Local Police to use FRB lists to arrest gun owners?

[10thSFFD]

Make sure you have surveillance set up all around the perimeter of your home I prefer POE cameras myself that way there if I'm in any part of the home I can see everything using my Iphone, even when I'm out and about, make sure you have cameras with trip alarms as well. And above all a good dog, be it a 100 pound'er or an ankle biter a dog will hear what you don't. These are good precautions to take, and there are many others such as reinforcing the door jambs and putting security film on your windows which makes them unable to break without a major effort.

Of course a lot of these precautions should be made either way weather confiscation happens or not, at least these upgrades give you a sense of security.

You need a wall!

Seriously, electronic security around your house can also be used against you. Just so you do not say that I did not warn you about that possibility.

 

[Rider]

Always interesting to see a good flood of panic. Carful what you wish for it may become your reality.

Yeah, I have to keep going away. The degree of pants-shitting is too much even for me, and I usually eat this stuff up.

 

[robjax]

When I'm on the way ANYWHERE with my AR (or any firearm) in my car, NOBODY is going to be able to observe it, much less easily remove it either. Arguably the gun is NOT ILLEGAL cuz I had it before JULY 20th. No road cop is going to do anything right now about this. They're doing the wait and see like most everybody else.

I'm on the law n' order side. PARTICIPATING by signing petitions, sending e-mails, making calls, and will attend hearings and rallies as they come up in the future. Also have sworn to defend the constitution more times than most folks too. You're being motivated by fear more than reason it seems. This must be fought in the legislative branch, and not amongst ourselves...............

We are all on the side of law and order. But what are you willing to do when the laws are out of order? We are motivated by history and not fear. You act like we're some fear mongering idiots.

When I first got my FID card it was good for life and it was legal for me to buy ANY rifle as long as it wasn't a HAND GUN. ANY RIFLE...AR15, AK47, Shotgun, bolt action lever action, magazine fed, tube fed, top fed, bottom fed, no magazine limits. LTCs were for life if you had one. Then they weren't. Then you couldn't own (New term here) "high capacity" rifles with an FID card. You needed an LTC for that. Then you couldn't own a rifle with a bayo lug or a magazine that hold over 10 rounds or this hand gun or that hand gun...
'
Dude, this isn't fear. This is fact.

And we participated and signed the petitions and made the calls and sent the e-mails and attended the hearings and rallies as they came up and each time it was fought in the legislative branch and in the courts and it was ruled in favor of the restriction.

So don't sit there and tell us we are motivated by fear. We are motivated by past historical fact.

This act of hers crosses the line.

You claim you took the oath more times than most. Glad to hear it. Thank you for your service. And as an oath taker you swore to uphold the constitution. You were also under the obligation to not follow unlawful orders.

So what side is the side of law n' order to you?

If you support Healey's directive you are not on the side of law n' order. You are on the side of tyranny.

Oh, and you can neg rep me all you want. I don't really care.

 

[Drix]

Going to throw it out there: If have a "assault weapon" clone that was not made before 1994 , that gun is a felonious possession.
The sale, transfer, or possession of an “Assault weapon,” as defined in Section 121, is unlawful pursuant to G.L. c. 140, §§ 128 and 131M.

The AGO reserves the right to alter or amend this guidance.

 

[10thSFFD]

We are all on the side of law and order. But what are you willing to do when the laws are out of order? We are motivated by history and not fear. You act like we're some fear mongering idiots.

When I first got my FID card it was good for life and it was legal for me to buy ANY rifle as long as it wasn't a HAND GUN. ANY RIFLE...AR15, AK47, Shotgun, bolt action lever action, magazine fed, tube fed, top fed, bottom fed, no magazine limits. LTCs were for life if you had one. Then they weren't. Then you couldn't own (New term here) "high capacity" rifles with an FID card. You needed an LTC for that. Then you couldn't own a rifle with a bayo lug or a magazine that hold over 10 rounds or this hand gun or that hand gun...
'
Dude, this isn't fear. This is fact.

And we participated and signed the petitions and made the calls and sent the e-mails and attended the hearings and rallies as they came up and each time it was fought in the legislative branch and in the courts and it was ruled in favor of the restriction.

So don't sit there and tell us we are motivated by fear. We are motivated by past historical fact.

This act of hers crosses the line.

You claim you took the oath more times than most. Glad to hear it. Thank you for your service. And as an oath taker you swore to uphold the constitution. You were also under the obligation to not follow unlawful orders.

So what side is the side of law n' order to you?

If you support Healey's directive you are not on the side of law n' order. You are on the side of tyranny.

Oh, and you can neg rep me all you want. I don't really care.

THIS 100x

No fear here, buddy!

Just simple facts. When somebody will mail you a public letter telling you that you may or you may not be arrested I do not waste time waiting for MAY.

 

[In God We Trust]

Horse shit. A good friend is one and takes that oath very seriously. He's also one of "us" as are many others. That's not to say what you said doesn't apply to others, but a broad blanketed statement like that will never be accurate.

100% accurate. Every cop I know is a conservative and a gun guy.

Don't let actual facts interrupt the NES anti cop circle jerk however. Carry on.

 

[buck shot in the woods]

they are just gonna send a letter that you will have to turn them in if not you will become a felon

 

[OfficerObie59]

No disrespect intended, but I didn't see any problems with the cops yesterday...

Would have been nice to have some with us as opposed to watching us, if that's what you are suggesting.

I unfortunately wasn't able to make it to Boston, and that's a shame for all of us as we all need to do our fair share in protecting our rights. Otherwise, I would have been there as I was in 2013.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

they are just gonna send a letter that you will have to turn them in if not you will become a felon

That agrees with what I have been saying, if we don't block it they will give a 30 day grace period to sell out of state or turn in, and then...

 

[drgrant]

This is a coordinated attack on our rights. I know that we have cops on this thread. So what? I did not see one active cop in the uniform with us yesterday. THAT IS WHAT MATTERS.

This is because they are prohibited from enagaging in such things while in uniform. Lots of employers do this, not just PDs....

I think part of your problem here is that you don't get that good cops don't view themselves as being "special" when off duty...

 

[EddyMunster]

We are all on the side of law and order. But what are you willing to do when the laws are out of order? We are motivated by history and not fear. You act like we're some fear mongering idiots.

When I first got my FID card it was good for life and it was legal for me to buy ANY rifle as long as it wasn't a HAND GUN. ANY RIFLE...AR15, AK47, Shotgun, bolt action lever action, magazine fed, tube fed, top fed, bottom fed, no magazine limits. LTCs were for life if you had one. Then they weren't. Then you couldn't own (New term here) "high capacity" rifles with an FID card. You needed an LTC for that. Then you couldn't own a rifle with a bayo lug or a magazine that hold over 10 rounds or this hand gun or that hand gun...
'
Dude, this isn't fear. This is fact.

And we participated and signed the petitions and made the calls and sent the e-mails and attended the hearings and rallies as they came up and each time it was fought in the legislative branch and in the courts and it was ruled in favor of the restriction.

So don't sit there and tell us we are motivated by fear. We are motivated by past historical fact.

This act of hers crosses the line.

You claim you took the oath more times than most. Glad to hear it. Thank you for your service. And as an oath taker you swore to uphold the constitution. You were also under the obligation to not follow unlawful orders.

So what side is the side of law n' order to you?

If you support Healey's directive you are not on the side of law n' order. You are on the side of tyranny.

Oh, and you can neg rep me all you want. I don't really care.

How I see it too. I had a lifetime FID way back when and remember the good old days just enough to miss them. Then I find out after not using it for a while it's no longer valid.... WTF? It says right on it, it was for life!? That was my introduction to MA legislation. I agree 100% with what you're saying. This last stunt happened shortly after we all attended those "hearings" on newly proposed legislation that was destined to fail and apparently they listened. Or did they? At some point you would think if it was honestly about public safety and saving lives, they might ask the guys who handle the damn things all the time for suggestions.

 

[mpd61]

We are all on the side of law and order. But what are you willing to do when the laws are out of order? We are motivated by history and not fear. You act like we're some fear mongering idiots.


Dude, this isn't fear. This is fact.

And we participated and signed the petitions and made the calls and sent the e-mails and attended the hearings and rallies as they came up and each time it was fought in the legislative branch and in the courts and it was ruled in favor of the restriction.

So don't sit there and tell us we are motivated by fear. We are motivated by past historical fact.

This act of hers crosses the line.

You claim you took the oath more times than most. Glad to hear it. Thank you for your service. And as an oath taker you swore to uphold the constitution. You were also under the obligation to not follow unlawful orders.

So what side is the side of law n' order to you?

If you support Healey's directive you are not on the side of law n' order. You are on the side of tyranny.

It not the law that is out of order, it's that agenda-driven fool AG's lone interpretation
I was speaking of you, not everyone else and NEVER did I use the term idiot.
Historical fact IS that the laws, until last Wednesday, have all been made and further whittled away by LEGISLATIVE action, not AG's "letters".
Her action does indeed cross the line. It is a blatant mis-use of office. Recall or impeach the agenda driven clown.

So tell me again why you are pissed at me and why I support tyranny?

 

[Keven]

No disrespect intended, but I didn't see any problems with the cops yesterday. I was front and center at the rally and thought the Boston PD were pretty decent. Actually they seemed much more 'chill' than I normally see from them. Very tolerant of the crowd spilling over into the street and generally polite.

I realize the staties inside the wall were not there for our entertainment but they appeared pretty relaxed at their post as well.

Would have been nice to have some with us as opposed to watching us, if that's what you are suggesting.

Well I think the police felt safe with us around that day.

 

[10thSFFD]

This is because they are prohibited from enagaging in such things while in uniform. Lots of employers do this, not just PDs....

I think part of your problem here is that you don't get that good cops don't view themselves as being "special" when off duty...

You may be correct. I also received few educational PMs. Thank you! I will leave cops to you. You know better.

 

[KBCraig]

Direct quote from her highness' press conference;
“…will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016.”

"Will not be applied" is not the same thing as "the law does not apply".

Not at all.

- - - Updated - - -

100% accurate. Every cop I know is a conservative and a gun guy.

Don't let actual facts interrupt the NES anti cop circle jerk however. Carry on.

Just to point out the obvious, you don't know every cop.

You also don't know what a cop will do while under pressure to keep his job, even if he's a conservative gun guy friend of yours.

 

[Mudfish]

Can anyone come up with an incident when a cop risked his or her job and pension by defying an order that they felt violated a citizens constitutional rights? I keep hearing that good cops will stand with us. Please tell me about a time where that has happened. I am more than willing to listen but I fear that there isn't much to back up that viewpoint.

 

[GPP]

That agrees with what I have been saying, if we don't block it they will give a 30 day grace period to sell out of state or turn in, and then...

And then......... what? You have some intel you want to disperse? Or are you one of the dudes just looking to blame somebody and chose the LEOs?

 

[Drix]

"Will not be applied" is not the same thing as "the law does not apply".

The Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016.
The AGO reserves the right to alter or amend this guidance.

 

[dcmdon]

That doesn't fix the problem. If you were to remove said firearms out of state, or even if you went all the way and transferred them to someone via a FFL, the MA registry will still show that you own one.

And when they come for the gun you no longer have, do you think they are going to knock and ask politely? Or will they be out there with a bearcat in full battle rattle?

This makes no sense. They can show up with a Bearcat and a SWAT team. But if the guns have been lawfully moved to another state, there is NOTHING they can do. The state of MA has NO, NONE, NADA authority over what you do with lawfully owned property in another state.

Don

 

[Miamivice]

This right here. A lot of chiefs and department higher ups are basically politicians in a police uniform. They are appointed by town/city governments and haven't been a police officer for years.

I'd have to look it up for the exact phrasing but it is in our policies and procedures, that we are prohibited from wearing our uniforms to events that are not authorized by the agency. Showing up to a political rally on the other side of the state in uniform would mean disciplinary action, public crucifixion, etc.

I want to touch on a few other things that have been brought up in this thread.

It's easy to just blanket all LEO's calling us unintelligent, but the fact is we discuss this stuff on a daily basis in between shooting dogs and other jack booted things. The majority of MASS LEO's think this is unconstitutional and have no intention of jacking people up on horse crap. We have discussed what would happen if there were directives to confiscate guns. Based on these discussions, I don't know who the AG would send to boot the proverbial doors cause most of us would be home behind our own doors.

Contrary to what the "more protecting and serving" thread shows the majority of police officers get into this line of work in order to have a positive impact in their community. I said it in my interview, and have acted accordingly in my career. I have been on interview boards and I've seen people give the same answer, get hired, and act accordingly as well. The one good thing to come out of the civil service process is that towns are hiring police who live in the communities they work in. They're not out there to crap where they eat. Yes, bad stuff still happens and ends up on youtube, and guys get canned before all the facts are in. That is still the exception not the rule. It's not about getting a gun and badge, you can get that on the internet.

Do you seriously think that hundreds of thousands of men and women make the choice to work in law enforcement to wear a gun to work? Everyone knows going into this career that they have to sacrifice nights, weekends, and holidays. All the while being blasted by the media cause some cop 1,000 miles away makes a bad decision, but he wears the same uniform as you so your on his team. Carrying a gun at work obviously makes up the difference. Or maybe it's because they actually believe in serving their community.

If the "go time" that everyone loves to fantasize about ever happens, pensions and job security will be the last thing on any LEO's mind. They will be home with their families like everyone else on this board.

You won't get through the tin foil helmets are thick here this week.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[MAJoe]

This makes no sense. They can show up with a Bearcat and a SWAT team. But if the guns have been lawfully moved to another state, there is NOTHING they can do. The state of MA has NO, NONE, NADA authority over what you do with lawfully owned property in another state.

Don

True, but if they have proof (FA10) that you transferred an "assault weapon" in state then even without the rifle, they have documented evidence you broke this new guidance.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Can anyone come up with an incident when a cop risked his or her job and pension by defying an order that they felt violated a citizens constitutional rights? I keep hearing that good cops will stand with us. Please tell me about a time where that has happened. I am more than willing to listen but I fear that there isn't much to back up that viewpoint.

Any cop with 1/2 a brain isn't about to publicly state that they defied an order and did such and such. Thus, you won't find any evidence. On the other hand, from personal experience, almost all cops use discretion when they can and the other party acts in a civilized manner. It's not always possible to do so (when you have a CF of brass hanging over your shoulder at a scene, etc.) but they do when they can. They just aren't about to brag about it.

True, but if they have proof (FA10) that you transferred an "assault weapon" in state then even without the rifle, they have documented evidence you broke this new guidance.

I agree that the FA-10s are prima-fascia evidence of a felony even if they can't reach out and grab the gun itself. And any DA can do this if they want to "get" someone. So this is like having a guillotine hanging over our heads.

 

[sixer]

Right. And from what I read, we don't even know for sure that Cape Ann was related to the AG directive - it may have been something else they were looking for, we don't know. I don't think we should jump to conclusions and go off the deep end here. I can't see the AG prosecuting tens of thousands of AW owners that thought they were acting within the law... so don't go looking for trouble and you won't get any.

The AG, no. DA's? Maybe.

 

[sixer]

"Similarity Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if its internal functional components are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an Enumerated Weapon. Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons."

So a gun is similar if it's similar....and we shouldn't go looking for trouble? Christ dude, if this doesn't get you worked up what will?

THIS.

So if it is semi-auto, has a detachable mag, and has a trigger with a sear that releases a hammer, the hammer in turn contacts a firing pin/striker which strikes the primer on the cartridge...

WAKE UP! This is every semi-auto rifle, handgun, and shotgun she is talking about here!

 

[inerlogic]

I agree that the FA-10s are prima-fascia evidence of a felony even if they can't reach out and grab the gun itself. And any DA can do this if they want to "get" someone. So this is like having a guillotine hanging over our heads.

so don't file an eFA10, plead the 5th

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

The SCOTUS held that criminals don't have to register their guns, it violates their 5th amendment rights

 

[sixer]

<snip>

It's easy to just blanket all LEO's calling us unintelligent, but the fact is we discuss this stuff on a daily basis in between shooting dogs and other jack booted things. The majority of MASS LEO's think this is unconstitutional and have no intention of jacking people up on horse crap. We have discussed what would happen if there were directives to confiscate guns. Based on these discussions, I don't know who the AG would send to boot the proverbial doors cause most of us would be home behind our own doors.

<snip>

You won't get through the tin foil helmets are thick here this week.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

What exactly is tin foil about this? The AG went outside of her authority and declared us all criminals for possessing things which were legal last week. I do not think that all cops are unintelligent or JBT or anything like that. However, BakerBingo (presumably an LEO) says the "majority" of LEOs are not in favor of this. Great! What about the rest of them? He also says that if they were ordered to boot down doors that "most of us would be home behind our own doors" Great! What about the rest of them?

Let me put it another way. Say there was no order to go after anyone. Like the story at Cape Ann, say some LEO did go and bust someone for having an AW based on this new interpretation. Would their superiors quash it and not pursue prosecution simply because they are not personally in favor of it? Very doubtful.

If two weeks ago someone posted

What if the AG just reinterprets the law and says that all semi-automatic firearms are really assault weapons and makes us all criminals

They would be FLAMED for being whacko, nutjobs. Tinfoil hat all the way. But it's not two weeks ago. It's now, and that has happened. So please cut the shit. If nothing else, this proves that ANYTHING is possible, no matter how crazy it might sound.

 

[spt_1955]

This is because they are prohibited from enagaging in such things while in uniform. Lots of employers do this, not just PDs....

I think part of your problem here is that you don't get that good cops don't view themselves as being "special" when off duty...

I was at the rally and there were off duty police officers and court officials there also. I know many people who are LEO's and as far as I know none of them consider me or other law abiding gun owners as a problem.

 

[Shark_Cage]

Just had a terrible thought. edit: don't want to give any ideas

 

[knoxy]

It's easy to just blanket all LEO's calling us unintelligent, but the fact is we discuss this stuff on a daily basis in between shooting dogs and other jack booted things.

sorry, dats sum funny sh1t.