AG. This is a well prepared, well timed attacks on our rights in America.
2. What is going on in America right now is the final push for globalism. Germany is ahead of us. Do pay attention to what happened to citizen's rights over there. While they are experiencing one terrorist attack after another THE MAIN FOCUS REMAINS THE CITIZEN WITH THE BRAIN. Last night this is what was requested:

Do you get this?

3. We became felons OVERNIGHT! This is not a joke. You paid taxes, did what they told you to do, you supported them and they still made a felon out of you. OUR SIGN WAS SUPPOSE TO BE: 400,000 felons in ONE DAY!!!! Why? Because they can. They also very clearly stated that they may or may not pick you up one day and sump you in the prison. There you will meet the company you have avoided all your life successfully. Do you get this?

4. You may ask: Why this happened to us? Why they did not hit manufactures of sodas or peanut butter? Because we are easy target. Because when we become felons overnight we go and shout Blue Lives Matter. After Oregon, after AG going after us, we assemble and we do not shout OUR LIVES MATTER! We care about others. In Russia, right before the communist revolution, nice people, just like us, could not take the neglect and the mess all around, they decided to organize a peaceful demonstration with religious symbols, songs, "blue lives matter" type of compassion and went to show their well behaved minority to the tyrannical Russian czar. You know what happened to them? They were shot on the spot. This was one of many other events which started the revolution. When tyranny becomes illogical the end of the tyranny is near but that does not mean that what is coming is better.

5. We can't play in the minor league anymore. This is not about guns. GOAL has 5 people. Did you miss that? You probably did because your party catering requires more people than GOAL has. I did not miss it! This is unacceptable! Yet, when I was watching all media coverage GOAL was one of very few who made a perfect sense. You bitched that NRA will do nothing for us for in MA. Did you try? And if you did, why there are still 5 people at GOAL?

Sorry for a long post, but this has to stop.

I agree with everything except 4, I think we are being targeted because we are the greatest threat to their plan for an authoritarian regime. And they need to hit us now, as the threads are just beginning to unravel - they very much fear a Dallas or Baton Rouge on a large scale. Those maniacs revealed the vulnerability of the police state, and demanded action.

So while I think this is just the first step, and the AG doesn't want to go too far in the first step, let's make no mistake the future steps will get increasingly harsh.

 

[Jason Flare]

I totally disagree - this is an end run around the judicial system, she does NOT want cases in court, that will eventually lead to not only her actions being overturned, but the entire legality of the AWB questioned.

She just wants us all to turn in our firearms with a whimper, with no effort on her part.

The first step is that she would like the majority in MA to speak up and demand the prosecution of the felons she has created.

A democracy is mob rule and she needs public support for the next step.

I expect editorials and letters to editors demanding that these evil weapons be taken off our streets.

 

[jaymce]

I totally disagree - this is an end run around the judicial system, she does NOT want cases in court, that will eventually lead to not only her actions being overturned, but the entire legality of the AWB questioned.

She just wants us all to turn in our firearms with a whimper, with no effort on her part.

I agree that is ideally what she would like. However as I read the law (not a lawyer) it says she chooses not to jamb people up who are in violation. I don’t see anything that says she can't jamb someone up. Additionally it goes back to the last sentences in here edict that I paraphrase as at this time.

You can't call a contractor and ask him to build you a house in a day it takes time, foundation, frame,finish, paint. In My humble opinion she has just finished the foundation and is saying to us no worries I'm not buiding a house.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Len-2A Training]

On the amnesty and grandfathering points, both are outside of the scope of her authority. That may explain why she didn't get into them beyond saying she won't prosecute.

TTBOMK, AGs don't prosecute individuals. Again it is the DA and police that bring cases forward, not the AG.

 

[42!]

Call your lib friends and relative you may be surprised how they are against the way the AG did things.

I usually avoid talking politics to my mother, shes a super lib Dem and heavy into politics (was a rep at a DNC at one point). But she is outraged at what the AG did and will be calling her reps and friends to gain support for SD.2637

Do not let this fade away.

 

[slipknot]

On the amnesty and grandfathering points, both are outside of the scope of her authority. That may explain why she didn't get into them beyond saying she won't prosecute.

How do people even know what her authority is or is not? Where do you get this info on both those points being outside her Authority? I can't find anything anywhere to back up what Gov. Baker states verbally, that she has the authority to re interpret the AWB law.

I know their are different branches of government and each one has their job, but where is it written about her description of authority of what she can and cannot do as AG?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

How do people even know what her authority is or is not? Where do you get this info on both those points being outside her Authority? I can't find anything anywhere to back up what Gov. Baker states verbally, that she has the authority to re interpret the AWB law.

The AG has considerable authority to interpret her own regulations (see Auer deference). AS to the law - the AG can argue her position in court, however, I don't think "because the AG said so" is a valid legal argument. It must be based on statutory and case law.