The opinion of EOPS will not hold up against what is written in the law.
My guess is that you didn't read what I stated earlier in the thread.
It is so poorly worded that I do believe that the EOPS position will hold in court.
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
The opinion of EOPS will not hold up against what is written in the law.
Yes at least one active LEO was charged with possessing a new AW and new large cap mags previously. No idea of outcome.
Here's EOPS take on the situation.
- Law says possess NOT buy/sell/obtain. Thus one "may" be legal to possess but has no way to obtain or get rid of it legally.
- Retirees can ONLY possess that which was OWNED by their department and GIFTED to them upon retirement, nothing more. Well, in the old days it was common to gift a retiring officer his/her gun, etc. Nowadays the Ethics Commission has ruled receiving gifts to be illegal. Plus it would have to be put out to bid to the highest bidder (public) if a gov't agency was disposing of something of value. Thus, EOPS says this is a no-go.
As someone obligated to go thru biennial training in the MA Ethics Laws/Regs, I understand the second part issue (gifting). Due to my multiple roles in town gov't I have had extensive dealings with the lawyers at the Ethics Commission.
This law needs to be changed in order to be workable. No idea if that will happen, but it would have to come from the MCOPA as GOAL isn't about to champion a law change to only affect a privileged class.
My guess is that you didn't read what I stated earlier in the thread.
It is so poorly worded that I do believe that the EOPS position will hold in court.
I will have to read the law again. It didn't seem that convoluted ( for MA anyway)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It'll also rarely, if ever, be prosecuted, either, unless someone's got a pole up their backside... no different than the non-LE portion of the law.
-Mike
Maybe, maybe not.
But you serfs can suck it!
Im having 2 more bayonet lugs mounted to my AR with the telescoping stock bitches!
Yes, GPP has officially hit the sauce for Friday night
I've said it before and I'll say it again...
All exemptions for police (and maybe the military) should be completely removed. If the weapons are not safe for law abiding civilians to own then how are they safe for the police? See how fast the police unions will work against anti gun laws then
Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk
Under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, this law is blatently unconstitutional.
The question is, if you as a non leo/retired leo get busted, do you have enough money to fight it all the way to the supreme court?
IANAL, but this law should make the MA AWB null and void.
As a Constitutionalist, it should be null and void regardless.
And on further thought, this could law could also run afoul of Article 1, Section 9 clause 8 forbidding the granting of titles and nobility. While the law doesn't specifically grant a title of nobility, it does convey rights and privileges that could be construed as a title of nobility.
Again, IANAL, I'm just pissed.
One quick rant also:
I am tired of having to write IANAL. Prior to the establishment of the lawyers guild in the late 1800's, anyone could hang a shingle out offering to represent someone in a legal proceeding. It required nothing. Let the buyer beware. If you wanted to be a lawyer, you went to the library and read all the laws! You learned to make arguments n a court. Nowadays, you need to go to an "accredited" Bullshit school to get a law degree before you can take the bar exam which is totally immoral and unethical as it establishes a guild run by the individual states. No better than the AMA, to be quite candid.
/end rant- probably should have started a new thread for this. I never want to have to write or read IANAL again.
I am tired of having to write IANAL. Prior to the establishment of the lawyers guild in the late 1800's, anyone could hang a shingle out offering to represent someone in a legal proceeding. It required nothing. Let the buyer beware. If you wanted to be a lawyer, you went to the library and read all the laws! You learned to make arguments n a court. Nowadays, you need to go to an "accredited" Bullshit school to get a law degree before you can take the bar exam which is totally immoral and unethical as it establishes a guild run by the individual states. No better than the AMA, to be quite candid.
/end rant- probably should have started a new thread for this. I never want to have to write or read IANAL again.
RSA 311:1 said:Right to Appear, etc. – A party in any cause or proceeding may appear, plead, prosecute or defend in his or her proper person, that is, pro se, or may be represented by any citizen of good character. For the purposes of this section, a citizen shall be presumed to be of good character unless demonstrated otherwise.
It is stupid, annoying, and bogus. In NH at least, you don't have to be a BAR accredited attorney to act as one. You just must be someone of "good character".
Kinda one of my fav GPP quotes! lolMaybe, maybe not.
But you serfs can suck it!
Im having 2 more bayonet lugs mounted to my AR with the telescoping stock bitches!
Yes, GPP has officially hit the sauce for Friday night
The on the ground reality is that LE is functionally immune from AWB crap assuming their badge is otherwise intact. It was this way before the law changed and won't be any different now.
-Mike
Yes, it is known that they eat there own.A couple of cops were prosecuted. If you fall into disfavor in a department the thin blue line fades instantly and you'll be jacked up. It certainly does happen.
A couple of cops were prosecuted. If you fall into disfavor in a department the thin blue line fades instantly and you'll be jacked up. It certainly does happen.
I think you may be referring to prosecutions that were before the August of 2014 change to the AWB.
Also, the EOPSS notice to firearms retailers (that I linked above) that Active LEOs can purchase regardless of the AWB is in direct contradiction to what you say you've been told by EOPSS.
Tom, several sources disagree with that, sadly.
A personal conversation with an EOPS attorney (no, not the one I hate that just left EOPS) and Michaela Dunne about this topic.
Additionally I read the same info from other LE sources.
I'm pretty sure I discussed it here before as well.
They merely removed a few words, and didn't reword it, leading to the (I think mis-) interpretations I'm referring to.
That section of law says they can "possess" . . . EOPS points out that nowhere does it say that they can buy or sell (true statement).
The part that is about retirees still basically states (and is interpreted as) that the department has to GIFT the items to the retiree. Problem with that is although this was done for eons, the Ethics Commission has ruled this illegal as it is theft/conversion of gov't property and it would have to be offered for sale at market value to the highest bidder at auction to be legal, something they just don't do wrt firearms.
In a meeting I had with a high ranking gov't official, this is something I pointed out as needing a "technical correction" to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish by proper wording.
While I agree that the law only seems to apply to possession, the Deputy General Council of EOPSS Elisabeth Ryan stated in a LE email distribution that "Dealers will no longer face a potential felony charge if they sell these otherwise banned weapons and magazines directly to law enforcement officers rather than to the department itself. The intent of the officer for its use is now irrelevant." So it would appear that the official stance of EOPSS is that purchase by LE is allowed.
It only proves that different attorneys within EOPS and others within that system give out conflicting info!
A couple of cops were prosecuted. If you fall into disfavor in a department the thin blue line fades instantly and you'll be jacked up. It certainly does happen.
Under what circumstances? Were the still "in" when they were prosecuted? Were there other attendant charges at the same time? If these guys were already going down the river, there's your answer. If that is the case then as samples they're sort of invalid.
-Mike
Returning property after 209A was voided. Yes he was still active PO . . . at least until they charged him with illegal possession of AW and mags. No other charges at the time they decided his possession was illegal.
It only proves that different attorneys within EOPS and others within that system give out conflicting info!
As for Ryan, I wouldn't trust a damn thing she says. She's the one that I've crossed swords with . . . she stating that I didn't know what I was talking about and insisting that the words "in Massachusetts" are in the MA AWB and thus any pre-ban AW or mag that was not IN MA ON (not before) 9/13/1994 is not a MA legal pre-ban and is illegal to possess/buy/sell. And I have that in writing from her from a LE Email list where she attacked me for stating that as long as the DOB was on/before 9/13/1994 it was a legal pre-ban.